Talk:Río Branco, Uruguay

Uruguay Mid‑importance

	Uruguay portal This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Uruguayan geography. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.UruguayWikipedia:WikiProject UruguayTemplate:WikiProject UruguayUruguay articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was move to Río Branco, Uruguay. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An incorrect move was made here, and the article should be moved again to the correct name. Does the actual name of this place include a diacrit over the 'i'?

Two choices:

Río Branco, Uruguay (accent acute in Río)
Rio Branco, Uruguay (no accent acute)

Somebody who knows please pick one. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the article's original creator, and I was in the process of expanding it with an infobox and links when I noticed that it had been moved. I didn't want to start an edit war, so I stopped what I was doing and left a note on the talk page of the user who made the move, calling for an agreed solution.

As for the diacritic sign, that is a difficult question, because Rio Branco is a city with a Portuguese name in a Spanish-speaking country, having been named in honor of the Brazilian diplomat who negotiated and defined all borders of Brazil, including the Uruguayan one. "River" is rio in both Portuguese and Spanish, but it takes an acute accent in Spanish (río), while in Portuguese it does not. The diplomat in question, the Baron of Rio Branco, definitely does not have a diacritic in Rio. So, do Uruguayans follow the convention for the name of the honored person, or do they follow that for the word "river" in their own language?

A Google search for Uruguayan pages mentioning the city was inconclusive, yielding both results. This is further complicated by the fact that Spanish speakers often tend to "Hispanicize" Portuguese words, in part because the very similarity of the languages can be confusing: for example, I have seen them misspell "Río de Janeiro" (with an acute accent), or be puzzled with the "ei" diphthong (unusual in Spanish) and write the more familiar but misspelled forms "Janiero" or "Janero" (neither of which is valid). In other words, they might be doing it simply out of custom. On the other hand, the Brazil-Uruguay border is very open and Rio Branco is in a largely bilingual area. Uruguayans from that area sometimes are so fluent in Portuguese as to have no noticeable Spanish accent. So, they are aware that in the language that originated their city's name, the latter does not have a diacritic.

However, the majority of mentions I could find to the city on Uruguayan web pages did have the diacritic (Río Branco). This includes the official Uruguayan census PDF document linked in the article, and the web site of the Department of Cerro Largo, where Rio Branco is located. The city's own (apparently unofficial) web site at [1] has both spellings, with Rio Branco (no diacritic) more usual in titles and Río Branco (with the diacritic) in texts. The Spanish-language Wikipedia article is also titled Río Branco (with the diacritic).

So, I would suggest that the article be moved to "Río Branco, Uruguay" (with the diacritic), but with a redirect page without the diacritic.

--UrsoBR (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not strongly opinionated on the title. I moved it to the line of text on the page because I assumed you couldn't add diacrits to the title. I thought the title and the copied text were the same, but I did not see the difference. Whatever is decided should be backed up with some source to verify that that is the correct title.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reference I have on the shelf, Oxford Essential World Atlas (2001), lists a Rio Branco, Brazil and a Río Branco, Uruguay... the accented 'í' is present only for the Uruguayan location. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Brazilian Rio Branco (a relatively large city and a state capital, very far from Uruguay but equally named in honor of the Baron) would not have an acute accent because the word rio ("river") does not have it in Portuguese. However, the same word does have it in Spanish (río), so again the question is whether to follow the convention for Portuguese (the language that originated the city's name, through the honored Brazilian diplomat) or Spanish (the language of the country where the city is located).

I created the article originally without the accent in the title (albeit with a redirect page containing it, if I am not mistaken) exactly because I was not sure about which rule to follow, so it was sort of arbitrary. But I have changed my mind now, because the majority of Uruguayan sample references I have found seem to have the accent in the name. Which references would be authoritative? I could only find two on official Uruguayan government pages (the census PDF linked in the article and the Cerro Largo department page linked above), and both have the accent. So, in my opinion it should have the accent, but there should also be a redirect page without it.

Since apparently there is no other combination of Río (Spanish, with an acute accent) with Branco (Portuguese), if the hybrid form is chosen (as I now propose), perhaps the main article's title could omit "Uruguay", because there would be no ambiguity in that case.

On a more practical note, just as a reminder or "to-do list", whatever is decided, the following pages, either main or redirects, should be reviewed and accordingly changed. I suppose a bot would take care of the categories.

I have no more to say. I believe we would be walking in circles from this point on, so I hope a decision is soon reached.

--UrsoBR (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be worth including Uruguay, to help readers and linkers pick the right one; otherwise we are disambiguating by the distinction between a dot and an acute accent, which is very easy to mistake. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with Río Branco, Uruguay (accent acute in Río). Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... and how pleasant it is to have such a civilised discussion. Andrewa (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.