Talk:Liberal Popular Alliance

Name of the page

As already explained, the correct name of this movement is Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies, from which it derives also the acronym ALA. Indeed in the english or italian sources the abbreviations "Liberal Popular Alliance" or "Alleanza Liberalpopolare" are never used, "Autonomies" is an integral part of the principal name--Wololoo (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose your (too) bold move, thus I rollbacked it. Articles on parties should be named with the party's most common (and shortest, I would add) names. Moreover, in this case the party is virtually always referred to in English as "Liberal Popular Alliance" (see GoogleNews). You proposed the move as a technical one, but it was not technical at all. If you want, propose a standard requested move and we will see if there is consensus on your version. If anyone other than you and me is interested in the issue, let's debate. Finally ap, ALA is not a movement, but a party. --Checco (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:Amakuru: I agree on "please discuss this on the talk page and open an entry at WP:RM rather than move warring it", but it was User:Wololoo to move the article without consensus. The article was started by User:Nick.mon as "Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies" in July 2015, but when I moved it to "Liberal Popular Alliance" no user opposed it. User:Wololoo asked with good faith to move back the article through a technical request, but as you can see your moves were not technical at all. Please move the article back to "Liberal Popular Alliance" (which is clearly the most common name: GoogleNews 31 hits in GoogleNews against 1 for the "Liberal Popular Alliance–Autonomies" in the last month), then User:Wololoo will be able to open an entry at WP:RM. --Checco (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

See, no opposition don't means consensus, this pages was moved in December without any discussion, so your move can be considered bold, not mine. Considering that the most common english name seems to be the complete one and that Autonomies is an integral part of the principal name from which it derives also the acronym ALA, I don't understand the desire to use a severed name and very little spread. For this reason I think that the current name is the correct one and I strongly oppose the restoration of the previous severed version--Wololoo (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

My move was not opposed by anyone, yours was opposed. See longer comment below. --Checco (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your move is opposed by me, for example....--Wololoo (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to using the truncated version of the party name as the article title, as there seems to be some level of precedent for regarding it as a WP:COMMONNAME.--Autospark (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Autospark, for intervining here. Actually, "not just some level of precedent", but virtually every English news source. In fact, User:Wololoo's sentence saying "Considering that the most common english name seems to be the complete one" is completely at odds with facts. Quite differently from what he said, GoogleNews hits clearly show that the most common name in English is the "truncated versions", alas "Liberal Popular Alliance" without any reference to "Autonomies". Moreover, the long version is no longer the "principal name" as the parliamentary groups are currently named "ALA – Civic Choice for the Liberal and Popular Constituent (Assembly)" (with "ALA" and "Civic Choice" inverted in the Chamber)". Thus, this article should be named "Liberal Popular Alliance" not just because of WP:COMMON NAME, but also because this article is on the party, not the parliamentary groups, which now include other parties (Civic Choice and MAIE), differently from the beginning, when the article was started by User:Nick.mon. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean with the speech about the parliamentary groups? For you is "ALA" the acronym of "Liberal Popular Alliance"??? One thing is a short name (such as Brothers of Italy), another thing is a truncated name, as in this case. Furthermore you showed only 10 sources with this truncated name, it doesn't seem the most common name, the web is full of sources with the name including the word "Autonomies" (for example [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). Adding that the only "Alleanza Liberalpopolare" is completely unused in Italy, I don't really understand the real reason why truncate the title of the page--Wololoo (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it is the most common name of the party (not of the parliamentary groups, which have different names right now). The acronym is not a problem: just think of Future and Freedom (most common name of Future and Freedom for Italy, acrnonym FLI). --Checco (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

But where is written that the name of the party is Alleanza Liberalpopolare??? It is your supposition. And at least, Futuro e Libertà/Future and Freedom was really the most common name, in this case it is not so--Wololoo (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Wololoo, "Liberal Popular Alliance" is the most common name: GoogleNews hits in the last month count more than your selected links, which are mostly old links, before changes in the parliamentary groups' names occurred. Moreover a short, most common name, is always more prefereable than a long one: this is our en.Wiki custom on the naming of Italian parties; you are new to en.Wiki, your work is often marvellous, but please accept that there are customs different from the it.Wiki ones here. More importantly, I beg your intellectual honesty: why don't you see that virtually every recent source refer to the party as "Liberal Popular Alliance" and, even if you don't do that, why don't you just respect my and User:Autospark's preference? To make sure we have a name accepted by a majority of users, I would ask also to User:Nick.mon, the fourth "Italian-politics musketeers" (along with Autospark, you and me), to express his view. --Checco (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

