Talk:Ponte do Prado

Portugal Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Low

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

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ponte do Prado → Bridge of Prado (Vila Verde) – Translation of name from Portuguese to English, utilizing a qualifier to indicate the location (in the municipality of Vila Verde per WP:UE, wherein "translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader". That is, the suggested format is literal translation of the subject that maintains, and extends the specificity. Note: This request is also made to resolve an error on my part: to remove a redirect made (in error) from that title to this article. relisted-Mike Cline (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, there is only 1 article about o ponte do prado here on wiki, so no need for Vila verde, and many other articles about portuguese bridges are styled as "Ponte de/da/do ...." Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really Cristiano? I have been following the discussions on the John IV of Portugal article. Your opposition seems to be anti-English rather then rational. Since when is a bridge in English anything other then a bridge? There is no "styling" per se in English Wikipedia about bridges: the original creators of these names copied them over from Portuguese Wikipedia and did not follow up with due diligence in content development and rationalization to the Wikipedia conventions. I accept that a qualifier is either here nor there, but suggesting that all bridges in English Wikipedia should be in Portuguese too? Really? I note that the more famous Portuguese bridges in English Wikipedia (25 de Abril Bridge and Vasco da Gama Bridge) are already identified in English. More specifically, this bridge is nothing more then the typical "bridge in location" type format, no ostentation necessary with "Ponte de/da/do". Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a lovely tone you carry when I was simply giving my "two-cents". You should really work on that :) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Vila Verde" necessary? What's wrong with simply "Bridge of Prado" or "Prado bridge"? Walrasiad (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its neither here nor there, as I mentioned, and could be dropped completely (as I will not object). The original intention was to provide a qualifier to indicate location. But, as Cristiano has indicated, there is only one article about a "Bridge of Prado". I can reformulate the move request accordingly. Further, I suggest that "Bridge of Prado" is a better neutral translation of the Portuguese, making it easier for discovery. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I must put my personal views aside and give support to what is said as correct on wikipedia. I am sorry for the initial turbulence. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for several reasons.

"Ponte do Prado" has been used in English-language publications since at least 1811.
Google, while unquestionably a flawed and uncertain tool for such questions, gives 9 hits for "ponte do prado" bridge -wikipedia in Books, and about 72 for Everything; "bridge of prado" bridge -wikipedia gets 0 hits in Books and about 20 hits in Everything. "Ponte do Prado" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources.
Thirdly, WP:UE reads "If there are too few 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)"; Portuguese would appear to be the established usage here.
And lastly, WP:CONSISTENCY might suggest that either none or all of the bridges in this list or indeed this list should be translated. Do we really want to see the likes of Bridge of Gard, Old Bridge and New Bridge? That would, I believe, require a wider discussion than is taking place here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.