Talk:Populars' Coordination

Article's name

I moved the article back to its original and established name, Populars – Daisy.

The name used by User:Maremmano was fully macaroni English and in evident contradiction to the WP:COMMONNAME principle.

I urge User:Maremmano to think twice before moving articles (an activity of which he is fond of), to ask in talk pages before moving articles (as he is not conversant with en.Wiki's customs on naming) and, provided he gets support for his proposals, to take care of redirects. Thanks!

--Checco (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The name Populars – Daisy is in evident contradiction to the WP:COMMONNAME principle. Almost all sources called this party Popolari - Margherita per la costituente di centro ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and not Popolari - Margherita. If you don't report sources on the name "Popolari - Margherita" I'll can move the article to the name "Populars – Daisy for the Constituent Assembly of the Centre".--Maremmano (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you want sources? Here are just a few: 1, 2, 3 and 4. However the complete name of the party in English would be Co-oordination Populars – Daisy for the Constituent Assembly of the Centre. It's not a good idea to have such long names, hence WP:COMMONNAME. Populars – Daisy is definitely the best name for this article. I think we should stick with that. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your last source (4) uses the name "Popolari - Margherita per la Costituente di Centro". The name "Popolari - Margherita" is an informal and very rare name, almost all sources use the names "Popolari - Margherita per la costituente di centro" or "I Popolari - La Margherita per la costituente di centro" (with the articles). The name "Coordinamento Popolari - Margherita per la costutuente di centro" doesn't exist. We must utilise the most common name for this party, the sources are important--Maremmano (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of sources use also Coordinamento, thus Popolari - Margherita per la Costituente di Centro is not the official and complete name either. Anyway, in en.Wiki, especially with regard to parties, there is no need to adopt complete names as article's names. I really don't see why should we adopt a longer, albeit formally correct, name instead of its shorter and informal version (similar examples include Future and Freedom—not Future and Freedom for Italy, Civic Choice—not Civic Choice for Italy, Lega Nord—not Lega Nord for the Independence of Padania, etc.). --Checco (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you have created this page and you want protect it, but the name is wrong. Have you watched the websites that you have linked (Plenty of sources)? They aren't sources, they are only websites that have resumed the name from the italian wikipedia. The correct names are "Popolari - Margherita per la costituente di centro" or "I Popolari - La Margherita per la costituente di centro", "Popolari - Margherita" is a very informal and rare name. It is like calling the "Lega Nord" only "Lega" and it would be wrong.--Maremmano (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Unless other users support your view, the article has to stay where it is. --Checco (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

All the sources called this party “Popolari - Margherita per la costituente di centro” (also the only two sources that called the party Popolari-Margherita), therefore it is absolutely the most common name, I’ll can move this page, also without your consense. You have created this page but the name is wrong, sorry...--Maremmano (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Following your reasoning, the article's name should be "Co-ordiation Populars – Daisy for the Constituent Assembly of the Centre". However, that's not the point. There is no reason to have such long names, when we can use a shorter version of it. As you can read in Wikipedia:Article titles, "the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable". We are clearly on opposite sides, but, until we reach a compromise or until we are the only two users involved in this talk, the article should stay at its long-time, original name. I'm thus going to move the article back. Please do not move the article again without consensus. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The name "Coordinamento Popolari - Margherita per la costituente di centro" doesn't exist (there aren't sources). You can not deny that "Popolari - Margherita per la costituente di centro" is the most common name. And you said that the pages must be called with the most common name! Popolari-Margherita was also the name initially used for the PPI in the The Daisy ([5], [6], [7], [8])! I don't understand your obstinacy to use a name little known for this party but used in the past for another party, this is inconsistency...--Maremmano (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the name that was used in some cases when the PPI's transition to The Daisy party with our issue. I also do not understand your obstincacy. For that matter, I confirm that "Coordinamento" was part of the official name, as many sources show. --Checco (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Coordinamento (Coordinament and not Co-ordinament) is present in the complete name, however you don't want call this party with his most common name, I don't understand your reasons but and I'm tired of this story and I don't feel like continuing this edit-war, this page will remain called with a very informal (and rare) name. For me a very informal name isn't suitable as a page title but you do what you want...--Maremmano (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Article's content

