Talk:Article One (political party)

Party's name

Hi everybody, I have a doubt. Even if it is colloquially known as "Democrats and Progressives", the party is often shortened MDP and not DP, as you can see here, here and here. So which name should we use? "Democrats and Progressives" or "Democratic and Progressive Movement"? -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are far more Google hits for "Democratici e Progressisti" than "Movimento Democratico e Progressista", let alone "Articolo 1 - Movimento Democratico e Progressista", thus I have no doubts on which is the most common name so far and, consequently, I would leave the article with its current name. There are also several more hits for DP Bersani than for MDP Bersani, thus I would use primarily DP as acronym. --Checco (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick.mon: I think that the most correct name for the page is Democratic and Progressive Movement --Wololoo (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why not the official "Article 1 - Democratic and Progressive Movement"? However, as I showed, the party's most common name is clearly "Democrats and Progressives" and its most used acronym DP. --Checco (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, as the case of Future and Freedom (acronym FLI, not FL or FeL) shows, we could use "Democrats and Progressives" and MDP, however also DP is more common than MDP, similarly to "Democrats and Progresives" in comparison with "Democrati and Progressive Movement" and "Article 1 - Democratic and Progressive Movement" (look also at the website's name: www.democraticiprogressisti.it). --Checco (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that DP is more coomon an MDP. Anyway Democrats and Progressives is more common of Democratic and Progressive Movement, but if you search on Google "MDP" there are many recent sources, and very few for DP. According to me we can use MDP as main acronym and Democratic and Progressive as party's name. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on MDP/DP. Any evidence on "recent sources"? Google hits are still on DP's side. --Checco (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well for example these sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but these are just selected sources. We need evidence like Google hits... --Checco (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Checco, but if you search "DP" on Google all the sources date back to February, the only one in which DP is used in March, says "Movimento DP", so de facto MDP. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely right. However, what about waiting for the symbol (Wednesday)? --Checco (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course let's wait for the symbol. Anyway, in my view, regarding party's name, we can leave "Democrats and Progressives". -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that the article was moved without any consensus to "Article 1 – Democratic and Progressive Movement", even though the party is widely known as "Democrats and Progressives". --Checco (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote/votes

@User:Ritchie92: In English, "% of the vote" is more commonly used than "% of the vote". Just take a look to Google or to English-language newspapers (for instance, The Economist). --Checco (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Ps: If you are not convinced, just think of the "popular vote" in United States presidential elections (I am sure you have heard of it) or of another common expression, "national vote". Surely, also "% of the votes" is correct, but it is less used and it is virtually never used in articles on Italian parties, where I tend to be consistent. [reply]

As you said the opposite is also common [1]. Since both expressions are used by the Economist (and I also checked other newspapers use both), I would say there's no point in editing and rolling back every time. Also I don't think it is vital that all Italian articles have to have the same identical writing style, but as you wish. Even the Washington Post uses both expressions in the same article ;) Anyway I'm good with any choice. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC) When saying "popular vote" or "national vote" the use is different, I think the writer wants to stress a different concept. What I mean is that "popular voteS" or "national voteS" have a slightly different meaning from the singular expression. Anyway if we want to inquire more, let's ask an native English speaker about this.[reply]

The "popular/national vote" example is correct, in my view. When one says "X% of the vote", he/she means "X% of the popular/national/general/total vote". And... it seems like I am not alone in liking that form: take a look at this edit by User:Ira Leviton. --Checco (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article's name

There is disagreement over the article's name. That is why I am proposing a straw poll in order to settle it. --Checco (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article One (Italy)

Support. Consistent with virtually all political parties in Italy, definitely the best name, in my view. --Checco (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly failing WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:PRECISE, i.e. that the title must "unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". What is this "Article One (Italy)" article about? It is about Article 1 of the Italian Constitution? An Italian shop? An Italian business? An Italian cleaning product? Yes, other political parties in Italy may use the "(Italy)"-bit, but they seem to be typically named as "Whatever Party (Italy)". When the party's name does not bear the "Party" label within it, nor is it clear at all from the name itself that this is a political party (as is the case here), then the name is no precise at all. Impru20^talk 20:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few political parties in Italy are named "Whatever Party and no-one cares. Generally-speaking, as we have articles on Forza Italia, Lega Nord, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and so on, and no-one ever though of specifying in their articles' names that they are political parties, it is not logic to pretend that Article One should be described both as from Italy and as a political party. It is just pure and simple logic. --Checco (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that is because they don't need to. Forza Italia, Lega Nord, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and "so on" are precise enough to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects, as these are the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and can hardly be confused with anything else; "Article One (Italy)", on the other hand, is very confusing, as it is not even slightly clear that you are referring to a political party or, rather, to something else. Impru20^talk 08:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your view, but it is not factually true. --Checco (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I also respect your view, despite it not being factually true. ;) Impru20^talk 11:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Facts can always be seen from different perspectives and logic. --Checco (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The disambiguations must be chosen based on the page title, in this case the disambiguation by State is wrong, it is quite irrelevant if other parties have the disambiguation "Italy" in the title, it means that all other pages with that name refer to political parties and the disambiguation must be done by State. --Wololoo (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support established name is adequate for its needs, specific enough and concise.--Autospark (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the arguments given by User:Impru20. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article One (political party)

Weak support. While I prefer the "Article One (Italy)" option, I can live with this. --Checco (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This one would meet WP:PRECISE. Impru20^talk 20:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is the best title for this page, the adjective "Italian" is not strictly necessary, because there are no other parties named "Article One".--Wololoo (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support as a compromise solution – due to (current) lack of other political parties named Article One.--Autospark (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is the best solution in my opinion. I would extend it to other similar cases like Possible (Italy). --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article One (Italian political party)

Oppose. Too long, too specific, quite annoying. --Checco (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This one would meet WP:PRECISE. I really have no preference on whether it should use the "Italian" bit or not. I guess that if there is no other political party in the world named as "Article One", then it may be dropped. Impru20^talk 20:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with User:Checco. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Checco: it seems clear to me that you did not understand exactly how the disambiguation works at all, as said by Impru20, the title must "unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". The names Article One (Italy) and Edelweiss (Aosta Valley) are anything but clear and unambiguous. The disambiguation by State must be used when all the pages with a specific title refer to only one type of subject, in this case the pages must instead be distinguished according to the subject treated (in this case, a party and a band). I don't expect you to do it, but I would be glad if you changed opinion in Talk:Edelweiss (Aosta Valley), also this title is completely wrong, the "Edelweiss" is a flower, "Edelweiss (Aosta Valley)" is an applicable title to the flower that grows in Aosta Valley, instead it is a party, that must be distinguished from Edelweiss (beer), Edelweiss (train) and Edelweiss (magazine)! --Wololoo (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Article One (political party)

Unfortunately, my preferred choice was rejected, but I am very happy that we have achieved a consensus.
Article One (political party) is clearly the preferred choice by the users who participated in this discussion. While there should not be a simultaneous or automatic consistency, I also acknowledge that Edelweiss (Aosta Valley) was similarly moved to Edelweiss (political party).
I will thus move this article to Article One (political party) and, slowly, take care of redirects. Everyone can help! --Checco (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]