Talk:Séléka

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  19:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Séléka CPSK-CPJP-UFDR → Séléka – Per WP:COMMONNAME. the full alphabet soup is very rare in news sources; zero Google News Archive hits for "CPSK-CPJP-UFDR". I would have been WP:BOLD and moved it, but I'm not sure between Séléka or Seleka. See also the section for stats on names in news sources. jnestorius(talk) 22:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support - Seleka (Central African Republic) ("Alliance") is a Sango language term not French. See Guardian article Seleka rebels accuse CAR's president, François Bozizé, of reneging on peace deal to integrate opposition fighters into army. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, move to Seleka and displace the village/tribal people Seleka → Seleka (Botswana). The article mimics fr.wp, doesn't cover in detail the Seleka people who get several refs in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This disambiguators should not be country names because they are not of the same category (e.g, two places or two militias). Use Seleka (militia) and/or Seleka (village) instead. —  AjaxSmack   21:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as per nominator and In ictu oculi. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support a move to Séléka per nom and more natural disambiguation. There is already a hatnote at Seleka to direct readers here.  —  AjaxSmack   21:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

There are a few proposals now, so it's not clear which one people are supporting. This is my fault as I had erroneously assumed Seleka redirected here when I made the nomination.

A: What to name this page?
 * 1) Séléka CPSK-CPJP-UFDR as now
 * 2) Seleka CPSK-CPJP-UFDR
 * 3) Seleka + move Seleka
 * 4) Séléka
 * 5) leave Seleka as is
 * 6) make Seleka a redirect to Séléka, and move Seleka
 * 7) make Seleka a dab, and move Seleka
 * 8) Seleka (militia)
 * 9) leave Seleka as is
 * 10) make Seleka a dab, and move Seleka
 * 11) Seleka (Central African Republic)
 * 12) leave Seleka as is
 * 13) make Seleka a dab, and move Seleka

B: If the action for A involves moving Seleka, to what name?
 * 1) Seleka (village)
 * 2) Seleka (Botswana)
 * 3) Seleka, Botswana

Regarding the choice of Séléka vs Seleka. It seems (based on Sango language) that Séléka is not a valid Sango spelling and so must only be the French spelling. Sango and French are both official languages of the CAR, so one can argue that Séléka is just as correct a spelling, even though the word originates in the other language. The constituent group' names are French. What matters for the English Wikipedia is not French or Sango per se, but rather what English-language sources use. We don't care whether those sources are using "Seleka" as a faithful Sango spelling or as a simplification of the French "Séléka" spelling. OTOH if English sources are largely using the French spelling "Séléka", the fact that that is not the etymological origin of the name should not matter to us.

After all that. my vote would be for A3+B3; but I wouldn't object to anything except A1 or A2. jnestorius(talk) 22:05, 31 March 2013 (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.

Redundant moniker
I've removed this:
 * The international media has shortened this name to "Seleka" and created the ubiquitous redundant moniker "Seleka Alliance," which contravenes global news writing standards as it literally means "Alliance Alliance."

The source is a newspaper article. The article does not comment on what other media are calling the group. The evidence of the article's own usage is also weak: it uses the phrases "The Seleka alliance", "The rebel Seleka alliance", and "the Seleka troops" (the first two quotes are sentence-initial). The lowercase initial in "alliance" suggests that it is a description, not part of the name.

I currently get the following Google News hits:
 * "Seleka alliance": 10, of which 1 has uppercase A
 * "Seleka coalition": 75, of which 4 have uppercase C
 * "Séléka" - 'about 20,000'; the majority of the first page non-English
 * "Seleka" - 'about 22,600'

In brief, "Séléka alliance" is too rare to even mention. Also, saying "Séléka" means alliance, we don't need to point out that "Séléka alliance" is a pleonasm. Even if were common enough to mention, a simple wikilink to pleonasm or tautology would be sufficient, not a WP:SYNTH link to stylebooks that (allegedly) would proscribe it. I presume they are general advice about pleonasm, not specific to this one, since the books were published before the group was formed. Many people are tolerant of macaronic pleonasms. BTW, "news writing standards" is an WP:EASTEREGG. jnestorius(talk) 22:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You must be using a different version of Google news. For "Seleka alliance" I get 475 hits and for "Seleka coalition" it is 1,740. Nearly all of these published were before your comment. Keitsist (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a link that says "all 554 news sources", but clicking on those, they don't necessarily include the phrase "Seleka alliance" (or even the word "Seleka"). It's 'intelligent' matching that looks for the topic rather than the precise words, which is appropriate for most purposes but not ours. The 13 matches listed on the search results page have the exact phrase. jnestorius(talk) 12:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that this should have no place here. My removal (commented with "Wikipedia is not about righting wrongs like wrong translations") was reverted with a comment that roughly translates to "this is not about righting wrongs but to make future editors aware of the problem". But this is also not Wikipedia's goal. We do not offer guidelines on correct or incorrect usage of terms, we describe them as they are used. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello mortals... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:200:ECE0:8DD0:D13E:790C:6757 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)