Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations/archive

=Archive made 09:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)=

Proposed changes to non-English WOSM member article titles
User:Evrik proposes changes of article titles to nearly all articles in Category:WOSM member organizations according to the translations given on http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/countries/national_scout_organisations (see Special:Contributions/Evrik).

In my experience scout.org is not very accurate - neither in its translations nor in the membership numbers or the years Scouting started: Nearly all of their data are incorrect.

One example: Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände is translated as Scout Federation of Germany, which is neither a official translation (there is none) nor a literal one (which would be Circle of German Scout Associations). Worse, the proposed translation could also apply to the non-aligned Deutscher Pfadfinderverband so we would need a disambiguation page for two articles wich are really clear divided when using the official German titles.

I'm not really happy that Evrik started renaming of articles before finishing the discussion (it started on Talk:Association of Catholic Guides and Scouts of Italy) but I won't revert his edits until we finish this discussion. --jergen 09:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: Pls see also WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards. We have to change this rule when following Evrik's proposal to Articles must have an English title - even if its not used, inofficial, incorrect or ambigious. --jergen 09:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the one Italian article, jergen, not the whole lot, and that was because WOSM National Scout Organisations had it listed as such.


 * I did however, tag most the European members of the WOSM for one reason ... they don't fit in with the established policy set forth at WikiProject_Scouting/RulesStandards. I quote the first paragraph, "Use the Wiki guideline at Naming conventions to name articles. This same guideline says to use the Roman alphabet and standard English spelling (ie, Vienna not Wien). It also says to use the original spelling and alphabet in the first line of the article. Only use the foreign name if it meets this standard: If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language." 


 * I believe I am correctly quoting the policy. I have no intent on making a mass change without some sort of discussion, but I wanted to start that discussion. What does everyone else think? --evrik 09:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you quoted right, but in most cases there is no commonly used English translation. The transaltions given by WOSM are quite rough (often wrong) and made up from a set of standard translations. I think they are given as a hint for the reader. Normally - even in its official documents - WOSM uses the original language when adreesing an association (one of several examples ). --jergen 09:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not going to spend my entire weekend arguing this case. I also don't want to quibble about whether or not each of the translations is bad or not. I think that having the titles in a foreign language, when they can be translated into something more easily understood benefits the reader. If you don't want to accept the English version of thr WOSM as a guide, then how do you suggest we come up with an acceptbale standard for translating them into English? --evrik 10:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One more example for the unaccurateness of scout.org . The informations on Belgian Scouting given by WOSM are outdated and incorrect.
 * For literal translations pls see the respective talk pages - WOSM gives bad translation even when the association uses an official English translation of its title. --jergen 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You quoted the rule right above "If there is no commonly used English name" - and this is correct in nearly all proposed cases - with the only exception of Scouts of Greece. So why change the names; they are all within the rules of WP:UE? --jergen 10:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Greece ... I think I went with the one on the WOSM page, which is different (and I was trying to hold to one standard). I don't think that literal translations are always the best. If the Belgian Scouting page is outdated, then we should look for an acceptable English translation. I'm not trying to advocate English only, or English always, but a lot of these page title don't make sense on the English wiki (like the Magyar one). --evrik 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The guideline says "only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form". For those scouting associations, where there is no anglicizid form, this clearly and unambiguously states to use the native spelling. And it does so for good reason: There will always be several ways to translate the proper names of the associations, which will create ambiguities. LARS 12:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion 1

 * If moving any of the articles, we shold use the official translations and not those given by WOSM.
 * scout.org is no reliable source, half of the cases where a official translation exists are wrong. This means: We shouldn't accept scout.org as single source for a move.
 * In every case we should check he usage via Google; a move does not make sense when the English translation is not in use on English pages but the non-English is heavenly used. Please remember, that the title should show the commonly used form. --jergen 13:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to the discussion: In my humble opinion we definitely should NOT use a translated name or title that is not really commonly used in English. Adding a redirect for a proposed translation is fine, but, e.g., moving Scouting Nederland to Scouting Netherlands should be a lead verybody astray. So, feel free to add redirects for all WOSM-based names (which are known to be very inaccurate), but generally please keep the articles at their proper name. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 16:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