In my view the most used name is "Liberal Popular Alliance", but I know that the name of the parliamentary group is "Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies"; so if the article is about the party "Liberal Popular Alliance" is the more correct name; maybe we could create another article for the parliamentary group. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:Nick.mon: the parliamentary group in the Senate is named "ALA – Civic Choice for the Liberal and Popular Constituent (Assembly)", while the one in the Senate "Civic Choice – ALA for the Liberal and Popular Constituent (Assembly)". --Checco (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, with all these new parties I'm longer updated :) So my proposal is to create another article for the parliamentary groups. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Also good that you agree with me that this article should be named "Liberal Popular Alliance". --Checco (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, I repeat the question, where is written that the name of the party is Liberal Popular Alliance and that ALA is only the name of the parliamentary group? Because it seems to me an original research and the informations can't be invented...--Wololoo (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I add another consideration: following this reasoning, the logo in the tmp concerns the parliamentary group and not the party. In reality we're talking about a party that consists almost exclusively in his parliamentary group, so there isn't any party called only Alleanza Liberalpopolare. Even now the parliamentary group's name includes the full name, because ALA means Alleanza Liberalpopolare-Autonomie. So, please, if all of you want to change the name I can't do anyting, but at least you avoid original researches--Wololoo (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I throughly answered to your points above. This article is about the party, whose common name (per news sources) is "Liberal Popular Alliance" and which is active primarily through the ALA–SC parliamentary groups, including also SC and MAIE. We may continue to discuss over the the article's content and its split in two articles (one on the party and the other on the parliamentary groups), but what is sure is that there is no consensus on your move. Thank you so much for honestly acknowledging it. --Checco (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Amakuru: Please move the article back to "Liberal Popular Alliance". There is no consensus on the current name ("Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies"), as shown by User:Autospark's and User:Nick.mon's comments and User:Wololoo's honest acknowledgnent. --Checco (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Checco:  Done. Thanks for discussing this, and I agree that there is now a consensus for such a move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Amakuru: Thanks to you for reading the discussion and moving the article back to its previous name. --Checco (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Users Autospark, Nick.mon and Wololoo: What about splitting the article in two? The big problem would be how to name the new article on the parliamentary groups, whose names are different and very long (ALA – Scelta Civica per la Costituente Liberale e Popolare and Scelta Civica – ALA per la Costituente Liberale e Popolare – MAIE), not to mention the fact that Costituente translates to "Costituent (Assembly)". --Checco (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity to create a page for the parliamentary group, it is sufficient mentioning it in the pages of the parties involved--Wololoo (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 06:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Liberal Popular Alliance → Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies – In the previous discussion some evident inaccuracies were stated: indeed "Alleanza Liberalpopolare - Autonomie" was not only the name of the parliamentary group, but it was the name of the party itself (which did not have a real structure). This is also demonstrated by the symbol of the party, in which it is written "Alleanza Liberalpopolare Autonomie" and not "Alleanza Liberalpopolare", but also by the acronym of the party itself (ALA). The claim that the party was only called "Liberalpopular Alliance" (truncated name) is not demonstrable. In addition, the full name is very common in the English language sources: Ansa, Corriere della sera, Reuters, JSTOR, The Wire. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current name is trivially more concise than the proposed name, so any occurrence of the proposed name is also an occurrence of the current more concise name. The more concise name appears to be unambiguous, so should be preferred. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 20 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved

A request to move was submitted on 14 June 2021 and closed as not moved. This request is a resubmission by the same editor.

Three editors oppose the move, one strongly. Only one editor in addition to the proposer has expressed support. Discussion of which name is "correct" is not to the point. It was suggested that there might be a consensus for an alternative renaming, but this was immediately contradicted. As stated by one editor, determining the common name is not a matter of counting the RSs cited on each side. Per WP:CRITERIA there is no suggestion that the current name is not recognizable or is ambiguous. There is a dispute as to whether it is natural. It is clearly more concise. "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Liberal Popular Alliance → Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies – Unfortunately the last proposal was rejected due to a contrary opinion at the last moment, without the possibility of a reply. But the current title is really wrong, it is not a "short version" of the name, but a "truncated and unused version". It is not even true that the current title is the name of the party and the full name is the name of the parliamentary group, it is an original research and in contrast with the facts (the symbol and the name with which it participated in the elections demonstrate it). And it is not true that the current title is the most common name. The book "The Italian General Election of 2018", The University paper "Chronology of Italian Political Events, 2016", the news agency "Ansa", the newspaper "Corriere della Sera". It is referred to as "Liberal-Popular Alliance for Autonomies" by Reuters and The Daily Star Lebanon: even this name (with "for" in place of the hyphen) is better than the current title. I generally agree to use shortened versions of names as titles, but when they are actually used. In this case, it is an almost totally unused name. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Colin M (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Well reasoned nomination. The proposed title seems to not only be more common, but actually correct. Usage in official and independent reliable sources (as well as the commonly used abbreviation of the group, ALA) reflect that. Indeed, even the minority of sources that do not use autonomies seem to commonly include the ALA abbreviation, and nowhere uses just AL.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name is a substring of the proposed name, so for the proposed name to be more common is just not logically possible. And to say that the proposed name is correct is similarly invalid... we base our article names on usage, not on the preferences of the subject. The current name appears to be unambiguous, concise, recognisable. The proposed name has no advantages in terms of policy. Andrewa (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: It is not so. We need to consider whether the full name or the "truncated" one is more common. And in this case the short name is almost never used, neither in Italian nor in English. I would like to know how many sources use the "short" name and how many sources use the full name. You are right when you say that titles should not be based on personal preferences, indeed it seems to me that the current name is based on personal preferences, since the most common name is the complete one and not the abbreviated one. A name should not be only concise, but also used by the sources in that form.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to agree to disagree on this. Even if you were to produce evidence that the poodle was more commonly called the French poodle in English, provided the shorter title Poodle was unambiguous I'd still see it as pointless and even confusing to expand the title. Wouldn't you? (Yes, it's more probably a German breed originally, but now more commonly associated with France. French poodle gets more than a million ghits.)

