Talk:Alternativa (Italian political party)

	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 Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 15 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Alternative (Italy). The result of the discussion was moved to Alternativa (Italian political party).

Name translation

@Nick.mon: I am not sure about this translation to English. It is not sourced (first of all), and I think it does not exactly correspond to the meaning in Italian. I would say something like "The Alternative is There" is more faithful to the original name. Anyways, I'm not even sure about the WP:NOTABILITY of the subject to justify a separate article, however if we want to keep it, we should probably think better about the title. Pinging Checco, Braganza, Autospark. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "The Alternative is There" and the page has the justification to be a separate article like Europeanists Braganza (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about "The Alternative Exists"? I don't know, I must admit it's not so faithful to the original name... -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, "There is the alternative" would be the most literal translation and "There is alternative" would be the most correct one. "The Alternative is there" seems more faithful to the original, but it is not. @User:Autospark: Can you help us? --Checco (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more opinions on the issue? If not, I am going to move the article to "There is Alternative". --Checco (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "There is Alternative". This would correspond to "C'è alternativa" in Italian, which has a much more general meaning than "L'alternativa c'è" (note the determined article "l'"). The current name "There is an alternative" corresponds to "C'è un'alternativa", which is also not the correct meaning. I stand by "The alternative is there" which means "l'alternativa c'è", in sense of "is there" "è lì (da qualche parte)".

Anyway, if we cannot agree on a simple and accurate English translation, I would refer to reliable sources in English. And in absence of those (as I think it is the case) we should use the Italian name. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie's comment. The Italian name should be used while the dispute is still ongoing. Vacant0 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry for the late reply, @User:Checco! My preference is for the current article title. "There is Alternative" does not seem grammatically correct in English, even though it is a more literal translation of the Italian title.--Autospark (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced. The article lo, abbreviated to l' translates to "the", not "a/an". However, as the Italian name and totally inaccurate translations such as "The Alternative is there" are worse options, I am also for keeping the current name. --Checco (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the translated name of this page be "There is the Alternative"?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 May 2021

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: Moved to "L'Alternativa c'è" per the discussion below. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 15:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There Is an Alternative → There Is the Alternative – If the page title is to be the translated name of the original, then the most correct translation is "There is the Alternative". Otherwise the original Italian name would be better. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: "there is the alternative" is not the correct translation of the Italian "L'alternativa c'è". That would be "The alternative is there". --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to L'Alternativa c'è. English translation not commonly used. Per WP:UE we shouldn't use a forced translation if it's not commonly used in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I proposed "There is the Alternative" because it is a better translation than "There is an Alternative", but I surely agree to rename the page with the original Italian name. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the Italian version since its more commonly used. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither the proposed name nor "The Alternative is there" are correct translations. The most literal ~~and correct~~ translation would be "There is Alternative". If that is not possibile, let's keep the current name. I definitely oppose any notion of an Italian name. --Checco (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this case, it is quite easy to find an English name. That is why I strongly oppose renaming the article into "L'Alternative c'è". In order to avoid the Italian name, I am open to any compromise, even "There is the Alternative". This said, I do not understand why the literal translation "There is Alternative" is never considered. --Checco (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because an English-speaking user said "There is Alternative" does not seem grammatically correct in English. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that comment by User:Autospark, but I am not completely convinced. I still think that "There is Alternative" would be the best option, however I am open both on keeping the current name ("Is" should not be capitalised, though) or "There is the Alternative". --Checco (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Between "There is the Alternative" and "There is an Alternative" the first one is better, in the original Italian name the article is definite, while "There is Alternative" means "C'è Alternativa" (and I don't know how correct that is). About "The Alternative is There", it seems the literal translation of the Italian name, but I don't know if it is correct in English language. If there is any doubt about the translation of the name, the title of the page should be the Italian name. But I'm pretty sure about one thing: "There Is an Alternative" is not the correct translation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker, I can assure you that "There is Alternative" is not good English. But I fail to see why we are not keeping it in the original Italian. See WP:UE: In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. The above debate proves that this does not apply to this name. UE is also quite clear that there is no need to translate foreign names. I'm always mystified as to why non-native-English-speakers are often keener on translating names into English than native English-speakers. Most of us don't feel the need; we really are not that ignorant that we can't accept anything in a foreign language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, although the Italian name is not so strange it does not seem easy to translate it precisely, even WP:UE is clear about this type of situation; I have proposed "There is the Alternative" but I also agree with the Italian name.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just like to add, "There is Alternative" is not grammatical English, so unfortunately I cannot support its use. "There Is an Alternative", "There are Alternatives", "Here Is an Alternative" are, and the first of those three sounds the most approximate translation of the Italian possible (at least to my rudimentary knowledge of Italian). I am very happy for other alternative names, of course. ("The Alternative is Here" is also a possible solution?)--Autospark (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that L'alternativa c'è and C'è l'alternativa would be translatate in the same way, I support "There is an Alternative", "The Alternative is here" and, if User:Autospark agrees with it, also "There is the Alternative". As long as the article's name is in English, I am OK with it. --Checco (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Here Is an Alternative" and "The Alternative is Here" are not the correct translations of the Italian name, they mean "Ecco un'alternativa" and "L'Alternativa è qui".--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, if the proposal (as I believe) will be rejected and if "The Alternative is There" is not grammatically correct, I will propose the move towards the Italian name. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no. Please consider that Italian and English have different structures. You cannot simply translate things without considering English structures. For instance, Ecco l'alternativa, L'alternativa è qui, C'è l'alternativa and L'alternativa c'è (the latter two, definitely) are all translatable in the same way. I really do not understand why finding a compromise translation is so difficult. --Checco (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:UE is effectively quite clear, if there is no English name ascertained by the sources and if we cannot uniquely translate the name, we should use the original one. In my view "There is the Alternative" was a good translation (certainly better than the current one) but if this is not the case, the hypothesis of using the Italian name must be evaluated.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to apply the rule that way, we would have very few English names, to the detriment of readers.

