Talk:More Europe

Acronym

User:Wololoo, there is no need of sources for Wikipedia acronyms and abbreviations, in absence of official ones. Journalists use different shortnames for More Europe (see Il Post, where there are both +Europa and +EU from YouTrend). The abbreviation we use on WP can be determined by consensus, as it has been done for the League for example (even though official websites like the EP election website shorten it as LN still, but we don't need to adhere to it). I think your bold edits on ALL articles about Italian politics changed a well established consensus about the acronym of More Europe. Of course, you will find any acronym on the web, this does not mean it is right. My objection: +EU is not an acronym, obviously, because the "U" is not any of the initials. The same applies for "SIN" and "POS" which make no sense at all (they should be maybe "Sin" and "Pos", but it's debatable with respect to "LS" and "P"). In my opinion we should use the short +E as before. The only official shortened name for More Europe is "+Europa", which is also used by themselves (see their website), but probably this is too long for the use done on WP. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie92 For me the use or not of capital letters is indifferent (for me Sin and Pos are also correct) but my edits are not "bold": I don't think it's ever been decided anywhere to use + E as abbreviation of +Europa, it has simply been used. I think that in Wikipedia fewer possible things should be invented, if one abbreviation is more used than another in the sources, then it should be used. + E is very little used, while I think LS is not used anywhere, but abbreviations should not be invented by editors, but taken by the sources."P" then is illegible as an abbreviation (as well as L for Lega), in Italy the names of parties has never been abbreviated with a single letter (anyway, POS is even used by the Chamber of Deputies: [1]) and the eventual article was never used to form the acronym of the name. we should try to stick as closely as possible to the sources for the abbreviations of parties.--Wololoo (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Well then the only relevant source is the party itself, so we should use "+Europa" as the abbreviation. It's the official one. The capitalization is not irrelevant, by the way, it's instead essential, since we're talking about accuracy. The fact that one or two journalists abbreviate More Europe as +EU doesn't make it right, I insist on this. +EU is not a good abbreviation by any rational criterion. +Eu is slightly better. +Europa is the official one. +E is (was) the WP abbreviation (which again, is something we just use to be short in the tables, it shouldn't even go in the lead sentence in my opinion). --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92 "+Europa" is not an abbreviation, simply the party has not an official abbreviation. But "+EU" is not used by "one or two journalists" as you say, it is used in a lot of sources ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and I could go on). --Wololoo (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wololoo: Your reliable sources are calcioweb, genteditalia.org, yahoo notizie, agvilvelino.it (??), ideawebtv, this is hilarious. By the way I stand corrected and I bring you sensible arguments. I just found the shorter acronym used by the party itself: see here. There are many more examples on their website. I would then switch everything to "+Eu", if you agree. I think the capitalization is very important. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie92: I did not talk about the prestige of the sources, I talked about the diffusion of the abbreviation, which is indisputable, unlike "+E"! I mentioned only the first sources I found. Indeed, like you said now, the abbreviation is even used by the same party. And as I already said, for me the use of POS/+EU/SIN or Pos/+Eu/Sin is indifferent (even if for example, in Germany the Greens and the Left are abbreviated as GRÜNEN and LINKE), but the abbreviations must be the most diffused. --Wololoo (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway most of your "reliable sources" use +Eu, not +EU. Obviously "LINKE" and "GRÜNE" are not acronyms, they're the stylized versions of the party names as they appear in the logos (in the case of the Greens the name is DIE GRÜNEN, but in German language adjectives without article ("die") are declined without the "n", so it's grüne). Also see 2017 German federal election and you would notice inconsistencies in the use of the abbreviations, in the article editors switch between LINKE and Linke, same with the Greens. If we decide to follow the symbol of the party, then I would agree with +EUROPA or +Europa, but +EU simply does not make sense. Anyway, let's go with +Eu, I don't think anyone would revert it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It is needless to point up "reliable", first of all because even if they are not authoritative/prestigious sources it does not mean that they are not reliable, and then because in any case there would be no other more prestigious (or "reliable") source to act as a counterpart in favor of "+E". And however I have already said that I was not referring to capital letters, "+Eu" is ok. --Wololoo (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Boldness is a good thing, but, wen bold edits are controversial, it is better to seek consensus first. I strongly favour +E as acronym for this party and, as long as no new consensus has been achieved, we should stick to +E, for now. --Checco (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I now favor +Eu (and, I repeat, absolutely not +EU, there is a big difference!), since it's the acronym used by the party itself on its website. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am also OK with +Eu (while preferring +E and strongly opposing +EU), but let us be aware that repeated boldness without bothering to seek consensus is a synonym for prevarication, not courage. This is a small issue, but it is an indication of a modus operandi which is not good for Wikipedia. Consensus is not a matter of two users agreeing: we should always try to forge a broader, truer consensus. --Checco (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You think that consensus means getting your authorization, but it is not! Do you say "Repeated boldness"? I have replaced a wrong abbreviation with a correct one, I don't have to ask permission from you to correct the errors. There has never been consensus on these invented abbreviations, if they are wrong I can correct them, because Wikipedia is still based on sources.--Wololoo (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As reflected by User:Ritchie92's comments, the issue was about consensus, not sources. And, yes, I always seek consensus before making relevant edits, while you often edit first, often causing ex-post discussions and controversies. --Checco (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Più Europa con Emma Bonino.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Associate parties section

