Talk:Die Freiheitlichen

message: Apart from our suspicion that users in the future may interpret WP:UE too aggressively and move it away, do we have any specific reason why the article shouldn't move to Die Freiheitlichen? (Or perhaps, to avoid confusion with the Austrian party, to Die Freiheitlichen (South Tyrol)?) Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced, many here haven't read WP:UE, otherwise they would have noticed the advice: 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....  And as we have in fact no reliable sources at all, moving to Die Freiheitlichen is the solution suggested by WP:UE.--Sajoch (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read WP:UE, I have to say that there are several reliable sources using "Freedomites" (or for that matter, "Libertarians"), thus I continue to support the opportunity of an English name.--Checco (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Die Freiheitlichen?

message: Let me summarize the votes (you're free to add/edit)
Die Freiheitlichen
:Support: Sajoch (due WP:UE we should use commonly used name)
:Support: Rafaelgr
:Support: RJFF (my clear preference)
:Oppose: Checco (not easily understandable by readers)
:Support: QuartierLatin1968 (natural and obvious choice, but less likely to survive)
:Support: Gryffindor ( it is best to leave it with the native name instead of inventing something that would be original research)
Freiheitliche Partei Südtirol
The Freedomites
:Support: Checco (it is a more literal translation)
:Oppose: Rafaelgr (sounds terrible)
:Oppose: QuartierLatin1968 (It sounds more like a portmanteau of 'freedom' and 'sodomite' than a legitimate translation; awkward and unacceptable)
:weak Oppose: RJFF (Freedomite is not an established English word)
:Oppose: Sajoch (arbitrary translation - not endoresed by mainstream media)
:Support: Autospark (it's inelegant, but it works)
:Oppose: Gryffindor (Freedomites sounds indeed strange)
The Freedomites (South Tyrol)
:Oppose: Sajoch (arbitrary translation - not endoresed by mainstream media)
The Libertarians
:Oppose: 217.14.7.98 (false translation - is not a Libertarian Party)
:Oppose: Sajoch (arbitrary translation - not endoresed by mainstream media)
:Support: Checco (this the title for fully 6 years - I support all the possible translations)
:Oppose: RJFF (is the worst possible option)
:Support: Q·L·1968 ☿ (etymologically impeccable)
Freedom Party of South Tyrol 
:Oppose: RJFF (would be acceptable, if there was not a different Freedom Party of South Tyrol)
:Support: Checco (the best solution - and move the other to Freedom Party of South Tyrol (1988))
:Support: Autospark (it is a near enough translation)
:Support: Checco (I support all the possible translations)
:Oppose: Sajoch (arbitrary translation - not endoresed by mainstream media)
:Oppose: RJFF (not beneficial for English-language readers)
:Support: Q·L·1968 ☿ (analogy with Austrian party, part of South Tyrolean party's name)
Freedom Party (South Tyrol)
:Support: QuartierLatin1968 (analogy with Austrian party, part of South Tyrolean party's name)
:Support: Checco (acceptable)
:Oppose: Sajoch (arbitrary translation - not endoresed by mainstream media)
:Oppose: RJFF (not beneficial for English-language readers)
Freedom (South Tyrol)
:weak Support: Autospark (that is IMO worse than any of the other suggested solutions)
:Oppose: Sajoch ("Freedom" is not the party's name - not endoresed by mainstream media)
:Oppose: Q·L·1968 ☿
--Sajoch (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate Sajoch's diligence, but I think that the above summary is a little bit arbitrary as it includes an arbitrary choice of each user's words and does not acknowledge some of the advancements in the discussion. I won't take part to the summary. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I really tried hard to include all expressed opinions... But hey, this is Wikipedia. As I said, you're free to add/edit, like QuartierLatin and Autospark have thankfully done.--Sajoch (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I see my main arguments pretty well summarized. --RJFF (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary (move-requests) 

message: Five users (Autospark, QL1968, RJFF, Sajoch and I) have consistently took part to the discussion on the article's name. There is no consensus yet, thus I reverted yesterday's move by Sajoch and moved the article back to "The Libertarians", though I like better "The Freedomites". --Checco (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus for move 

message: Two months ago this article, which was long named "The Libertarians" (for six years), "The Freedomites" (for eight months) and again "The Libertarians", was moved without consensus. There is no need here to repeat arguments and chronologies (anyone can read the above discussions), but I feel it's useful to remember how the current name, which is BTW the original-language name of the party, is the result of an aggressive decision by one user, whose irregular move was approved by an administrator who ignored the lack of consensus. I'm not going to move the article again today, but I'm going to add two possible translations, which were consistently mentioned during the previous months and are supported by sources. --Checco (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  To not forget 

message: The article on Nationalia is from 2008 and takes its wisdom from this Wikipedia-article. Also the map there is copied from Wikipedia. We are not allowed to create circular references with Wikipedia. I aready notified this a few months ago (see above). See WP:CIRC. Please pay attention.--Sajoch (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the map, there is no evidence that the source is copied from Wikipedia. Its content is not included in any article of the encyclopedia, as far as I know. Also, the fact that the source dates back to 2008 is not a problem; why would it be? I will thus re-insert the source. --Checco (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's abundant evidence for a circular reference: Your naming of this article (in February 2007) predates the existence of the referred document (dated October 2008), so you cannot use it for your purpose. Even in case of doubt, we don't need that reference (you already added 4 references, so a fifth is pure bloat), so why bother to include it?!? Stop continually reverting my edits - that's pure vandalism. If you insist, I will invalidate also the other 4 references, as they are even more recent in time. This is the last warning.--Sajoch (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a quite strange guy, who always tries to impose his views without consensus. You got the article's name as you wanted and without having sought any consensus, but you always want more. There is no evidence that the source was copied/inspired by this Wikipedia article (yours is a mere supposition), thus I will re-insert it. The fact is that there are plenty of sources translating Freiheitlichen into "Libertarians" or "Freedomites", and you don't want that to be known. Of course, if you are going to produce evidence that the source was copied/inspired by Wikipedia, I will be the first to support its removal from the article. --Checco (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not YOUR article. All references you cite are posterior to your arbitrary namings. You should find references which predate your edits - good luck!--Sajoch (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean it is YOURS? You act like you think it is and it is the only thing you do on Wikipedia. Moreover, you should know that my favourite translation is "The Freedomites", not "The Libertarians". --Checco (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

text: The source is as good as others. The main problem here is that Sajoch, a single-issue user obsessed with this article, gets what he wants virtually always, without seeking and/or obtaining consensus. Why should we appease him also on this? Isn't the source OK? --Checco (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Sajoch is behaving in an inappropriate way on WP by not seeking consensus, over-riding other users and causing needless arguments. This is a collective endeavour, and needs to be solved by consensus rather than a single user unilaterally dominating an article.--Autospark (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't cite articles, which cite Wikipedia! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Die Freiheitlichen. 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/20130228024920/http://elezioni.interno.it/camera/scrutini/20130224/C060140000.htm to http://elezioni.interno.it/camera/scrutini/20130224/C060140000.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified