Talk:Nueva Mayoría

Title

As far as I know, nouns or names should be kept in their language of origin. Then why is it called New Majority? Maybe I'm wrong but I'd like that to be clarified. --190.100.201.170 (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

For this very same reason, and per WP:COMMONNAME (make a simple Google search) I have moved this article to its native language name. Küñall (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Andreas: from WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." It's not what you think it will be easier to pronounce or whatever you meant on your edit summary. Diego Grez (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

As someone who lives in a predominantly English speaking country, I think I speak on behalf of all English speakers that it would be easier to use New Majority, rather than Nueva Mayoria. Nueva Mayoria may be the most commonly used name for Spanish speaking people, which would make it fine for Spanish page, but New majority is the most commonly used name for English speaking people, making it more appropriate to give the English version of the page an English title. Andreas11213 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong, in fact. Nueva Mayoría is the most common name to refer to this coalition in English sources. Just do a basic google search and you'll see (you have to configurate some stuff on there, so that you get only English-language results, but it's worth the time). Also, "I think I speak on behalf of all English speakers that it would be easier to use New Majority" = it's your vision; Wikipedia's policy is clear. Diego Grez (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

PS. (at least 930 results) vs. New Majority (319 results) Diego Grez (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. New Majority, not "Nueva Mayoria" is the most common name to refer to this Coalition in English sources. I did do a basic Google search, and all sources on the first page come up with New Majority, not Nueva Mayoria. For example, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/18/world/americas/chile-election.html?_r=0 http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/28/chile-s28.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25398021 http://inserbia.info/today/2013/11/chile-bachelets-new-majority-coalition-wins-big-in-parliamentary-elections/ http://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/17100-bachelets-landslide-chile-turns-left As I said before, the most common name for English speaking people is New Majority, not Nueva Mayoria. Leave the English page with and English title, and the Spanish name with the Spanish title. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop moving the page before discussing this, you are disrupting the project; move it once again, and I'll report you to ANI. And you are also deliberately ignoring facts while pushing your view that an English translation that is not so common should be used instead of the Spanish name most commmonly used in English-language sources.

Want links? Here you have [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] All of these are English-language sources which use Nueva Mayoría instead of New Majority; these include Huffington Post, Washington Post, Santiago Times, The Guardian, Reuters, Chicago Tribune, BBC, El País, Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, among other mainstream media sources; here you have too some paper abstracts that all refer to the Nueva Mayoría as... the Nueva Mayoría; a paper from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and so on... I think that's enough to prove Nueva Mayoría is the name to go. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, you found newspapers that refer to the party as Nueva Mayoria. What you continue to fail to understand is that this is an English page, so why would you have a Spanish title. There can be a Spanish title for the Spanish page, but it makes more sense to give the English page an English title. What is the point of having multi-lingual pages on Wikipedia if you use Spanish titles for English pages. it doesn't make sense, at all.Andreas11213 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You fail to understand that it is Wikipedia's policy to use the most common version of a subject as its title, in this case, the original Spanish name, Nueva Mayoría. As I just proved, English sources mostly use "Nueva Mayoría" instead of the translated name. Diego Grez (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have move protected the page to give you some time to discuss the issue instead of blindly reverting each other. If the two of you can't agree, you should request further input, say via WP:3O. If I have to, I will fully protect the article to stop the edit war, but I'd prefer not having to resort to that. Huon (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Huon! Andreas11213, will you wait until the protection expires for you to move the article again to a wrong name, or instead, you will discuss the issue here? --Diego Grez (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the user has not continued to discuss (though he's been editing elsewhere), I think this has been settled down for now. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sfs90 just performed a cut-and-paste "move" instead of moving the page properly, much less contributing to the discussion here on the talk page. I have reverted that. In particular, it would have disrupted page histories; for that reason alone cut-and-paste moves should never be performed. I also don't see any consensus that "New Majority" would be the appropriate title; in fact, Diego Grez has provided a plethora of reliable English-language sources calling the organization "Nueva Mayoría". Thus WP:COMMONNAME seems to favor that title. If we want to have a new discussion about the title, a formal requested move discussion would be the way to go, with an admin moving the page over the redirect if that turns out to be the consensus. Huon (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Other New Majority?

This seems to be a different alliance from the one called New Majority in 2009 (whose candidate ran for the If You Want It, Chile Changes alliance this time, while the Ecologsits ran their own candidate and the Humanists supported Everyone to La Moneda). Can someone from Chile confirm that?--82.35.251.109 (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's right. The New Majority that is explained in this article is about a coalition formed in 2013. The other coalition (existent only in 2009) was called "New Majority for Chile", and it was the political platform used by Marco Enríquez-Ominami to create the Progressive Party in 2011. --Sfs90 (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Majority (Chile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724070531/http://www.latercera.com/noticia/politica/2013/04/674-521285-9-representantes-de-los-abanderados-de-la-oposicion-llegan-al-servel-para.shtml to http://www.latercera.com/noticia/politica/2013/04/674-521285-9-representantes-de-los-abanderados-de-la-oposicion-llegan-al-servel-para.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061340/http://www.latercera.com/noticia/politica/2013/06/674-530793-9-siete-de-cada-diez-chilenos-voto-por-el-pacto-nueva-mayoria.shtml to http://www.latercera.com/noticia/politica/2013/06/674-530793-9-siete-de-cada-diez-chilenos-voto-por-el-pacto-nueva-mayoria.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927171813/http://www.servel.cl/controls/neochannels/neo_ch276/appinstances/media716/Declaracion_de_Candidaturas_Presidenciales.pdf to http://www.servel.cl/controls/neochannels/neo_ch276/appinstances/media716/Declaracion_de_Candidaturas_Presidenciales.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)