@User:Autospark: what about "There is the Alternative"? It that is OK for you, I will support it. I am not sure it would be an improvement, but any English name is better that the Italian one, in my view. --Checco (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Why does it have to be in English? I am English (and don't speak Italian) and I have no problem whatsoever with it being in Italian. There really is no need to slavishly translate every single foreign-language term into English. In fact, many of us would prefer every foreign-language name (those written in the Latin alphabet, at least) to be kept in its original language unless there's a very commonly used English translation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why insisting so much on an arbitrary English translation. There are no sources mentioning the English name, and it looks like each user here has a different opinion on the correct English translation (for example, I think that there is a difference between "l'alternativa c'è" and "c'è l'alternativa (o un'alternativa)", also in the English translation). But anyway, if no translation can be agreed upon, I also think that the Italian name would be the best solution. After all, this is a minor group in the current Parliament, so it's not a tragedy if a translation is not provided in the title (think about Forza Italia, which is a much more important Italian party, and has an untranslated title). --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2021 (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.

Requested move 15 March 2022

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: moved to Alternativa (Italian political party). Consensus to move. Many different alternatives were proposed with no clear consensus. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS a new RM can be created at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternativa (political party) → Alternative (Italy) – The page was previously moved to the italian name of the party ("L'Alternativa c'è") because the translation was controversial, but the translation of the current name is uncontroversial ("Alternative"), therefore I think that an English title is preferable for this page, also like for Alternative (North Macedonia). Furthermore, the disambiguation "political party" is wrong because there is another party with this name. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 06:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Alternative (Italy) can be anything, better to use "political party" or "Italian political party" as disambiguation. Yakme (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even "Alternative (Italian political party)" is ok for me. But the current disambiguation "(political party)" is surely wrong, since there are at least other two parties named "Alternativa" (in Kosovo and North Macedonia). Obviously, all titles should be corrected consistently.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Alternative (Italian political party). "Alternative (Italy)" is too generic. Yakme (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We should use English as much as we can, for the sake of readers. "Alternative" is an uncontroversial translation and "Italy" is a correct disambiguation, thus I also prefer "Alternative (Italy)" to "Alternative (political party)" per User:SDC. --Checco (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This argument does not match Wikipedia policy. WP:UE says that "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)" which is what applies here. We should retain the Italian name, and it does not in any way help readers to use a made-up English name for something that is only ever referred to in sources by its foreign name. — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Checco. Possibly call it "Alternative Party (Italy)" to be specific to what it actually is: a political party. --Spekkios (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per SDC’s proposal.—Autospark (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the move, but strongly oppose (Italy) as a disambiguator. Way too confusing. Red Slash 22:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on the move. Oppose (Italy) as a disambiguator, support (Italian political party) as a disambiguator. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:UE certainly does not mandate translation of every foreign title into English. We are not catering for ignoramuses who can't cope with foreign words. Incidentally, even if we did, Alternative Party (Italy) is not an acceptable construction of a name on Wikipedia, as it adds a word that is not in the actual title. We should use English as much as we can, for the sake of readers is not an accepted criterion for page moves. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, no-one is proposing that name, but a simple, uncontroversial translation: "Alternative". It can be disambiguated in different ways: "(Italy)" or "(Italian political party)". Per nominator, I support "Alternative (Italy)", consistently with Alternative (North Macedonia). --Checco (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read up and you'll find they actually are! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Necrothesp: There are at least 3 parties literally called "Alternativa": one in Italy (the one we are discussing), one in North Macedonia (Alternative (North Macedonia), moved without any opposition) and one in Kosovo (The Alternative (Kosovo)). In these three cases, the original name of the party is "Alternativa". You will understand that the current title cannot continue to name this page, as it could refer to 3 different parties, and therefore it is in contrast with the wikipedia policies.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case I support Alternativa (Italy). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative (Italian political party), and speedily move the North Macedonian and Kosovar articles to match. BD2412 T 05:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Necrothesp. There is no evidence presented at all that the name is routinely translate to English in sources, therefore the name we should go with is the original Italian. Move to Alternativa (Italian political party), to get rid of the ambiguity, and then leave it at that. There is no other alternative, and the suggestion to translate to English should not be honoured unless it's backed up by sourcing. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The most important thing is that the article is named "Alternative" and not "Alternativa". I prefer "Alternative (Italy)", but I can agree also with "Alternative (Italian political party)". --Checco (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed, putting an Italian party name on a common English word makes it worse.

Note there are a great many ambiguous “Alternative” articles, including political parties internationally.

Support instead Alternativa (Italian political party). Do not lightly translate proper names like Alternativa. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2022 (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.

Ideology

Similarly to what I argued in Talk:Italexit (political party), I affirm also here that "populism" is an appropriate umbrella-ideology for this party. Moreover, "Euroscepticism" (or, for that matter, the very obscure "sovereigntism") is a policy more than an ideology. Alternative is indeed a full-fledged populist party, whose platform features multiple issues, from Eurosceptiscim to vaccine hesitancy, from economic populism to anti-lockdown stances. As of late, the party is known more for its opposition to Covid-19 regulations than Euroscepticism. "Populism" should be mentioned as the party's main ideology. I am sure that we will find more sources on it moving forward. --Checco (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]