Talk:Río de la Plata/name

message: Why is there a reference to "Sierra del Plata"?  Tomertalk 17:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Sierra del Plata article, short as it is, does a good job of explaining how this place got its name. Jonathunder 03:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that wasn't the question...the question was why "del" and not "de la".  If I can find it, I'll post SK's cogent response here, in case anyone else comes along and has the question.  Tomertalk 05:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sierra del Plata says it is an archaic Spanish form. Perhaps someone familiar with the evolution of the Spanish language can expand on that? Jonathunder 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move due to lack of consensus, slight majority against even. —Nightstallion (?) 07:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is arrogant and unwarranted. A consensus is not necessary, the present name is against Wikipedia policy to use the most common name in English. The article should be moved to River Plate and I urge anyone with the requisite powers to undertake the move. Grant65 | Talk 08:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is arrogant about this? There's sound arguments in favour and against the move, common usage isn't clear (either form is used), and the vote wasn't decisive, either, so the article stays where it is. WP:AGF and WP:NPA, if you please would. —Nightstallion (?) 08:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sierra del Plata]] 

message: *Oppose: Río de la Plata appears to be much more common, even in English. Jonathunder 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: :: Please do not presume to tell me what I did and did not do.  Page moves now show up automatically in the edit history, yes; but before the software upgrade in December 2004 (IIRC) they did not - see Wikipedia:Page_move and look at my page move log, which has no entries before 23 December 2004 despite my having been an admin for several months by then and having made many moves suggested on WP:RM.  As I said above, if I did the delete then I am almost certain that I would have moved the page, even if the edit history does not say so.  If you look at the edit cited by Jooler, (a) it has the edit summary "Río de la Plata -> River Plate", which is not the standard edit summary that is generated automatically for a page move these days (and in those days there was no box for adding extra commmentary on a page move); and (b) that edit actually changes the content of the page, tidying the lead section to reflect the new page name:  you may have noticed that it is not possible move and edit at the same time.  I suspect that that edit was made shortly after I deleted the page and made the move.  
::It is abundantly clear from the discussion above that there is no consensus on what this article should be called, and that both "River Plate" and "Río de la Plata" are widely used.  I think you accept that the move in November 2004 was entirely valid (although I was wrong to say that it was not challenged for over a year: the first substantial negative comment I am aware of is the move in October 2005, almost one year later).  Given the lack of consensus above for one or the other, I think it should be returned there as the last place where there was a consensus for it to be.  -- ALoan (Talk) 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-closing discussion

message: The naming dispute has gone on too long, and consensus is clearly unreachable.  The following poll is the deciding vote on the name and, when it closes, should be accepted without further move wars.
This is an approval vote, meaning that you vote for the names which you find acceptable (there is no object/oppose vote).  You can vote for more than one choice if you wish.  The result will be determined in seven days of the vote starting (28 January 2006 at 1pm UTC), whereby the article will be located at the name which has a majority.  In the event of a draw the vote will be extended for 48 hours.
The current name of the article and the history of its naming should not be influential on your vote - it is what is most appropriate that counts.  You should also refrain from adding comments to this section - use the above discussion sections for that.  violet/riga (t) 12:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support--Lagarto 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another naming poll 

message: #Support - LordAmeth 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Río de la Plata

message: (note the lack of diacritic)
#Support - LordAmeth 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rio de la Plata

message: #Support -- Arwel (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support--Lagarto 02:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: River Plate

