Talk:Catalunya Sí que es Pot

[Untitled]

Is the Party for or against independence? What are the main goals of the party? --2A02:908:C30:EBE0:69A9:8A6F:CD91:312C (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Catalunya Sí que es Pot → Catalonia Yes We Can – With rare exceptions, the preferred language for article titles on English Wikipedia is English. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 05:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:NCPP. Parties whose names are always kept in one language in a multilingual country also are commonly referred to by their native title in English, and so those names should be used in article titles. The name is usually referred to in both English and Spanish reliable sources in its Catalan form, and when it's translated the native name is always given as well ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). This would be akin to Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, whose names are not translated into English in the article title. The translation is also conflictive, as some translate the name as "Catalonia It Is Possible" ([7]). Also take into account that Parties whose name make no sense if translated into English should retain their native form. "Catalunya Sí que es Pot" does make sense in Catalan, but "Catalonia Yes We Can", which would be the most commonly-used English translation, doesn't make much sense by itself—and could also lead to multiple reverse translations into Spanish and Catalan, such as "Catalunya Sí Podem" (Spanish: Cataluña Sí Podemos), given the difficulty in properly translating the "Yes We Can" expression from English to Spanish and vice-versa (properly speaking, "we can" means "[nosotros] podemos" or "[nosaltres] podem", not "se puede" or "es pot")—. This would be akin to Podemos (Spanish political party) case, whose name has a meaning in its native form that is lost when translated and, as a result, is not translated in the article title. Impru20 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think NCPP necessarily favors your argument if English-language sources always include the English name when referencing the party. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not all sources do include the same translation or a translation at all. Besides, NCPP is a specific naming convention that does not provide for its own override in the event that a translation may be included by sources. Yes, some sources translate it as "Catalonia Yes We Can", just as others choose "Catalonia It Is Possible" instead. The searched instances provide translations only secondarily, with the native form given in first. You've argued, to support the move, that "with rare exceptions, the preferred language for article titles on English Wikipedia is English", not considering that this could be indeed one of such rare exceptions (and one that even constitues its own specific naming convention). NCPP does not states that English translations may not be used or sourced, but that for political party article titles there's a special procedure to follow, provided that some circumstances are met (which are here, indeed: name used in one language in a multilingual country, translation controversies, etc). We also find the issue that none of the proposed translations is literal, and that the native name meaning is arguably lost when translated. I think that my own editing record actually backs that I'm a strong proposer of English translations whenever possible, but I also see the sense in having some exceptions, and this should be one of them. This, also considering that NCPP does not forbid the use of English translations in the article body or elsewhere whenever necessary. Impru20 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Replace "some" with "most sources translate it as Yes We Can" and I don't fundamentally disagree with what you're saying. Also, half the sources you posted were non-English sources, and therefore irrelevant to this discussion. The same sources also have the Catalan and English names for Together for Yes side by side, but the article title for that is Together for Yes. Just looking for some consistency here. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

How are these irrelevant? Have you read NCPP? Parties whose names are always kept in one language in a multilingual country also are commonly referred to by their native title in English, and so those names should be used in article titles. The non-English sources are important because it shows how, in this party's multilingual country, the Catalan form is used in all its languages. Of course it's not irrelevant, it's one of the requisites of NCPP.

The issue with "Together for Yes" is that the translation does not change the name's meaning. That's a literal translation which maintains the original meaning, unlike what happens here, so it doesn't result in any such issue. In any case, if as per the application of NCPP that should be changed as well, I don't have any issue with it. Impru20 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The non-English language sources are not relevant to this particular discussion because the NCPP naming convention is about how political parties are referred to in English. Nevermore27 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you missed the part where I explained that English sources do indeed refer to this as "Catalunya Sí que es Pot". Non-English sources are an additional argument, not the main one. The title must still comply with NCPP. And, as you can see, it also says that The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's country (in scholarly works and in the news media), should be preferred (which is the case here. English sources inside the party's country also refer to it as "Catalunya Sí que es Pot" ([8])). I think there's few times where the application of NCPP is so obvious. Impru20 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The English language sources you shared referred to the party in both Catalan and English, so your argument based on that are muddled at best. Here are more sources translating it as "Yes We Can", including the news agency owned and operated by the Catalan Government. [9] [10] [11] [12] You say this is a clear application of NCPP, I could not disagree more. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think we should make a compilation of the reasonings. As per WP:NCPP:

Y 1a. The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's country (in scholarly works and in the news media), should be preferred. "Catalunya Sí que es Pot meets the criteria both outside ([13], [14], [15]) and inside ([16], [17], [18]).

Y 2. Parties whose names are always kept in one language in a multilingual country also are commonly referred to by their native title in English, and so those names should be used in article titles. "Catalunya Sí que es Pot" does indeed meet this criteria, as it's referred like that both by Spanish ([19], [20], [21]) and, obviously, Catalan sources ([22], [23], [24]).

Y 3. Parties whose name make no sense if translated into English should retain their native form. For "Catalunya Sí que es Pot", you have the translation issues already mentioned. Firstly, there's not consensus among English sources on what would its translation be (since it's difficult to translate). You have "Catalonia Yes We Can" (in the already provided sources) as the most used one, but also "Catalonia It Is Possible" ([25]) and "Yes, Catalonia Can" ([26]). Secondly, "Catalonia Yes We Can" doesn't make much sense by itself in English, meaning "Catalunya Sí Podem" or "Cataluña Sí Podemos" in Catalan and Spanish, not "Catalunya Sí que es Pot" or "Catalonia Sí se Puede" (which would be the accurate Spanish translation). The "yes we can" expression is translated to Catalan as "sí [nosaltres] podem", not "sí es pot").

Additionally, there're other special, non-related guidelines for "acronym as name" or different language-composite names which don't apply here.

The only argument given to support that "Catalonia Yes We Can" should be used instead is that under WP:ENGLISH, and as the proposed reason for the move, "the preferred language for article titles on English Wikipedia is English". Yet WP:NCPP is indeed an exception to it (making such a premise false, for instance), and it does allow for other languages to be used under some requisites that are of application here. And that would be considering that "Catalonia Yes We Can" was the universal and unconflictive translation of the term, which it isn't. I believe I can't explain it clearer. Impru20 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:ENGLISH. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, less prevalent in English sources and no obvious translation; re IJBall, note that the first sentence explicitly states that an article title "should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" – and there is little indication that "Catalonia Yes We Can" fits that description, given its minimal usage in English-language sources. Defer to foreign-language names when English translations not used frequently in English sources or less frequently than original translation (e.g., this was the case for Debout la France). Mélencron (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2017 (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.

What's the position of this party to the independence referendum?

What's the position of Catalunya Sí que es Pot to the independence referendum? They abstained in the vote the referendum law and voted against the provisional constitution. Do they urge their voters to vote 'no' or to stay home?----Bancki (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)