I'd like to understand the reason why there is a section with the parties who ran along with More Europe at the last European election. Since it was a provisional alliance made with the only goal of overcome the electoral threshold, I don't think they should be included in that table since - at least to me - it's a bit confusing to see parties who are (or were) part of the federation and parties who occasionally made a joint list.

Since @Checco: was the user who added that section one year ago and it's still bugging me out, I'd like to hear your opinion as well. --Broncoviz (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! I just think that additiona information is useful, but it is not a big deal to me. What about asking to other users, like User:Autospark, User:Nick.mon, User:Ritchie92, User:SDC and User:Braganza? Let's discuss and find a working consensus. --Checco (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of keeping it, but I'm open to everything. Braganza (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

As for me, the reason I started this discussion is that usually tables like that are meant for parties or associations who helped founding the party or joined it, so keeping FE, RI, CD and AP in the table make sense since they all founded the electoral list and only the latter wasn't a founding member of the federation back in January 2019. Instead in this case there are parties who made a joint list for the European election (Italy in Common, PSI and PRI) and they won't probably join +Eu. Since in the last European election in Italy almost all main parties made a joint list with smaller parties and no other party but More Europe has a similar table in their page with (Green Europe and The Left are electoral lists made for the European election, so we can't compare them to +Eu), it's even more strange to me to understand why is there only one party who does have a table with temporary allies.--Broncoviz (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as a strictly necessary section, however, even the Democratic Centre was a constituent party by statute ([12]), together with Radicals and Forza Europa.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Acronym (2)

Unlike what I was arguing in 2019, I think the main abbreviation for this party should be changed to + E. In fact it seems that the party has "officially" adopted this abbreviation in its symbology ([13], [14], [15]), so it should be used here too. If no one has any objection, in the next few days I will replace the abbreviation +Eu with the one used by the party itself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I proceed with the substitution of the abbreviations, hoping that nobody has anything against it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that +Eu is far clearer than +E, so I would revert everything to +Eu as was approved by consensus. Yakme (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme I didn't understand exactly why you undo my edits and then rolled back yourself. In the previous discussion it seems to me that you supported the abbreviation +E. The only difference is that at that time the party did not have an official abbreviation, now, as you can see, it does. If a party has an official abbreviation, I think we should use that.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I am very happy that User:SDC has finally come to terms with the most obvious abbreviation of the party's name. I support the changes. --Checco (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)