Also coming here via the Scouting Nederland, I feel that we should only switch to English names if the organizations themselves have declared an English alternative. The translations by WOSM are clearly not making sense and certainly not used commonly, whereas coming up with new translations ourselves constitutes clear original research. So only move the organizations which have chosen an english name for themselves seem like the solution to me. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This has come up before and needs settled once and for all. As I said last time, However the article names end up, we need redirects for each one. I strongly suggest no more changes be made til this is settled. Rlevse 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that Scouting Nederland is close enough to what it would be in English that it may not matter, but it isn't grammatically correct in English, nor is it what is on the WOSM page. It is however, the name used on the English verion of their own page... The case of Scouting Nederland makes me think that we may have to address each of the titles separately. In any case, these are some of my thoughts.


 * Whatever name we decide on, should make sense in English. We may have to address each one individually, but we should rely on the WOSM page, or a documented official trnslation. If there is no official translation, the name should be translated into a form that makes sense in English. Savez izviđača Hrvatske to Scout Association of Croatia is a good example. --evrik 02:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If we have to address each one individually, we can close this discussion and split it in (estimated) 150 individual discussions... --jergen 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favor of splitting up the discussion at this time. I also don't want this to descend into a debate between which is better, the The Judean People's Front or the The People's Front of Judea. --evrik 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion 2
As far as I can see, there are four main points which should be resolved: I hope this will help to focus the discussion. I ask you to concentrate on these central questions and not to discuss individual solutions. --jergen 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do we need a common rule or should we go for individual solutions?
 * 2) How should WP:UE be applied? (Mainly: When is an English translation seen as "commonly used"?)
 * 3) What sources can be used? (Mainly: Is scout.org a reliable source?)
 * 4) Can we use "own" translations (as article titles/redirects) or is this original research?


 * I'd say individual solutions, given the diversity of names and problems (sometimes a single, sometimes multiple organizations per country for example).
 * As I stated above, only use the English name if the organization itself uses it. WP:UE says: If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration, but this is followed by: Latin-alphabet languages, ..., should need no transliteration.
 * Scout.org clearly was wrong in a few cases on the list mentioned above, so I'd say only use the sites of the individual organizations (see number 2)
 * That definately is original research in my view. We are also not inventing new names for cities that have no English name, are we?
 * --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As I am writing this, I am referring to both WikiProject Scouting - Rules Standards, Article names and  Wikipedia:Naming conventions. My comments on Jergen’s four points.


 * 1) We need a common rule or framework that we can use to address the whole group. The individual solutions should all be reflected in our framework. This means that the framework will have more than one rule. We should use the name that makes the most sense and is grammatically correct in English.
 * 2) I’m only half serious when I remind you all that this is the English-language Wikipedia-- not Wikipédia, or “Википедии.” Would it be wrong to paraphrase Wikipedia policy as “to use the name that most people in that language would refer to it as?” I think that we use English whenver we can, with a redirect in the orginal language, and the original language name in the first line. English language users would not say Hitachdut Hatsofim Ve Hatsofot Be Israel, but would say Israel Boy and Girl Scouts Federation.
 * 3) We use whatever sources are necessary (scout.org, individual country websites, etc).
 * 4) If an organization itself doesn’t use an English language name we can use our own translations – this does not mean literal translations unless they make sense, Beslidhja Skaut Albania and Albanian Scout Association. I think that if we can agree on guidelines, that we can come to consensus on the names – and no, this is not original research. This is an effort to make our work more accessible to people using the English language Wikipedia.
 * --evrik 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Taking up your example - AFAIK nobody here speaks Albanian; so how do we know that Beslidhja Skaut Albania means Albanian Scout Association? (BTW: Bes-/Besa seems to have some connections to "oath".) Another example for the difficulties of translating can be read at Talk:Association of Catholic Guides and Scouts of Italy.
 * Just my answers - some hours after posing the questions:
 * I'd like to have a framework of rules that should have some flexibility. Such a framework avoids unnecessary discussions; if we go for individual solutions we may repeat the same discussion quite often.
 * Commonly used English translations are to me
 * all official translations (by the bearer of the name)
 * translations that are in frequent use in English sources (except copies of the WOSM membership list); this is not the case if English sources use the non-English name and give only once the English translation; perhaps the usage could be checked via Google?
 * I'd like to propose a kind of ranking of possible sources: 1. official sources (material published by the respective association); 2. reliable web sources; 3. unreliable web sources that should be crossreferences. Actually, I'd put scout.org in 3, since it's known for its inaccurateness.
 * I do not think that translations are original research, but we should use them carefully: In all those cases without good sources we should leave the article under the non-English title; it should have a redirect from the English translation. I'm against translations that "are known to be incorrect but may make sense".
 * Why did I exclude the "copies of the WOSM membership list" from the sources for common use? Quite simple: to me a copy is not a real use, it's just repeating anybody else's standpoint. --jergen 16:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what Jergen says ... the biggest difference of opinion is the authority of the WOSM.org page, which he completely disregards. --evrik 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes the proposal sounds fair. I still feel we should be very careful in translating ourselves, given the problems that undoubtly will arise (see the italian example). But in clear-cut cases I now agree we can go aheed with translating. With regard to WOSM, I certainly would give it less authority then the individual organizations themselves, but treat it similar to other websites. WOSM doesn't have any authority over the names of the national organizations. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I rated scout.org/WOSM in the category of unreliable source since its database is bad; it's not only the bad translation but it gives also wrong years for Scouting started in many cases (until recently scout.org gave 1949 for Germany, correct is 1910). Links to websites are outdated or not mentioned, and so on. --jergen