This time I don't contest the name of the page, but its content. In effect, the content of the page isn't referred to the Popolari Margherita, but to another party! I have discovered the the Popolari Margherita was only a little group present in province of Avellino in the years 2008-09. The sources don't say this party was led by Ciriaco De Mita. Instead, the name of the little regional party led by De Mita was Popolari per la Costituente di Centro, or, more generally, Popolari di De Mita ([9], [10], [11], [12]). Some sources called the party also Popolari Democratici per la Costituente di Centro ([13], [14], [15], [16]). This matter is not very clear, it isn't clear if the party described in the sources and the Democratic Populars are the same thing. There is much confusion. But one thing is clear: the Populars daisy weren't directly led by Ciriaco De Mita, also if they were probably related in some way to him. For me the page isn't encyclopaedical, however I would move it to Populars (Italy, 2008) (or to De Mita's Populars), a better name for this situation.--Maremmano (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've read the sources and my impression is that we're talking about the same party, which might have changed name and might have been referred to by journalists under different names. Moreover, De Mita is from Avellino and left the PD in 2008. --Checco (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, but it isn't clair. I think that the page isn't encyclopaedical but a deletion process should be useless. However this page refers to the general movement around to De Mita, therefore Populars (Italy, 2008) is the best name, the Populars-Daisy refers to a group located only in Avellino, it was still more restricted--Maremmano (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That party, under De Mita, took also the "Daisy" name at some point, that is why I wouldn't move the page. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can't show that this "party" was led by De Mita it is only an original research, therefore I may move the page to the sourced name'--Maremmano (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Populars – Daisy and the party described in the page are two different things, the sources demonstrate it. I have to move the page and the most common name for this movement is Popolari, therefore the english name is Populars (Italy, 2008). --Maremmano (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure on that and you haven't reached any consensus in order to move the page. I will rollback your move. --Checco (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with the new article's name, which is quite generic, but I will re-introduce in the article the parts you deleted. --Checco (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ps: The fact that I agree with the new article's name doesn't mean that it was moved by consensus. One thing is to be bold, another is to ignore WP's rules, customs, etiquette, etc. as Maremmano does.