Similarly here. To call the article Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies only makes sense if there is some other Liberal Popular Alliance. And there is not. Andrewa (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This would be the case if the current title was commonly used by itself, or even accurate by itself. It is not. This isn't the equivalent of saying "French poodle" could be poodle -- it's like saying "Pride and Prejudice" could be just "Pride."--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies. I checked a random selection of the article's Italian sources, and all those that I could find used the full name ([14], [15], [16]). However, English-language sources appear to use the preposition 'for' rather than a dash, which is also stylistically more natural. Rublov (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Andrewa The problem is whether the short name is used or not. If an abbreviation is never used or is used very rarely, for me it should not be used as a page title. However, I definitely agree with the user Rublov as well, as I have already stated in the proposal, "Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies" would be a good solution. What does user Yaksar think of this name? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I would be fine with this alternative.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• But the shorter name is used. I get over a thousand ghits and the first page of them all look relevant. On the other hand, the ghits for the longer name include many primary sources... as you would expect, with the official name being preferred by the organisation themselves. Andrewa (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Could you share the reliable sources you're seeing that use that name? I have managed to find one reliable English language news outlet that uses the inaccurate name, but numerous others that use the accurate name--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• What source did you find? [17] [18] are just the first two in a Google search. And I suggest you stop describing the current name as inaccurate. We all know by now that you have no intention of respecting or even reading the article title policy, on which this move decision will be based. But there's no need to advertise the fact any further. Andrewa (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• The one reliable source I found that used the current title? The same The Local outlet you shared (the second link you shared is very obviously not a reliable source, or even a useable one (before you share links, please assess if they are spam or wikipedia clones or at all usable for our articles). The nomination gave like a dozen using the correct one, and here are some more. But you really don't need to be insulting about policy, particularly when you are being wrong. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're also just for whatever reason missing the very basic facts here and for whatever reason are ignoring both our guidelines on common and official names for a personal essay of yours on always using shorter titles. If usage in reliable sources more commonly used the current one, it would be one thing, but they do not. And beside that point, for whatever reason, you're under the impression that the Autonomies part of the title is a substring and can be dropped without significance. It's not, and usage in both reliable and independent and official sources reflect that. This isn't having United Kingdom rather than United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Ireland, it's more that you couldn't just say "Trinidad" is the same name for Trinidad and Tobago, or "Fear and Loathing" is the title of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, or "Tommy Lee" for Tommy Lee Jones. You're aware the abbreviation used is ALA, not AL, right? --Yaksar (let's chat) 01:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Those examples might not be the best since they're all primary for a different topic (see Trinidad, Fear and Loathing, Tommy Lee). I think a more analogous case would be Log-normal, which is a redirect to an article that lives at a title of which it is a proper substring: Log-normal distribution. (Sorry, I know participating after relisting can be considered bad form. I express no opinion on the overall question of which title is best for this article. I just stumbled on this example after searching for "log-normal" and it reminded me of this discussion.) Colin M (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• That's fair and I don't think you're improperly expressing any views here -- but I'd say the examples still apply, since they still demonstrate that you can't simply say "this is a shorter title and is therefore automatically correct and more common."--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Honestly, it seems to me that there is the consensus for moving the page (to Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies), since there are three favorable opinions and only one contrary opinion. Perhaps those examples are not the most fitting, but "Autonomies" is however an integral part of the name. @Yaksar and Rublov: However I have a doubt: in this case the name should contain the hyphen as in the sources or not ("Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies" or "Liberal-Popular Alliance for Autonomies")? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have an issue with either -- without the dash appears to be slightly more common, but it's close enough in common usage that either seems fine.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm also okay with either one. Rublov (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any move to "Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies". The hyphen does not stand for the word "for". I see not factual merit in that name translation.--Autospark (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Autospark, this is the translation used by at least some reliable English-language sources (see the Reuters and Daily Star Lebanon links in the nomination), and some Italian-language sources use the equivalent preposition as well (e.g., [19]). Rublov (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• It's certainly not the direct translation, but our title policy doesn't force us to use only direct translations (otherwise we'd have a lot of weirdly named articles) -- it's more a question of if it is a commonly used name in English language reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Exactly, the title does not necessarily have to be the perfect literal translation when there is a consolidated version of a name. Furthermore "Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies" reproduces the meaning of the original name, indeed in some cases the sources in Italian referred to it as "Alleanza Liberalpopolare per le Autonomie" (even if this is not the official name). "Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies" and "Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies" (or Liberal-Popular Alliance for Autonomies) are in any case both names more correct than the current one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm strongly against retitling the article "Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies" (the hyphen is not needed, incidentally).--Autospark (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rublov: Would in case you be in favor of re-titling the page as "Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies"? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose it, but Autospark's objection should be discounted unless they have a policy-based argument. Rublov (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rublov:Translating the name as "Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies", well, where does it stop? You may as well further translate the name as Liberal Christian Democrat Alliance for the Regions, or something that similarly diverges from the original title via interpretive translation. Plus it's not as if there aren't already examples where the party name as been translated as "Liberal Popular Alliance" or "Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies" (see: example 1, example 2, example 3) (Incidentally, I support retaining this article at it's current title, but would not object to "Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies".)--Autospark (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

