Talk:Colorado Party (Uruguay)

No-section comment
This page seriously needs a local expert to fix it up, because right now it's status is utterly awful. Gracias, Hauser 06:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Article name
I renamed this article (along with the Paraguayan equivalent) and it got reverted. The reason I did this is that the party's name is simply a color, and not a name that should be kept untranslated. In fact, the opposing party is simply called "Partido Blanco" (that's "white party"). Interesingly enough, in this case the article was given the proper name, instead of calling it "Rødt Party". --uKER (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Britannica says: The two principal traditional political parties are the Colorado (“Red”) Party (which has had a liberal urban base) and the Blanco (“White”), or National, Party... . "Colorado Party" is also the usual form found in both news and academic sources. Per WP:COMMONNAME, there is no case to rename. Rd232 talk 00:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What you're suggesting is the equivalent of the Spanish Wikipedia listing the US parties as "Partido Democratic" and "Partido Republican"; a ridiculous and unnecessary mix of English and Spanish considering the parties' names are plain words and not proper names, and as such they should just be translated. Coincidently with this, the article for the Red Party's opposing force is appropriately called "National Party (Uruguay)" and not "Nacional Party", and its lead lists its alternate name as "White Party" and not some nonsensical "Blanco Party". --uKER (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the mixing of English and Spanish is a bit odd. But if that's the usual form in English for this subject (and it appears to be), then that's what the article name should be. That the usual form for other parties is different is irrelevant. Oh and for the National Party it may be that "National Party" is the usual form - it's harder to check that. But "Blanco Party" is more common than "White Party" in scholarly sources. Rd232 talk 09:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hooray for consistency. --uKER (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes - consistently using the most common name. Rd232 talk 17:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)