Talk:German Paraguayans

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved per consensus. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:25pm • 09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC) — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:25pm • 09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Germans in Paraguay → German Paraguayan — It's more suitable to name it similarly to German-Brazilian and German-Argentine. Alphasinus (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Germans in the United States redirects to German American. Germans in Canada redirects to Canadians of German ethnicity. German Argentine, German Brazilian (neither have a dash as listed above), and German minority in Poland are other redirects from similar pages. There is no homogeneity, however I believe that there are other formats and would like to investigate the others before the move is made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not about Paraguayans in Germany. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You have it backward. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing backwards about it. There's two possible ways to interpret a sequence of two adjectives. Some countries put ethnicity first: Italian American, Korean Australian. Some countries put the host country name first: British Pakistani (about Pakistanis in Britain, not Britons in Pakistan), Malaysian Chinese, Burmese Indian. And some countries like Paraguay have no such naming convention at all, but Wikipedians have invented one for them, in a clear example of original research. cab (call) 08:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose proposed title is confusing and neologistic. General consensus opposes the use of such "double-barreled" neologisms except where they represent clearly predominant usage, e.g. Talk:Russians in China, Talk:Chinese people in Burma, Talk:Italians in Germany, etc. cab (call) 08:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: So will the last two editors, assuming that you're not the same and you're not sockpuppeting, propose that the articles mentioned above change as well? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have something to accuse me of, go file a checkuser request. If not, your time would be better spent familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's article titles guideline. Use common names: "Wikipedia ... uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". "Germans in Paraguay" gets hundreds of Google Books hits. "Germans * in Paraguay" gets hundreds more. In contrast "German Paraguayan" gets just 62 hits, half of which aren't even on topic but discuss state relations between Germany and Paraguay, or find cases where the words "German" and "Paraguayan" coincidentally appeared next to each other in a list of nationalities. In the plural form you get a mere three more hits.


 * "Homogeneity" among a set of articles is not the primary determinant of what the title should be. Besides, it is highly unlikely that reliable sources about Germans are going to follow the same naming convention for every single country that Germans emigrated to across the centuries, when these countries are spread all over the world, speak multiple languages, have widely differing attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism, etc. The terms "German Americans" and "German Argentines" are in reasonably widespread use, so no, I do not propose that those articles change. cab (call) 15:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Usage is a spurious argument since it simply reinforces the subject line. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the numbers I gave are for Google Books hits above. In contrast to web hits, the title of a Wikipedia article has little if any influence on the number of Google Books hits (you might see a single Books LLC result). cab (call) 15:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per cab who demonstrates that the current title is the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.