Talk:The Greens (Austria)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article title

Does the move from Austrian Green Party to The Greens-Green Alternative really make sense? The current title may be the real name of the party translated into English (!), but with the name of the country missing no one will be able to make head or tail of it. Also, not a single page is directly linked to it. <KF> 21:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

The problems is see with The Greens-Green Alternative are:

1. Hardly anyone uses this translated name. Google gives me only 41 hits, but half of them - surprise! - are for a Spanish party.
2. This means this translated name is also not unique.
3. The name is not descriptive (Austria).
4. It doesn't look good (Greens-Green). For mimicking the original you need extra spaces (Greens - Green).

For these reasons I'd rather prefer either:

• Austrian Green Party or
• Die Grünen - Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne, Greens, Green party, Austria)

Cheers, -Nikai 01:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. Received an email from the press office of the Grünen and in english they are known as the "Austrian Green Party", and not some literal translation from the German name. Gryffindor 15:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

some one with an austrian background should translate the name or something because the direct translation may not be the same out of the context of the spoken Austrian language. cheers, --zachjones4 04:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with this; the evidence is spurious, in my opinion, and in doubt I strongly prefer to use a literal translation of the name. If this *REALLY* should be moved to something else, then certainly to Green Party (Austria) and not Austrian Green Party. Anyway, I think the present title is fine. —Nightstallion (?) 19:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally i prefer 'Greens - Green Alternative' (leaving out the double 'The', not used in same way as German 'Die'). Since there have been other Green parties in Austria, its preferable that the article title is as precise as possible. --Soman 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Confer Confederation of The Greens, The Greens (France), Alliance '90/The Greens, Federation of the Greens, The Greens (Luxembourg), The Greens (Netherlands), Ecologist Party "The Greens". Either all of them lose the "The", or all retain it; I'm in favour of the latter version, as it's closer to the original name and is a literal translation. —Nightstallion (?) 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that this is the right way to do it. —Nightstallion (?) 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, they *also* refer to themselves as "DIE GRÜNEN" in English: see http://www.gruene.at/partei/party_profile/ I'm strongly in favour of keeping the article at its translated name. —Nightstallion (?) 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with nightstallion, this translated name is just strange, I would support either Green Party (Austria) or The Greens (Austria) or The Greens – The Green Alternative over the current title. C mon 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be strongly in favour of the full name translated, i.e. "The Greens – The Green Alternative". —Nightstallion (?) 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how we should use a name that the party itself does not use in English. They call themselves "Austrian Green Party" in English, what gives us the idea to give them another name that they don't use? Gryffindor 19:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Greens – The Green Alternative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420005517/http://www.gruene.at:80/uploads/media/grundsatzprogramm2001.pdf to https://www.gruene.at/uploads/media/grundsatzprogramm2001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Centre-left?

Green parties worldwide tend to be left wing, rather than ecological. I suspect that the Austrian Green Party is no exception. That would mean that the description of "centre-left" would be wrong, and "Left wing" or "Far Left" would be more accurate.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Greens – The Green Alternative. 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/20031206081955/http://www.europeangreens.org/peopleandparties/members/austria.html to http://www.europeangreens.org/peopleandparties/members/austria.html

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) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Program?

I couldn't find anywhere a section on the program/policies of this party, wanting to add somewhere their reasonable position of legalizing cannabis [1]. This makes no sense.Miacek (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2019

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 (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 21:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The Greens – The Green Alternative → Austrian Green Party – Official translation, common name, and everything is better than the full literal translation "The Greens – The Green Alternative" nobody uses Colonestarrice (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - We use the English name, not the translation of the original name. Safrolic (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - we have an established article name which is a translation of the original German language party name, which is already useful to disambiguate this article from other articles about Green Parties. We not need a less-accurate translation. Also, there are examples including here and here of reliable sources using the accurately-translated party name.--Autospark (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is not about accuracy regarding translation (both names are accurate) this is about colloquialism, only the German Wikipedia uses the full official name of a subject as article title, the English Wikipedia uses the common name.
• "Which is already useful to disambiguate this article from other articles about Green Parties" – I can't see how "Austrian Green Party" could cause ambiguity with the Green Parties of other countries; in contrary, I think the new name aids in disambiguation since "The Greens – The Green Alternative" doesn't necessarily clarify that the party is from Austria (nor that it is a party in general).
• "Also, there are examples including here and here of reliable sources using the accurately-translated party name." – They may be accurately translated but we still don't use full official names here.

Regards Colonestarrice (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I also think, as User:Autospark, that we should keep the current name. It is a little bit complicate (I admit that), but it is the established name of the article, it is the more accurate translation and it is cited in several sources. The proposed move seem really worthless to me. --Checco (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"The proposed move seem really worthless to me" – how civilized. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS and Autospark; it accurately reflects the name of the party, as is appropriate in the case of most green parties where either the native or translated long-form name serves as a natural disambiguator. Mélencron (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Current name is not particularly recognisable nor is it in use outside of Wikipedia. The proposed name ticks all the boxes: Recognisable, concise, unambiguous and in use. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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.