[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requested moves

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tcr25 (talk | contribs) at 16:23, 20 January 2021 (→Contested technical requests: Sami/Sámi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.
Add a new request
Remove all requests

Technical requests

Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requests

  • Maximinus Daia (currently a redirect to Maximinus Daza) → Maximinus Daza (move · discuss) – article and sources say Daza is the correct form Avilich (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Contested technical requests: Sami/Sámi
    • @IceWelder: There was previously no consensus regarding the spelling of "Sami" to use. Originally, the spelling of all articles was uniformly "Sami" until one user started moving them without any discussion. The discussion clearly shows that those moves were contested, so they shouldn't have happened but were never reverted. A consensus is needed before any single spelling is enforced across all articles. Rua (mew) 16:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @IceWelder: I had just obeyed these 10 move requests; I now have reverted them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rua and Anthony Appleyard: Ah, I wasn't aware of this, sorry! I just saw that the primary topics used "Sámi" and wanted to bring in some consistency. Pinging @SMcCandlish: in good faith, but if there is no case for having "Sámi" in these articles, it shouldn't be used in any article title and the unilateral reverts should be reverted. IceWelder [✉] 17:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a new discussion/vote is held, I suggest holding it at Talk:Sami people, as it is the most general article on the topic. Better than holding it here. Rua (mew) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, it looks like another discussion was held at Talk:Sámi Assembly of 1917#Requested move 15 June 2020. Rua (mew) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, there have been several follow-on discussions in the years since my (also well-meaning but ill-advised) mass move. The closest to a consensus that I detect emerging from the totality of these discussions is that for populations, organizations, dialects, and other article contexts confined to a particular country and predominant native language, the spellings used in those places or by those subjects should be preferred, since they'll agree with the most RS (WP:COMMONNAME) that are about those specific populations, organizations, parliaments, laws, etc., etc. And many of them, when it comes to particular institutions, have proper "official" names in English anyway (usually findable with choose-the-display-language options on their websites), and should not be renamed by Wikipedia. This kind of stuff will vary on a case by case basis. However, for subjects like Sámi languages and Sámi people, that span the entire geo-cultural range of these topics and are not specific to Finland or to Sweden or to wherever, the dominant spelling in general use in high-quality reliable sources should be used, again per COMMONNAME, and this does appear to be Sámi. Articles that use other spellings but are not about a narrower subtopic confined to a region with a different preferred spelling like Sami or Saami, should use Sámi per WP:CONSISTENT. That is, the argument to use Sami or Saami is going to be a case-by-case argument for an exception based on dominant contemporary RS usage in English (and sometimes WP:ABOUTSELF) for that specific sub-topic. IIRC, there's a Sámi language or dialect that does not use the diacritic, so that particular one should not have the diacritic when we name it.

        In short, yes, they should be individually discussed, but most should probably move to the Sámi spelling. Ngrams: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] – it's clear that Saami has been disused for a long time (except rare appearance still in some proper names), while Sámi has been steadily gaining ground in the 21st century (presumably due to it no longer being a big mystery, in the Unicode age, how to get more than basic keyboard characters to consistently show up on computers). Sámi has mostly overtaken Sami already, and certainly has when the context is wide/generic, e.g. "Sámi languages", "Sámi peoples" in the plural; a singular "Sámi language/people" may be hitting many (even a majority) of results in sentences that are about specific countries or dialects, so the usage is more mixed between Sámi and Sami in those instances.

        There are already other parallels. An obvious example is Athabaskan-speaking indigenous peoples of the Americas: the Dene, Diné (Navajo) and Indé[ne] (Apache), among many others, including Dena'ina/Tanaina (of AK), Tanana (of YT), Dëne Sųłiné (Chipewyan, of NT/NU/SK/AB), several with -t'ine (T'atsaot'ine and Deh Gah Got'ine of NT), etc. (This dene/dine/dena/tana root means '[the] people', i.e. it's equivalent the teut-/deut- element in Germanic.) Their orthographies – spelling and accent marks – are treated separately for each specific case, while as a group, the COMMONNAME is Athabaskan languages. The older tern Na-Dene is now confined to a specific cluster of them when used at all, and just Dene by itself (as a language family name, rather than a name for the Dene peoples of NT/NU) is used less still. But when used, the dominant form for these general classifiers has Dene, without diacritics, or a T, or an a or an i; we would not rewrite to "Na-Diné", "Na-Tena", etc., or use "Dena", "Tana", or "Dëne" alone. If the common form in RS had instead been or become "Na-T'ine" or whatever, then that it what WP would use when using this term. It's not a perfect parallel, of course; in most of these cases, these groups and languages have other more common names in English, so our articles have titles like Navajo and Navajo language. But the point is, we use the most common name in RS for the overall group, and then use for specific subtopics the names and spellings most appropriate for each of those on a case-by-case basis, even if they do not match each other. (Whether it's in the title or not is immaterial as to the orthographic point). That is, we do not impose a false consistency across narrower-topic names that conflicts with RS treatment of those names. Nor would we make up a fake generic name by imposing diacritics from a specific name that weren't found in the generic name in the RS material. Fortunately, Sámi languages/​peoples/​parliaments/​organizations/​regions/​etc. is a very well-attested and now dominant usage, with Sami and Saami variances decreasing.
         — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        PS: One consequence of the "slow move-war" stuff with these articles is that the lead sections of many of them have become a confusing shambles, e.g. "Pite Sami or Arjeplog Sámi ...", where Sámi, which dominates in modern linguistic/anthropological material in most (though not all) of these cases has been retained on the MOS:BOLDSYNs, but has been stripped to Sami at the start of the lead sentence just to agree with article title changes, even if this doesn't match what the sources are mostly saying. Each of these needs to be examined an article at a time, and moved and rewritten to use the spelling most common for that language/dialect/population. This should be done without imposing a diacritic if the dialect doesn't use it, or removing one if it does, unless the RS just overwhelmingly contradict the in-dialect usage (i.e., there is a potential for an endonym/exonym conflict in some cases).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • Following on SMcCandlish's comments. I agree that the bend is towards Sámi and in general that spelling should be the preferred in most cases with the primary exception being insititutions, such as the Saami Council, that use a different spelling in English. I'm not sure I agree, however, with the idea that in the en.wiki article title for different Sámi languages that the Sámi spelling should be used only if the language's orthography includes á. Southern Sámi and Skolt Sámi do not use á, but a quick Google Scholar search shows that using Sámi in English is quite common [9][10][11] when talking about both groups. There's also the matter of Inari Sámi having á in its orthography, but not in the word for Sámi; Kemi and Kainuu Sámi which went extinct before an official orthography was codified; and Akkala, Kildin, and Ter Sámi, which are written in Cyrillic alphabets with varying Latinization/transliteration schemes that may or may not include á. My sense, based in large part on how transnational Sámi institutions like the Saami Council handles the word in English (they use Saami in the organization's name, but otherwise Sámi dominates [12][13][14]), is that Sámi should be the default spelling absent clear evidence that another spelling dominates. Carter (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In old times I read sometimes that Finnish "Suomi" = "Finland" came from Finnish "suo" = "swamp".

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1001639318"