Jump to content

Talk:Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps

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

Image addition to infobox

[edit]

100px Please add to Infobox, seems there is a problem just adding it to the Logo field. THX, Quazgaa (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, Just Fixed it. Quazgaa (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps Mike Cline (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico → Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Search engine test, and Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers, and . —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection I see that Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers is irrelevant here: that's not policy but an essay. Wikipedia:Search engine test is likelwise irrelevant here: that's a how-to guide, not policy either. The other argument made above is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), but that's not policy either. The move notice rules above are very clear, "Remember to base arguments on article title policy." None of the arguments made above are based on policy. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Per WP:IAR and WP:FIVEPILLARS, policies are not firm rules and can, and should be, ignored when they impede Wikipedia's improvement. So, since you are WP:BUREAUCRACY this, I will just WP:IAR it. I don't understand why you are being so adamant in keeping the Spanish name when this is the English Wikipedia, evenmoreso when all other countries use the proper English translation and we have provided the very same Act that created the Corps in English as provided by the highermost institution on this matter. See Category:Fire departments of France, Category:Hong Kong Fire Services Department, and Category:Fire departments of the United Arab Emirates. It seems you are just WP:DISRUPTPOINT and WP:WINNER right now, and that you are just trying to WP:BATTLEGROUND a 10 years old WP:COMMONSENSE which is making this a WP:LAME. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not one of "keeping the Spanish name when this is the English Wikipedia", as you are stating Ahnoneemoos, but a matter of following English Wikipedia policy about article titles which states that titles are to follow "the most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
We have already provided you with the highermost reliable source on the whole planet regarding this matter: the very own Act that created this agency as provided by the government of Puerto Rico itself. This is not about WP:CONSENSUS anymore, this is just about WP:WINNING for your own ego. You are being intransigent even when presented with irrefutable evidence. You want more? Here, since it seems you don't even know how to use Google:
Should I even continue? Are you satisfied? You are just being WP:DISRUPTPOINT and beating a 10 years old dead horse per WP:EN effectively making this WP:LAME. Seriously, if you focused your energy on creating articles rather than on this huge waste of time we could have every single article related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. Set your priorities straight. I can't beleive I have to stop creating articles to deal with such a petty matter.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahnoneemoos, the question in this RfM is not, "Is the proposed name EVER used"?, but "Is the proposed name the MOST WIDELY used"?, and the table figures I provided here show there is a 69-to-1 ratio against the new name being proposed. Af for your 8 sources above -- while still part of that small 1/69th -- half of them are the same circular internet mirror references (the case is federal and thus PD and everyone is recopying it). In addition, when one seeks sources using, in English, "Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico", again, they are there, to the tune of 69 to 1 against your proposed title change. How you spend some time seeking references to Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico from among the 145,000 given? Again, from the start this has not been an issue of whether the name you are proposing is used, but whether the name you are proposing is the most widely used: and it is not. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I don't think you understand how this works. Naming conventions are not about what statistics you can come up with on Google. It's about pure WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:EN. You have been provided with the highermost official document on this matter, the very Act that created the Corps, as provided by the government of Puerto Rico itself and you still want to hold onto your point of view. This is not about WP:CONSENSUS anymore for you, it's about WP:WINNING and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. If you were working for what's best for Wikipedia you would listen to all the irrefutable evidence that has been presented to you. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, and again, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is not policy, and the instructions do say, "Remember to base arguments on article title policy." My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Support. Oppose. We need some evidence that it is commonly translated into English and what name is used when it is. We don't just translate names of organisations into an approximation of the native title, since that is WP:OR. From what I can see "Puerto Rico Fire Department" appears to be the commonest way of referring to this organisation in the American media, but even that isn't exactly proof, since the media are notorious for getting details wrong and they may just be using the common American name for such organisations to make it easier to understand for their readers. We really need reliable Puerto Rican English language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ahnoneemoos has now provided us with a reliable source, support. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, the facts do not support what you are stating. Let's looks at the facts as gleaned from English-language sources:
No. Source "Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico" "Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps"
1 Google Scholar 17 (REF1) 1 (REF2)
2 Google Search 165,000 (REF3) 2,400 (REF4)
3 Google News 1 (REF5) 0 (REF6)
