Talk:Passante Ferroviario di Milano

This is a bad translation
The name of this page seem to have got entrenched and self-reinforcing, but I can't help feeling the literal translation of passante as passerby is absurd. If such a railway were to be named in English nowadays it would surely be called Crossrail. But this is a neologism. Milan avoiding line seems old-fashioned. Should we rename the article maybe Milan bypass railway?
 * Agree --Ita140188 (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done! TobyJ (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess bypass is better than passerby. But it isn't right; any native English speaker is going to be completely confounded by the idea of a x bypass that actually goes through x rather than going around x, which is the normal (universal?) usage in English. If I didn't know better, I would assume that a Milan bypass railway was a railway for freight and perhaps long distance passenger trains that didn't serve Milan, and I would imagine it running through open country many kms from the city centre. Personally, I think that an English speaker reader is probably better served by calling this the Milan Passante railway and not worrying about what Passante means. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are right. I'm not a native english speaker, so I don't know what actually could be the best translation, even if I understand that bypass is misleading in this case. I'm also ok with keeping the original italian name. --Ita140188 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Milan bypass railway → Milan Passante railway – for reasons described in previous section above – chris_j_wood (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; direct descriptive translations of the title into English are slightly misleading; better to give the real name and clarify the situation in the article text. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, the English translation is indeed misleading. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2012 (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.