Talk:Political Party for Basic Income

Requested move 28 March 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) 06:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Political Party for Basic Income → Politieke Partij voor Basisinkomen – Per WP:DONTUSEENGLISH, no widespread usage (if any) of this translation in English-language sources. Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UE: "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it.'" 162 etc. (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a contradiction between these two policies in cases of non-established usage in English (while the former should be an elaboration on the latter). The first policy did lead to the renaming of "Netherlands with a Plan" to "Nederland met een Plan". - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    It is contradictory, and a discussion at WT:Naming conventions (use English) to resolve that is long overdue. I'll note that WP:UE is policy and WP:DONTUSEENGLISH is a naming convention, so the former trumps the latter. 162 etc. (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. We don't do forced and clunky translations just because some ignorant English-speakers are incapable of understanding foreign! I agree a discussion at UE is long overdue: to get rid of the daft clause and stop people citing it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's not up to Wikipedia editors to introduce new foreign words into the English lexicon. We follow what reliable English-language sources use. If there are no such sources, we use English. That's not "daft", that's common sense. 162 etc. (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, we categorically do not translate names if they are not not normally translated. Never have done. Using a name that's never used in real life is not common sense at all. It's pure WP:OR, completely against WP:COMMONNAME and makes Wikipedia look ridiculous and ignorant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  >"No, we categorically do not translate names if they are not not normally translated." That is correct. If English-language sources use an untranslated foreign term, we follow what sources do and do not translate it. However, in the absence of any English-language sources, we use English, per WP:UE. 162 etc. (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at English-sources, I could only find three: one uses the original Dutch name (nltimes), while two use the original name and provide its translation in brackets (dutchnews and Soualiga Newsday). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like, according to UE, we should definitely use the original then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. My read of WP:DONTUSEENGLISH is that it extends from this passage in WP:UE: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject. As for the passage in UE that 162 etc cites, my interpretation is that it discusses situations where a foreign term is consistently translated, but where there is no English-language COMMONNAME because multiple different translations are used. (Regardless of how this RM turns out, I agree that a broader discussion will be helpful for identifying a clearer read on what the policy actually calls for.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Changing my !vote to oppose. After rereading the relevant policies, and doing more thinking on the subject, I believe that WP:DONTUSEENGLISH's guidance to "follow the convention" of names without an established English-language form is meant to guide us, not to simply use the native name, but to be WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles in its class that do have established usage. Reviewing Category:Political parties in the Netherlands, I see that most of them are translated to English, so I believe that the current title is actually the form best aligned with UE and DONTUSEENGLISH alike. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Article currently reads in part The party has announced its intent to participate in the 2023 general election.... Fixing that would seem to me to be far more important than which of these titles we use, when the other could and should be so easily become a redirect. The title might even benefit from applying Andrew's principle. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per If there are too few reliable 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). SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Don't really feel this is a contradiction. Happy to be corrected, but as far as I'm aware, English Wikipedia's convention is that we translate all political party names unless that party is widely referred to by its foreign language name in English-language reliable sources. It's WP:UCS ... are we really going to start using 日本革命的共産主義者同盟革命的マルクス主義派 or Nihon Kakumeiteki Kyōsanshugisha Dōmei, Kakumeiteki Marukusu Shugiha, over "Japan Revolutionary Communist League (Revolutionary Marxist Faction)" when the English version tells the reader *immediately* what they need to know? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:23, 7 April 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.