Talk:Mixed Group

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Italy

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Historical perspective[edit]

Nice job done, User:Nick.mon! However, I would strongly reccomend you to give a historical perspective to the article, basically including the composition of the Groups also at the beginning of the parliamentary terms, which is probably more notable than that at the end of the parliamentary terms. You can add new tables or just new columns (beginning and end). And, we should start to keep this page up to date. More generally, the more pages we edit and the more content we add, the more updates we need to do: think about it! There are just a few editors working on such detailed issues, basically you and me. --Checco (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you’re right, there’s lot of job to do, and we cannot do it all by ourselves. However we should take inspiration from some articles in it.Wiki like this one, in the section regarding group’s composition, but maybe, as you said, we can insert only group’s composition at the beginning and at the end. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: were you referring to a table like this one? -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Main ideology	MPs 2013	MPs 2018
SVP–PATT–SA	Regionalism	4	5
Democratic Centre	Christian left	5	—
MAIE–API	Centrism	3	—
Civics and Innovators–EpI	Centrism	—	15
Direction Italy	Conservatism	—	10
UDC–IDeA	Christian democracy	—	6
Free Alternative	Direct democracy	—	5
PSI–PLI	Social liberalism	—	3
Non iscrits	none	1	17

Yeah, I was thinking about a table like that. I edited it a bit:

	Main ideology	MPs 2013	MPs 2018
Liguistic Minorities (SVP, PATT, SA)	Regionalism	5	6
Democratic Centre	Christian left	5	–
Italian Socialist Party–PLI	Social democracy	4	3
Italians Abroad (MAIE, USEI)	Centrism	3	–
Civics and Innovators–EpI	Centrism	–	14
Direction Italy	Liberal conservatism	–	10
Union of the Centre–IdeA	Christian democracy	–	6
Free Alternative	Direct democracy	–	5
Other parties, non-party independents	–	1	18
Total	–	18	62

I am not sure about having componenti instead of parties. Indeed, for instance, we could reflect that the SVP had 4 deputies, the PATT 1 and SA 1 (SA's Marguerettaz initally sat with the LN). Moreover, sometimes parties change componente. Go ahead as you want, anyway. --Checco (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ps: Please note that http://www.camera.it/leg17/46 is not working properly. I used the data I saved in my computer before the election (I have a few files...)

Yes I noted that there were some problems, in fact I “manually” counted the number of Deputies for each group. However I trust you, so when I will update the page (as soon as I can) I will copy your table :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could use “subgroup” instead of “party”. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would use parties, not componenti (subgroups), but, yes, if we use componenti, "subgroup" is more correct. --Checco (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listing MPs at both the beginning of and end of parliamentary terms is a great addition and makes the article that much more detailed. Good work!--Autospark (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should insert MPs for every years, but it's an hard work :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be too much, indeed! Anyaway let's start with beginning and end. --Checco (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 December 2020[edit]

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: No consensus to move. Perhaps it would be a better question to ask if the dab page should be moved. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Group → Mixed group (Italian parliament) – The expression "mixed group" is too generic. There are "mixed groups" in other parliaments around the world (for example in Spain), and sometimes the same group is called as "non-inscrits" or "independents". In some cases they have very specific names (like the French Administrative meeting of senators not appearing on the list of any group) and therefore not needing a self-disambiguating title, however in this case I think an immediate clarification in the title is needed. Ritchie92 (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but a DAB should be made at base name listing other mixed groups.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with capital G, no Primary. Given that Mixed Group capitalized is a thing in the Spanish parliament: Mixed group (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but this is the page about the Italian "mixed group", which is a common noun so it's not necessarily capitalized. For example, the official website of the Chamber of Deputies does not capitalize the "g" [1], Il Sole 24 Ore neither [2]. Corriere della Sera uses various combinations of capitalizations, even within the same articles [3] [4]. In English-language news, there is an example of the Financial Times using "mixed group", not capitalized [5]. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the Treccani dictionary, one of the most authoritative in Italian, in the definition of the word gruppo (group) defines also the use in the expression gruppo misto (mixed group) and does not introduce capitalization: "g. misto, gruppo parlamentare formato da deputati o senatori di diversi partiti, che non sono riusciti a raggiungere il numero minimo richiesto per costituirsi in gruppo autonomo". --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as long as there are no other articles to be disambiguated from. In case, let's have "Mixed Group (Italian Parliament)", as both "Mixed Group" and "Italian Parliament" are proper nouns (see also Italian Parliament). --Checco (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRECISE and WP:ATDIS. In particular, the very first sentence of WP:PRECISE states: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", and it looks like the case here, for which of course the term "mixed group" is ambiguous since it's applicable to many parliaments. There is even a practical example in WP:PRECISE where the self-disambiguating title is used irregardless of the existence of other pages with the same title: "Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington [...] seeking a more natural and recognizable title." I find "Mixed group (Italian Parliament)" to be much more recognizable and precise than just "Mixed group". At first sight it can really represent anything. As a matter of fact the confusion is not only with "mixed groups" in other parliaments, but also with a mathematical term used in group theory, see [6] [7] [8].

Also, there is no evidence that Checco is giving about the word "mixed group" being a proper noun, and having to be capitalized. Above I showed a dictionary entry from Treccani where the expression is not capitalized: are they suggesting that Treccani is wrong? I agree with Italian Parliament being capitalized, that was my mistake. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. There is nothing to disambiguate from, so if it's truly "too vague" we'd see other articles with the same name._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that WP:NOTDICTIONARY – if read carefully – goes instead in the direction of supporting the move. As a matter of fact, a dictionary would define "mixed group" as a general term, while on Wikipedia we should have article about specific things, like the "mixed group" in the Italian Parliament: this is clear from the table in WP:NOTDICTIONARY#Major differences, in the last row, where various uses of the term "rocket" are automatically disambiguated by using a specific title. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie92: Perhaps a title that isn't a disambiguation but is more defining, though I don't know what it can be. "Italian Parliament Mixed Group"?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one you propose is also a disambiguation, because the common name of the group is just "mixed group". The disambiguating feature of the title is not related to the presence of parentheses. And by the way WP:ATDAB specifies: "[...] Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names", so we can't make up the name of the group. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, "too generic" is not the same thing as "ambiguous", and this title doesn't currently need a parenthetical qualifier. No objection if there's a better WP:COMMONNAME, but "Mixed group (Italian parliament)" is not a common name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.