Talk:Paulista Republican Party

Requested move 8 May 2024

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Paulista Republican Party → Republican Party of São Paulo – Most English speakers won't be familiar with Brazilian demonyns such as Paulista, Mineiro, Carioca etc, so it's better to just name it as proposed. It also sounds better. Torimem (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Typically we'd go by what applicable sources are using. Using Google Ngrams as one resource, I checked relative frequency of their use over the years in Google's corpus of books in English, and found that until around 2010, "Paulista Republican Party" vastly outweighed "Republican Party of São Paulo" in appearances, but after that the use of the latter began to soar while the use of the former fell, so that in the most recent year reported the latter has taken a small lead. I wonder what motivated the shift. Largoplazo (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  It occurred to me that maybe it was because sources have become more and more inclined to use accented characters over the years, so I reran the query with "Republican Party of São Paulo" and "Republican Party of Sao Paulo" lumped together. As a result, in a couple of earlier periods the version without "Paulista" turns out to have been common, running neck-and-neck with the "Paulista" version between the world wars, but falling way behind during the 1960s and 1970s. This tweak didn't materially change the more recent picture. Largoplazo (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Could I request this is reopened so I can oppose the move? The Ngrams evidence suggests the original title is the most common, and the rationale (particularly "it sounds better") is really weak IMO. Number 57 21:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57: Done. BilledMammal (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57, the Ngrams clearly show that the original title is not the most common name today. And the main reason I gave for the move was not that, read again. Torimem (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The Ngrams demonstrate that the current title ('Paulista') has been the common name for most of the past century. I think the argument that it "is not the most common name today" is pretty weak, as it is only in 2018 and 2019 that the proposed title was the most common, and I think a combination of (a) the relatively low number of sources using the names and (b) that it still a relatively close thing means that there is not conclusive proof that usage has switched from one to the other. As a result I think it would be better to stick with what has been the most common name historically. Number 57 21:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Number 57 the original title doesn't fit all criteria in WP:CRITERIA, namely Naturalness, since, as I stated before, the likelihood of English-speakers being familiar with Brazilian demonyms is very low. WP:COMMONNAME says nothing about period on this regard. The proposed title would also make it consistent with other such articles on Wikipedia, therefore filling the Consistency criteria (Republican Party of Wisconsin, Republican Party of Texas, Republican Party of Armenia, Republican Party of Minas Gerais etc). Torimem (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't agree with either of those arguments. The current title is perfectly natural (and if anything, even more so, as it is more concise). The second one is particularly desperate in my opinion; consistency is relevant when you have sets of articles on related topics, and none of the parties you list are related (given they are in other countries and have no links to this party). What would be relevant comparisons are other Republican parties in Brazil, but the majority are in 'Paulista' format (Fluminense Republican Party and Rio-grandense Republican Party) and the only one that isn't (Republican Party of Minas Gerais) had been Mineiro Republican Party/Minas Republican Party from 2011 until you moved it without discussion last year with the rationale of "better" despite "Mineiro Republican Party" appearing to be the most common name. Your selection of other Republican parties for "consistency" is also a terrible example of cherrypicking, as there are numerous parties with the 'Paulista' naming format, including the Italian Republican Party, Mongolian Republican Party, Portuguese Republican Party and the Vanuatu Republican Party. Also, you don't have to ping me every time you reply, as I have this page on my watchlist. Cheers, Number 57 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I moved that article because I thought it wouldn't be a controversial move, I didn't do it in bad faith, and nobody contested it. Also, the party articles you listed have common demonyms in English, not in another language, as is the case here, so they shouldn't apply IMO. Torimem (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  ... as I stated before, the likelihood of English-speakers being familiar with Brazilian demonyms is very low: If that's the name used in a preponderance of sources in English, then the likelihood that's the name by which English speakers know the party is very high. Compare Grand Prix, 1. deild karla (football), Krav Maga, Académie Française, and Bundesdatenschutzgesetz. It isn't relevant whether English speakers know what these names mean, only whether they're the names that they use. Largoplazo (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Then the Ngrams showing the proposed title is the most common now should be enough. This is all I have to argue for now. Torimem (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  The reason I labeled my report Ngrams a comment instead of a !vote is because Ngrams alone probably don't suffice, especially in this case where the margin is both recent and small, but I offered them for consideration along with other data. Largoplazo (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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.