Talk:2012 Swiss referendums

Title
Since WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid arguement (goes for the one on the referendum page and the electoral calendar). OED gives this. Our article give s BOTH at referendum (which doesnt cite the quote in the lead and the article uses referenda all over the place). Further see (for counter points). \[http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/lets-figure-this-out-whats-the-real-plural-of-referendum-261522-Oct2011/ If ‘referendum’ means ‘referral’, then ‘referendums’ – by its inherent definition – pluralises the actual act of voting, according to the Oxford English Dictionary anyway. Using ‘referendums’, therefore, implies having several ballots on a single issue.] --> which says "The alternative – the attempt to pluralise a Latin word that can’t be pluralised, turning it into ‘referenda’ (just like ‘memoranda’) – implies the other option: the idea of having separate ‘referrals’, i.e. for separate measures." and the plural IS the case that it is for seperate measures.(Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).
 * The first link you provide is not the OED - it is a company trading on a similar name, possibly to make people think they are the OED. As for the third link which you are using to justify your stance, you have conveniently omitted its final sentence: "So – ‘referendums’ or ‘referenda’? As it turns out, it’s all really just a matter of preference." Although there are no doubt a few exceptions to the rule, Wikipedia has always used referendums. I myself originally used referenda on here until it was pointed out to me by another editor that it was incorrect. Number   5  7  08:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the usage of rferendums too. But you were correct...even the WP article doesnt differentiate or point to referendums(Lihaas (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)).

I have now moved it to "referendums" on the basis that there are numerous ones to be held on different dates during the year. Number  5  7  17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)