 * I think there is a consensus that the names should be moved to English titles. Does anyone want to draft the rules? --23:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is consensus to move with great care and only in clear-cut cases. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus is that the names should be in English. The disagreeement is how do we get a version that is acceptable to everyone. --evrik (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Framework
These changes are being done in order to bring the foreign-language article titles into compliance with the spirit of both WikiProject Scouting - Rules Standards, Article names and  Wikipedia:Naming conventions.


 * Each foreign-language page will be discussed in the order that it appears on the WOSM page. The first page will be Beslidhja Skaut Albania, and the last The Boy Scouts Association of Zimbabwe. Notifications will be made on each talk page, but the discussion will be held here.
 * If there is an official translations (by the organization) that should be the name of the article used.
 * If there is no official translation:
 * translations that are in frequent use in English sources
 * WOSM membership list
 * the name translated into a form that makes sense in English.
 * should all be used to build a consensus on the name.

Comments
 * This is my take on a framework. --evrik (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
From watching the very first of many discussions to come (Albania, see below), I think it is clear that coming up with English names for all organizations is both unwanted and impossible. As an alternative I suggest that we make redirects for all countries in the format Scouting in XXXX, like for example Scouting in the United States, which already exists. If there are more scouting organizations in that particular country, it will become a disambiguation page. If there is only one organization, we make it a redirect to the page of that particular organization, which then stays under its only official (non-english) name. This will allow easier navigiation and searching for scouting organizations in different countries, without all the trouble of coming up with impossible names that nobody uses except Wikipedia. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave this one its own section, because it is not a framework for deciding how to rename. It is an alternative proposal to not rename, but make logical, consequent, redirects instead. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal-that way we are being both true to the organization and making them easy to find. Chris 01:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation attempt by Rlevse
This issue has come up before (see project page talk archives), but this time is much more heated. It needs to be settled so I shall attempt to mediate. I'd tried to stay out of this but had to finally come in. WP:UE says basically the same thing as our project rules page, some of it I even copied from WP:UE..that is to use the more common spelling that occurs in English (Vienna vs Wien). I've looked over the talk and it appear most disputes arise from organizations that don't have common English names or no official English translation. Yes, I see that as a problem. I also see that 3 users are the main participants: Evrik-strongly on the UE side, with Jergen and Reinoutr favoring keeping articles in their original language (if Latin alphabet), plus Wimvandorst seems to be on this side.