Maybe you might care to share with me that reliable source you are alluding to that "Ahnoneemoos has now provided us" as you say. So far I fail to see or find it anywhere. (Amended: If you mean his reference to an official name below, see the Wikipeida policy I wikilinked to in my response to his comment.) My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Support. The English-language media refers to this subject in various ways, but never by the current title, or by any other Spanish-language name. The claim that translation is original research is nonsense. "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," per WP:UE. "Faithfully translating sourced material into English...is not considered original research," per WP:NOR. Kauffner (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not nonsense, as I've seen some truly dire, slavish and frankly laughable "translations" in the name of WP:UE. It is an undeniable fact that many non-English names are far more commonly seen in their native language than in English; these should be left in that language rather than being dogmatically translated into some approximated monstrosity that's never, ever seen. However, according to the evidence now provided below that is obviously not the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp brought up an additional reason why, IMO (never mind the 165,000 vs. 2,400 weight), why the name should stay "Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico", and it is this: While there is only one name for this entity in both English and Spanish sources ("Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico"), the number of TRANSLATED sources is staggering,,, calling it --variously-- by names such as Puerto Rico Fire Corps, Puerto Rico Fire Fighters Corps, Puerto Rico Fire Department, Puerto Rico Firefighters, Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps, and a few other name I no longer recall. We cannot afford to name an article by something that, even within English language sources, has no commonly agreed-upon name,,, especially when the mix of translations accounts for just 1/69th of all named sources. The name Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico is never debated as to what it refers to and never changed into some other approximation. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Kauffner, "but never by the current title"??? That's not what the over 165,000 hits above would seem to indicate. Can you explain where you are getting your information from? Certainly you do not mean to say that with 165,000 hits for the title Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico vs. 2,4000 for the proposed Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps, you can defend the position that "there is no established English-language treatment for [the] name [Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico]". Am I missing something? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I meant that there are no examples of "Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico" on the sites of either the Puerto Rico Daily Sun (site:www.prdailysun.com) or the San Juan Star. See also Highbeam and Google Ngram. I notice that you have yet to come up with an RS citation that contradicts my earlier statement. Kauffner (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. but then in that case one fundamental question to be asked would need to be: Why move the article unless the submitter can show that the publications you have listed (PR Daily Sun, San Juan Star) use "Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps" in their news? (this is called WP:BURDEN.) No one here has shown that such proposed name is used (let alone, "widely used" as required by policy). Also, your other search engines do not show that the proposed name is the one used in English sources either: see it here >>> [1](HighBeam) and here >>> [2](Google Ngram). One more thing: If you spend sometime digging deeper, you will come up with numerous sites that call this entity "Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico" (see the 165,000 link above). Yes you will also find references using "Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps", but the ratio will be a 69 to 1. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
This is not about WP:CONSENSUS nor WP:AGF for you anymore. This is just about you being WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:DISRUPTPOINT to "follow proper procedure" but it seems you forget about WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY, WP:FIVEPILLARS and WP:IAR. I advise you to reconsider your position and focus on what the matter at hand is here. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per wikipedia policy at WP:TITLE, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.
Also, FYI, HERE is the original official Spanish original of the English translation you are alluding. Since both English and Spanish are governmental languages in Puerto Rico, laws are always written in Spanish first and then translated to English (for evidence of this, see last paragraph HERE). My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Dude, you just defeated your own argument: per WP:TITLE: refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahnoneemoos, the most common name, Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico, should be used in the title and in the lede section. The English translation ("Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps") should then be used in the lede section of this English language article. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
No, it should not. That's the most common name in Spanish, not in English. You have been provided with irrefutable evidence. If this were the Spanish Wikipedia I would support you 100%, but this is the English Wikipedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico is the most common name in both Spanish (naturally), and English. For your move to fly, you would need to show that your proposed name is the most widely used in English, and the table above shows that your proposed title fails by a ratio of 69-to-1 against it. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
No, it is not. You have been provided irrefutable evidence above. You are not participating in this discussion anymore for WP:CONSENSUS. You are being a WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:DISRUPTPOINT to WP:WIN. WP:LETITGO. Please make sure you understand WP:GOOGLETEST, WP:GNUM, WP:GOOGLECHECK, WP:HITS, WP:EN, and WP:COMMONSENSE. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this Wikipedia is directed towards an English speaking public and since it is the aim of the creator to educate those who know little or nothing about Puerto Rico - I tend to Support a move to an English title which best describes the subject in question. I believe that a clear example of what I mean and my reasoning can be found in the following article which I created: Cadets of the Republic. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puerto_Rico_Firefighters_Corps&oldid=1204955073"