well, where does it stop? It stops where reliable sources stop. Rublov (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I didn't understand the comparison, what does an invented translation have to do with a translation used by numerous and prestigious press agencies? The most common name in the English language doesn't always correspond to the exact literal translation of the original name, here the difference is minimal. Surely the current name is more invented than one of the two proposed titles ... "Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies" would be the most correct solution, it is the perfect translation of the original official name and it is used by a certain number of sources, however even the proposed alternative name is not wrong.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, strongly — per WP:MOSTCOMMONNAME. --Checco (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Checco: "Liberal Popular Alliance" is definitely not the most common name, unless you can prove it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Would you mind sharing why you feel this is the most common name? We seem to have a clear majority of English sources using autonomies, and just a tiny handful using the current name (if we ignore the silly "all shorter names are inherently more common argument).--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In any case, it seems to me that the name that has met the least opposition is "Liberal Popular Alliance – Autonomies", with only two opposing opinions out of six users in this discussion (who haven't even demonstrated how the current title is the most common name), while "Liberal Popular Alliance for Autonomies" has met three opposing opinions. I therefore believe that the page should be moved to the proposed title.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• That seems fair. While I think it's a bit silly that we wouldn't use the most common name because it is technically not a direct literal translation, at least this outcome would be a widely acceptable solution and is backed by anyone who has given a policy-based argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Andrewa and Checco. The current name is clearly in use in many sources, for example [20][21][22][23] and it is more WP:CONCISE than the proposed title. So to effect this move, you'd have to show that the proposed name is significantly more common in reliable sources than the shorter version, and that evidence doesn't seem to be here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a question that some sources use the current name, but rather that only a few do, while the proposed is more WP:COMMON and used across a larger number of reliable English Language sources (in addition to being the official one). WP:CONCISE does not literally request we use a shorter name if another one is more commonly used, and therefore more recognizable, solely because it is shorter.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Yaksar here. Your fourth source does not appear to be reliable. So you have three sources that support your title, versus at least 9 that support the proposed title (6 from the nom and 3 from my vote). Therefore per WP:COMMONNAME, the proposed title should be preferred. Rublov (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  OK, the fourth isn't reliable, so I've struck it, but the point wasn't to provide a fully exhaustive list of sources using the name, simply to illustrate that it is indeed a name commonly in use. Another is the CIA world factbook. The point is, though, it's not just a case of counting individual sources, you have to make a convincing case that the proposed version really is the most common name overall and persuade other editors of that evidence. I'm just not seeing that at the moment, with several editors having opposed. Unless that convincing case is made, it's no consensus and the default is for the article to remain at the present title.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the convincing argument for something to be more commonly used is though, other than showing it is more commonly used. It seems far more common for the name in English sources to use autonomies, and less common for it to not. I'd also note again that the majority of those sources without autonomies, such as the factbook, still use the ALA abbreviation, not AL.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.