You didn't understand one thing: the original researches in Wikipedia ARE WRONG. You can't insist to say that Daisy Populars was led by De Mita because there aren't sources that say it. Your personal opinion isn't more important than sources, also you ignore WP's rules. Therefore, following the sources, the party led by De Mita was Popolari per la Costituente di Centro and not Coordinamento Popolari - Margherita per la costituente di centro--Maremmano (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are sources, provided that you stop removing them at your pleasure! --Checco (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have understood: the general/regional name of this movement was "Popolari per la costituente di centro" (the sources are clear on this), but the name was different in some provinces. In effect, in the province of Avellino the name was "(Coordinamento) Popolari - Margherita per la costituente di centro", while in the province of Caserta the name was "Popolari e Democratici per la Costituente di centro". But "Popolari per la costituente di centro" remains the principal name! I think that it was not a real party, but a group of populars that followed De Mita in the UDC. Now I specify these clarifications, but you don't re-insert the short names of the provincial movements (such as "Populars-Daisy" or "Populars and Democrats"), the short name "Populars" is more than sufficient, it isn't necessary that the page includes 7 names!--Maremmano (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"You don't re-insert etc." is not a good way to talk to other users. This said, as you see there is always a chance to improve articles and learn new things through discussions. I agree that it is not worth inserting all those party names, but "Populars–Daisy" is quite important, as the party was commonly known that way (La Stampa and La Repubblica are good sources, aren't they? why removing them?). Finally, that "Populars" and "Daisy" are references to the PPI and DL is no original reseach: it's obvious, even tautological, and those two links are quite useful for readers. We should always think of them: linking pages is exactly what Wikipedia is all about. --Checco (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are happy... but for me it is enough useless...--Maremmano (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Maremmano: Please stop reverting every single edit I do and please note that total rollbacks should be avoided. Popolari-Margherita (hence "Populars–Daisy) was used for the whole party (see La Stampa) and, by the way, Google has more hits for "Popolari-Margherita per la Costituente di Centro" than for "Popolari per la Costituente di Centro". One would question the quality of your sources and the fact that this article is named "Populars (2008)" instead of "Populars–Daisy", definitely the most common name, but I just ask you to refrain from removing "Populars–Daisy" from the intro. --Checco (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Populars-Daisy more common than Populars???? Please, Populars-Daisy was used only in 2/3 articles! This short name is clearly referred to the provincial movement of Avellino, not to "Popolari per la Costituente di Centro", it can't remain in the intro only because it was cited one time by La Stampa, and the number of hits in Google is useless in this case. Besides, the election to the Chamber in 2013 of Giuseppe De Mita in this page is irrelevant, in 2013 the Populars were already dissolved--Maremmano (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions are not supported by facts in this case. As Google shows, the party was more commonly referred by the media as "Coordinamento Popolari-Margherita etc." than "Coordinamento Popolari etc.", hence the previous established article's name. The party was mainly active in the province of Avellino, thus it's no surprise that it was frequently referred to by media as "Popolari-Margherita", which was likely the official name of the party as a whole. I don't want to move the article again, but there is no reason not to include "Populars–Daisy" in the intro. As a reminder, the article is currently named "Populars (Italy, 2008)", having been moved from "Populars–Daisy", just because I agreed on that; I think that part of the compromise is that "Populars–Daisy" is mentioned in the intro. Finally, I think it is quite useful to give infos about the electoral history of the De Mitas.--Checco (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My opinions are supported by facts: the party was more active in Caserta than in Avellino. In the province of Caserta the lists of the "Populars" were presented to the elections, while they were not presented in the province of Avellino! The name "Populars-Daisy" regards only the movement of Avellino, there are only 2/3 sources on the name "Popolari-Margherita", that for me is useless, I have not inserted the short name "Popolari democratici" that is more common than the short name "Popolari-Margherita". Therefore the compromise regards the maintenace of this short name in the page. Finally, the electoral history of the De Mitas has to be explained in the pages of Ciriaco and Giuseppe De Mita, not in this page. The page of MSI doesn't explain the electoral history of Fini--Maremmano (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Google has 2,490 hits for "Popolari-Margherita per la Costituente di Centro" and 1,540 for "Popolari per la Costituente di Centro", so how can you say that "Populars" alone is more common than "Populars–Daisy" as a name for this party? The article was long titled "Populars–Daisy" for a reason. As I already told you, I'm not seeking to move the article back to its established name, but "Populars–Daisy" has to be included in the intro. The paragraph on the names the party took at the provincial level could be either deleted altogether or shortened and integrated to the intro. Finally, each and every article on political parties include informations on the political history of its most notable members and I thought it was useful to cite Giuseppe De Mita, however, as there is no consensus on that, I will remove any reference to him. --Checco (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The number of hits in Google is insignificant, also if I said "Popolari" and not "Popolari per la costituente di centro". The sources show clearly that Popolari-Margherita per la Costituente di centro was active only in Avellino, you can't say the opposite. And it is even clearer that the short name "Populars-Daisy" was used in 3 articles, therefore I don't understand your great love for this short name. Its natural place is after the extended name, that is "Coordinamento Popolari - Margherita...", it is extremely obvious. I think that an edit war in a page about a molecular party is absurd! However, I totally agree to the remove of reference to Giuseppe De Mita--Maremmano (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I also think that a long dispute on such a minor issue about such a minor party is absurd, but I also think that most of the disputies we had, mostly on legalistic interpretations of party names, were absurd. There is no authoritative sources supporting your claim that Popolari per la Costituente di Centro was the party's official and most common name and Google suggests the opposite. I'm sick and tired of this controversy and, even though letting you win also this time will only reinforce in you the idea that being assertive and a little bit bully works, I'm giving it up. I will just make a couple of minor edits I hope you will concede to me. --Checco (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If for you is only a matter of victory... However it's true your affirmation according to which there is no authoritative sources supporting the official name because it was a micro-party, but all the sources about "Popolari-Margerita per la Costituente di centro" referred to a movement situated in Avellino, while the sources about "Popolari Democratici per la Costituente di centro" referred to a movement situated in Caserta. At contrary, the sources about "Popolari per la Costituente di Centro" were more general, this is a fact. Probably this party had not even a statute --Maremmano (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A last consideration: this article ([[17]]) is absolutely not a source, probably the journalist doesn't even know this party, but I don't remove it to not start another edit war --Maremmano (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That is the most authoritative source we have: you did the right thing when you refrained from removing it from the article. --Checco (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Really it is the least authoritative source we have. For a regional micro-movement the local articles are the best because the journalists are definitely more informed about a local party, but for me it isn't a great problem --Maremmano (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)