message: The result of this poll is that this article should be known as Río de la Plata.  While some people may see this as against the "use English" policy, the overwhelming majority view is that the commonly-used named for this river, and thus the correct one to use given the "use common names" policy, is Río de la Plata.
Thanks to all that voted and discussed this issue.  violet/riga (t) 17:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the "Rio de la Plata", same as the "Rio Grande"... I would say. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to be so blunt, but democracy is democracy. It wouldn't have been a travesty if you had stood  in the other side of the fence. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A real democracy accurately reflects the wishes and interests of all of the people on behalf of whom it speaks. This is a democracy full of malapportionment, gerrymandering and bias. It has acted in the names of some English speakers, namely those from the US and South America, rather than all of them. Grant65 | Talk 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quotation attributed to Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - mako 04:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant, If the "rest of the people" had cared enough to vote (and to vote your way) then it wouldn't have been a problem. The problem is that the people who voted did so in a way that you don't agree with. Since we can't poll every single english speaker, we need to go by what we have here. And what we have is people who prefer "Rio de la Plata". Don't be a sore loser. We voted twice (with the same result), let's move on. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All sources except common usage, and that's what we go by. Do a check of .au websites, or .uk, or .ca, or .in, or anywhere else in the English speaking world. Grant65 | Talk 06:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what you believe. Wikipedians mostly disagree. Why don't let it go. Morover, what's the harm if people calls it any other way? Or if common usage changes? Or if non native speakers of English coopt the language for their own communication purposes? Do you really think that there is a real connection between the string of letters "River Plate" and the physical entity? Or perhaps to the Spirit of the Waters? Enough is enough. User:Ejrrjs  says What? 07:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no more "connection" for Rio de la Plata. Why should I let it go? Everyone needs a hobby :-) Anyway, we Wikipedians do not represent common usage, which is what this is all about. We should be voting on our perception of common usage in English, not our personal preference. I also believe the preponderance of US editors on Wikipedia has led us to a "non-NPOV" result. People in the US do not seem to be highly aware of Club Atletico River Plate or the Battle of the River Plate, which is presumably why the name of the movie was changed to Pursuit of the Graf Spee in the US. (Why wasn't it called Battle of Rio de la Plata? Rhetorical question.) Clearly neither Rio de la Plata or River Plate have much cultural or historical significance to people in the US. So I wonder why they care what it's called. As for common usage changing, I think that is exactly what some people are trying to do here. Wikipedia is reasonably influential, I'm sure usage will change to some degree as a result of this outcome. I don't know if it will ever overshadow knowledge of the battle or the club among non-US English speakers. As for "non native speakers of English coopting the language", what can I say! That is decidedly not NPOV and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm amazed that anyone would admit to such a thing. Grant65 | Talk 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: We should not stop using our own language for place names. The main effect is that people simply acquire less geographical knowledge because it becomes harder to remember. Words  written with diacretics are not in English. CalJW 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the "Rio de la Plata", same as the "Rio Grande"... I would say. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to be so blunt, but democracy is democracy. It wouldn't have been a travesty if you had stood  in the other side of the fence. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A real democracy accurately reflects the wishes and interests of all of the people on behalf of whom it speaks. This is a democracy full of malapportionment, gerrymandering and bias. It has acted in the names of some English speakers, namely those from the US and South America, rather than all of them. Grant65 | Talk 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quotation attributed to Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - mako 04:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant, If the "rest of the people" had cared enough to vote (and to vote your way) then it wouldn't have been a problem. The problem is that the people who voted did so in a way that you don't agree with. Since we can't poll every single english speaker, we need to go by what we have here. And what we have is people who prefer "Rio de la Plata". Don't be a sore loser. We voted twice (with the same result), let's move on. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All sources except common usage, and that's what we go by. Do a check of .au websites, or .uk, or .ca, or .in, or anywhere else in the English speaking world. Grant65 | Talk 06:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what you believe. Wikipedians mostly disagree. Why don't let it go. Morover, what's the harm if people calls it any other way? Or if common usage changes? Or if non native speakers of English coopt the language for their own communication purposes? Do you really think that there is a real connection between the string of letters "River Plate" and the physical entity? Or perhaps to the Spirit of the Waters? Enough is enough. User:Ejrrjs  says What? 07:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no more "connection" for Rio de la Plata. Why should I let it go? Everyone needs a hobby :-) Anyway, we Wikipedians do not represent common usage, which is what this is all about. We should be voting on our perception of common usage in English, not our personal preference. I also believe the preponderance of US editors on Wikipedia has led us to a "non-NPOV" result. People in the US do not seem to be highly aware of Club Atletico River Plate or the Battle of the River Plate, which is presumably why the name of the movie was changed to Pursuit of the Graf Spee in the US. (Why wasn't it called Battle of Rio de la Plata? Rhetorical question.) Clearly neither Rio de la Plata or River Plate have much cultural or historical significance to people in the US. So I wonder why they care what it's called. As for common usage changing, I think that is exactly what some people are trying to do here. Wikipedia is reasonably influential, I'm sure usage will change to some degree as a result of this outcome. I don't know if it will ever overshadow knowledge of the battle or the club among non-US English speakers. As for "non native speakers of English coopting the language", what can I say! That is decidedly not NPOV and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm amazed that anyone would admit to such a thing. Grant65 | Talk 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *It takes a certain amount of manual gestures in a book to find a word, and some more if there is a written note like : see ... (somewhere else).
*It takes one click with html.
Wikipedia allows multiple redirects and the original article is nowhere : the title and URL may vary and the content stays the same.
Let us think about the difference between common usage and rules. Common usage may vary with time and places ; rules need to stay a little longer, but they need to evolve smoothly too. Then let us admit that both can live together without sad feelings.
In French, London has been :fr:Londres for centuries. But I won't shed a tear if this changes. Chinese names did change many times, and it makes me a little dizzy, that's all. See also Mozart's name. Did you know ? It was Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. --DLL 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not paper (neither silver)