![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
@ Scia Della Cometa: I think adding the absences rows only adds noise and it's not really informative. Not all MPs are always present, so we should not worry about reaching the total number of MPs and counting who was present and so on. Furthermore this way it's clear what the majority is: the majority is calculated on the total of present MPs, not on the total MPs. So the bar should actually be measured on the total of voters. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 11:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't revert his edits, I just restore mine!Haha, ok this is funny. Restoring your edits still counts as edit warring! You must know this! It's not like some God decided that your edits are the correct ones. I surely revert edits that I find not good, therefore I don't go around saying that I "rarely revert the edits of other users"... Reverting is not bad in itself, but if someone reverts your edit (and they are not vandals or trolls) one should not start an edit war like you often do, and "restore your edit" without even paying attention to the objection: that revert means that the other user does not agree with you! Ergo, discuss.
If you don't correct this point, on all the pages where the table is present, what I say makes absolutely sense, since you revert my edits.I don't understand a single word of what you said here. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 14:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
since you have rollback my edits, now it is up to you to integrate all the tables with the absent parties / MPs in the parliamentWhat does this mean? Am I obligated now? Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is no rush. And by the way I proposed my solution to the problem, if you like it you can use it in the other articles, otherwise just be patient. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 16:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Conte has resigned, Mattarella has accepted that and asked him to ... (I don't know the technical term; in German: geschäftsführender Ministerpräsident). Is he / is his cabinet still in office ? -- Neun-x ( talk) 21:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we rename this page Conte I Cabinet, if tomorrow morning everything goes as planned and a new cabinet is formed? I think officially (see government's website) the name would still be Conte Cabinet (even though other official sources would name it with "I"), however per Wikipedia tradition (see Berlusconi I Cabinet, Prodi I Cabinet, Andreotti I Cabinet, etc) we should rename it to Conte I. (PS: for tomorrow, see Draft:Conte II Cabinet) Ritchie92 ( talk) 21:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Should this page: [1] be a disambiguation page? It would link to the Conte I Cabinet and the Conte II Cabinet articles. David O. Johnson ( talk) 02:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
@ Scia Della Cometa: I think adding the absences rows only adds noise and it's not really informative. Not all MPs are always present, so we should not worry about reaching the total number of MPs and counting who was present and so on. Furthermore this way it's clear what the majority is: the majority is calculated on the total of present MPs, not on the total MPs. So the bar should actually be measured on the total of voters. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 11:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't revert his edits, I just restore mine!Haha, ok this is funny. Restoring your edits still counts as edit warring! You must know this! It's not like some God decided that your edits are the correct ones. I surely revert edits that I find not good, therefore I don't go around saying that I "rarely revert the edits of other users"... Reverting is not bad in itself, but if someone reverts your edit (and they are not vandals or trolls) one should not start an edit war like you often do, and "restore your edit" without even paying attention to the objection: that revert means that the other user does not agree with you! Ergo, discuss.
If you don't correct this point, on all the pages where the table is present, what I say makes absolutely sense, since you revert my edits.I don't understand a single word of what you said here. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 14:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
since you have rollback my edits, now it is up to you to integrate all the tables with the absent parties / MPs in the parliamentWhat does this mean? Am I obligated now? Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is no rush. And by the way I proposed my solution to the problem, if you like it you can use it in the other articles, otherwise just be patient. -- Ritchie92 ( talk) 16:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Conte has resigned, Mattarella has accepted that and asked him to ... (I don't know the technical term; in German: geschäftsführender Ministerpräsident). Is he / is his cabinet still in office ? -- Neun-x ( talk) 21:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we rename this page Conte I Cabinet, if tomorrow morning everything goes as planned and a new cabinet is formed? I think officially (see government's website) the name would still be Conte Cabinet (even though other official sources would name it with "I"), however per Wikipedia tradition (see Berlusconi I Cabinet, Prodi I Cabinet, Andreotti I Cabinet, etc) we should rename it to Conte I. (PS: for tomorrow, see Draft:Conte II Cabinet) Ritchie92 ( talk) 21:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Should this page: [1] be a disambiguation page? It would link to the Conte I Cabinet and the Conte II Cabinet articles. David O. Johnson ( talk) 02:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)