Talk:Druk Phuensum Tshogpa

Untitled
What is this party's political ideology?--Martianmister (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080329011145/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5hxnEyiutZmx96QqGx7Z0SWpkcjkwD8VJTI0O0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxnEyiutZmx96QqGx7Z0SWpkcjkwD8VJTI0O0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304000449/http://www.election-bhutan.org.bt:80/module.php?Menu=Left&View=D_PARTY&PID=1002 to http://www.election-bhutan.org.bt/module.php?Menu=Left&View=D_PARTY&PID=1002

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus. See strong args supporting and opposing in the debate below; however, there seems to be no general agreement to rename. As is usual with a no-consensus result, editors may strengthen their args and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 13:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party → Druk Phuensum Tshogpa – Official name. — Bukhari    (Talk!)   08:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 11:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OFFICIALNAME is not usually enough to justify a move. As far as I can see the current title follows WP:NCUE. Only if it is common for the name to be transliterated and not translated, will this page be moved. Vycl1994 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the rationale given is not a reason to move. What do English-language sources call it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * English-language sources, , , , calling it Druk Phuensum Tshogpa not Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party.—  Bukhari    (Talk!)   08:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * These are mainly national and regional sources, it would be more convincing if US/UK/Canadian/Australian sources would be available. If there aren't any such sources, better stick to WP:NCUE. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * what about Bhutan United Party ?— Bukhari    (Talk!)   12:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks like a very similar case. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I got far more ghits for the proposed name than the current one  so although I'm very hostile to time-wasting RMs based on the official name rather than the article title policy this one seemed justified, just not on the rationale in the proposal. So I checked the first of the sources given above  and it is a reliable secondary source, is in English and uses the proposed name exclusively. Andrewa (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually get more via your second link (158) than via your first one (90). In both cases the numbers are so small that I doubt a common name has been established in English. Dekimasu よ! 06:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:Use English. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
, the evidence seems to me to indicate that the proposal is English. Not to you?

,, yes perhaps it would be better to have other sources, but the ones we do have (which include at least one reliable secondary source and possibly others, see above) seem to support the move. Is there any evidence the other way? Andrewa (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, there are a few hundred books that use the English version we have now. It's not the majority perhaps, but preferring English still seems sensible here, since the alternative will not be recognizable as the name of a party or anything associated with Bhutan. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That last sentence makes a very interesting point. We have as far as I can see always considered an English-language title to be either a descriptive phrase or a proper name, but in this case (and many others) there are elements of both. As a descriptive phrase, the translation is as you say more recognisable, and even to readers with no previous knowledge of the party. But as a proper name we assume that the more commonly used form is the more recognisable. At least that's the way our policy etc seems to work to me. Policy also of course dictates that rules are to be ignored in need. Does that make sense to you, so far? Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. Have a Merry Christmas. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And to you.
 * I'll try again. I think the point you are making is a good one. But, as far as I know such arguments have not been accepted in the past. While recognisability is certainly in the summary of WP:AT, the evidence that has been accepted as to whether the title is recognisable has been usage. You seem to be proposing that we also look at the underlying meaning. I think this is a good idea but probably won't work. It complicates the policy, which is not ideal, and I doubt we'd get consensus to do it anyway. Andrewa (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are tons of precedents for not having frequency of occurrence in sources determine our titles and styles. There are 5 WP:CRITERIA for us to consider, and COMMONNAME is one strategy for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, but not the only one. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


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