Here are things as I see them: 1) No one seems to be making an effort to have redirects made, regardless of which script the article lies in. I spot checked some and no redirects existed. For example Latvian Scout and Guide Central Organisation did NOT redirect to Latvijas Skautu un Gaidu Centrālā Organizācija. The Latvia article now redirects as I just created it. I totally agree with those who complain this makes it hard to find articles. In this Lativa case, the name does appear at the top of the article and wiki and project policy clearly state redirects should be in place. If you work on these articles, make sure the redirects are in place. 2) Review Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29. We are not the only group to have problems in this area. Reinoutr is right, there is no clear Wiki policy requiring organization names being translated, just often hard to interpret guidelines about how common something is. 3) The biggest problem is when a consensus can not be reached. Evrik's moving of an article one hour or so after his last entry does not help. One hour is not enough time for people to respond, I'd expect 1-2 days at least. Rationalizing it as something along the line of "we'll never reach a consensus" is not the answer. This is akin to entering into a negotiation and then breaking it off because you think it too difficult and doing what you want anyway. I also found where he deleted talk from here and put in an article, . You archive talk on the page it occurred, not on another article. And this wasn't an archive as it was only one section. Copying it would have been okay or maybe leaving a notice as to what occurred, but certainly not deleting it with no link of any kind. I find these this act s against wiki and Scouting spirit. I must strongly ask such behavior cease permanently. If a consensus can not be reached and it's at an impasse, contact myself or if you three gents don't want to use me, I'll try to find a 3rd party to settle it--within or outside the project. 4) If the choice of translation/transliteration is "Scout Association of XYZ" or "XYZ Scout Association" with no clear majority for one or the other, just pick one with redirect to the other. Such an instance really isn't that big a deal.
 * My Proposed Additions/Clarifications to our guidelines
 * ALWAYS leave redirects to the article with the text...this is already a rule but no one seems to be following it. If you have to leave more than one redirect because variations in the name, do it.
 * Rather than making a rash move, consult a project mediator (I'm looking for a volunteer now in addition to myself)
 * If an known official translation to English exists, use that one. If not, if the native spelling and English spelling have no version with say 60% majority on a Google search, use the English one (leaving a redirect of course), afterall, this is the English Wikipedia (not the Latvian or whatever).

This is how I see it. Let the fireworks begin. Rlevse 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My quick response ...
 * 1) I haven't created the redirects because I was waiting for the discussion to end.
 * 2) I agree that the guidelines are unclear .. look at Doctors without Borders. The problem isn't as much Scouting Nederland as it is Magyar Cserkészszövetség. However, there is no logical reason why an organization whose name is in arabic, should be in french, on the english wiki.
 * 3) I have bent over backward to make this process open. There has been no consensus, but that because of the other editors having some problem with using the English language. I haven't cursed or otherwise acted in bad faith.
 * 4) I just checked How to archive a talk page, and no where there does it say, "You archive talk on the page it occurred, not on another article." I would like you to please document where this is wikipedia policy. If you can't document it, please strike your comments and the comments about these acts [being] against wiki and Scouting spirit. The fact is, I archived the discusion on the page that was relevant and DID leave links.
 * evrik (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did leave a link. I missed that. I apologize. The talk archive say point to an earlier version or create a subpage, which are both within the namespace of the page in question, not a separate article. So while your quote of me isn't verbatim in there, the basic idea of keeping within the namespace of the page in question is. The redirect policy has always been in place, there's no reason to keep not doing it. Agree an Arabic named article should be in English, but a redirect from the French name to the English one is okay. My guess you all think your've bent over backward. Rlevse 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rlevse --evrik (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For a first step I made redirects from all avalaible "official translations" and included these translations in the articles. This is no problem for our discussion since redirects with one edit can be overwritten when moving an article.
 * Further one I think we need more input and more comments - as well from the project as from "outsiders". --jergen 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Project mediator offer
Bduke has offered to be the Scouting WikiProject mediator and accept this as his first case on these conditions: 1. All parties must agree to his mediating. 2. All parties must not move any articles until the mediation is completed. 3. If consensus is not reached they must let User:Rlevse as the project coordinator decide whether to implement my final conclusions.

(3) means that Bduke will make a final recommendation if there is no consensus and User:Rlevse can accept it or reject it. Either way, the decision is final and all parties are bound by Scout's honor to follow it.

