Jump to content

Talk:A Manca pro s'Indipendèntzia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New party

[edit]

New regional party without any representation. An english name doesn't seem to exist, unencyclopedic --83.76.114.190 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 January 2022

[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: Moved to A Manca pro s'Indipendèntzia. While there is a numerical balance of supports and opposes, I find that the former have much better grounding in policy. In particular, it has not be demonstrated that there is an English translation in common use. Extraordinary Writ did make a fair case for the translation; however, I'd note that his source has "A Manca pro s'Indipendentzia" as the first entry in that list, suggesting they the book authors less than stellar research. No such user (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


To the Left for IndependenceA Manca pro s'Indipendèntzia – Translation not used in English language sources. Given the particular Sardinian connotation of the name, this should be reported in the original language. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:UE: "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." Since we all seem to agree that there are too few English-language sources to draw any firm conclusions, translation is probably a good idea per that guideline. Additionally, this translation does seem to appear in at least one source, so it's not as though we're making it up out of thin air. If there's some reason why the translation is inaccurate or fails to express the original meaning fully, then a move might be appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current name simply isn't used in sources, and is a confusing translation for English speakers. Best to use the original proper name. WP:UE doesn't say to "use English" full stop, it says to use it if there's evidence that doing so is correct. That isn't the case here.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 16 February 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.
@User:No such user: How can four support and four oppose can be a consensus for the move? Moreover, why should we use an obscure and abstruse name in a very minority language, when a clear and uncontroversial translation is available? This party is rarely mentioned in English-language sources, but, for the sake of readers and clarity, we should adopt clear and uncontroversial names for articles. I hope you will reconsider your evaluation of the subject. --Checco (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I provided a sufficient closing statement. We do not just count the votes, but weigh them against policy-based criteria, and the oppose votes ("uncontroversial translation" and "give us English sources" when there are obviously none) were not particularly convincing and have been refuted. It's not my particular whim, but a summary of discussion. As pointed out by several users, we should not invent translations, and WP:UE specifies 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 and 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. It was argued that the existing translation was not "without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding".
I will noted that exactly the same situation, with exactly the same conclusion, happened on Talk:Sardigna Natzione Indipendentzia unbeknownst to me. No such user (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:No such user: That is exactly the point. An obscure and abstruse original name like "A Manca pro s'Indipendèntzia" is exactly the case of a translation that "can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader". Minor parties like these have few mentions in English-language sources, but it is not a logic to have obscure and abstruse names for minor, mostly unknown parties, even if the have a clera, uncontroversial translation available. --Checco (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the obscure name is "To the Left for Independence", which is not mentioned in any source. All available sources refer to the party as "A Manca pro s'Indipendèntzia". --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Sardinian-language and Italian-language sources mention the party with its official name! The problem is that this is English Wikipedia and article names should be intelligible by English speakers. Names that are so obscure and abstruse like this are a great harm to Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]