Talk:A Manca pro s'Indipendèntzia

New party

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

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 Independence → A 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 Uncontroversial translation. --Checco (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we determine article naming -- we reflect usage in sources and don't just default to an unused English translation regardless of whether the translation itself is controversial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The nominator has not provided reliable English-language sources that use the proposed title. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007 Because it is not a well-known party: perhaps there are no English sources that refer to this party, and for this reason there is no English source that refers to it with the current page's title.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to provide reliable English-language sources that use the translation. If not, there is no reason to translate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No evidence it is commonly seen in translation. Per WP:UE, we don't slavishly translate for the sake of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a quick search reveals that the current title barely appears in sources at all, and is not found in any of the article's sources. WP:UE only says to use English if sources do so. — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Our naming guidelines indicate that we should not invent titles. In this case, since we lack usage of the current name in ANY sources, whether English or foreign-language, using the official and actual name is logical. Arguments like "uncontroversial translation" aren't really relevant or consistent with our naming standards.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see a problem with a direct translation for the article title; it doesn't create ungrammatical English.--Autospark (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is contrary to our naming guidelines -- we don't just default to an English translation because it is grammatically correct, we reflect usage in sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:22, 9 February 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]