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 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
I oppose the move of this article from "Lively Aosta Valley" to "Vallée d'Aoste Vive". It is a bad precedent for other articles. --Checco (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The English name as title of a political party's page is fine if it is immediately translatable or attested by multiple sources: "Lively Aosta Valley" is not an accurate translation of the name, it is not directly translatable, and it is only used by one/two very recent sources, which probably got this name from here. In these cases the original name is the best solution. ps. The bad precedent is if anything the title of the page "Lega Nord" and almost all Italian parties called "league", even if there is a certified english name...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that "Lively Aosta Valley" was a better name.
You have definitely a point on Lega Nord. However, the problem there, as I already argued, would be to have a much longer name "Northern League (Italy)" or "Northern League (political party)", instead of the simpler "Lega Nord". --Checco (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I decided myself to rename this page because the translation was the result of an original research: "Vallée d'Aoste Vive" does not have an unambiguos translation, "Lively Aosta Valley" was only used in 1/2 very recent sources, almost certainly influenced by this page. This is a very small party, I am not particularly interested in the title of this page, but the principle to be used also in other similar cases: it is not a case foreseen by the conventions (that I know of) but in my view, when the English translation is not unambiguous and it is not attested by reliable sources, the title should be the original name (which in this case does not seem complex to me). In this case the page could be re-moved to "Lively Aosta Valley", with a proposal to move to its original name. But it is absurd to think of a joint discussion of very different topics by calling some associates to counter a user's edits! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You convinced me on this. In fact, why "Lively" and not "Alive"? Thanks for changing my mind. --Checco (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I didn't think to convince you, anyway better this way :/ --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments convinced me. Usually, people discuss in order to convince each other. Don't you? I do and I hope people hear my arguments and can be persuaded by them. You persuaded me. --Checco (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