I am posting this on everyone's (Evrik, Jergen, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)) talk page so they will not miss the offer. Failure to respond with a 'accept' or 'not accept' on the Translations talk page will be taken as an 'accept'. This offer will last until 2400 UTC Dec 2, 2006. Keep in mind that we live all over the world and users need time to respond---specifically, Bduke lives in Australia. DO NOT make any moves until at least 24 hours have passed since his last posting on an issue. Rlevse 01:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Enter accept/not accept after your username: "@Jergen: I assume this means you do not oppose the idea of having a mediator, but only object to this particular mediator, is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoutr (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 December 2006
 * Evrik: Okay by me. --evrik (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Still okay by me. --evrik (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jergen: Accept. --jergen 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Disagree. (Because of his last changes to long established category sorting.) --jergen 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed opinion again; I accept Bduke as mediator. --jergen 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reinoutr: Accept, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. --jergen 19:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What if we get three people to mediate? That way there can multiple perspectives. --evrik (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt three could who'd agree to do it and then you three would have to agree to all three. Rlevse 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we need three people? One other mediator should be enough. Alternatively, we can try to find more input from other people at Wikiproject Scouting on this issue. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still like this idea ... --evrik (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I indicate on my talk page, where jergen agreed to accept my offer, I am rather tied up today but will start things off tomorrow morning in about 22 hours from now. Remember I am the other side of the world. Three brief points:-
 * Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). Are you still happy to go ahead?
 * Yes I'll be happy to contribute my opinion. But the discussion has to be on the wiki and not via IRC/email and I only accept User:English Subtitle in the mediation if he/she promises not to move any (of the concerned) articles during the mediation. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you all happy about doing everything about the mediation on WP and not by e-mail or IRC? If this is the case, then others can clearly add their 2c to the debate. This could include Chris and Rlevse. Does that satisfy your concerns, evrik? Chris, is that what you were asking for?
 * Yes sir, if that's not out of bounds. I've been studying these movements for 25 years+ now, think my input could help. Chris 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doing everything on WP is the only way I can accept - I don't work with IRC and only a little per e-mail. The result we may reach should be understood by everybody after reading the discussion.
 * I accept the input of everybody who is goadwilling and helps to find a solution. --jergen 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User:English Subtitle. Are you willing to join the mediation and also tell us something about yourself. I am not going to accept the accusation that you are a sockpuppet unless more evidence on Suspected sock puppets/Evrik is presented now Evrik has denied this. I will assume good faith on everybody's part. Are you also willing to stop renaming articles during the period we are trying to resolve this matter? That would apply to everyone of course. --Bduke 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr), Chris and jergen, thanks for your responses. These are fine. I prefer to do it here too. OK, I am just waiting for Evrik to respond to the question above and I have heard nothing from English Subtitle, although I have asked them on their talk pages. The mediation will take place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations mediation. Perhaps you might care to have a look at this and see whether you want to add anything or change anything in the "What's going on?" section. When I get a response from Evrik, I will ask the three of you to respond in the "Short responses from the editors involved on what the issue is and what the solution should be" section, so you might think about this. I would like English Subtitle to be involved, but I agree that he must agree not to move any articles until the mediation is concluded. If anyone wants to comment further on this page, other than a direct response to a question, I suggest you open a new section headed "Mediation" at the end, as this section is getting rather long. --Bduke 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to new section below. --Bduke 06:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
As discussed above I have moved the discussion down here as that section was getting long. The mediation is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations mediation. Although I have not had a reply from User:English Subtitle, who has not made a WP contribution since 04:35, 20 January 2007, or evrik, who has not made a WP contribution since 13:12, 21 January 2007, I have decided to proceed. Please respond in the "Short responses from the editors involved on what the issue is and what the solution should be" section. jergen has already added something there. I hope we can reach some consensus without anyone going off the rails. However, if User:English Subtitle, or indeed anyone, does disrupt the mediation, I will take what action that seems appropriate. So, no moving pages until the mediation is completed. Please be civil. I would also ask all others to not add comments to the mediation page until after the three main people concerned have summarized their position and I have then made an initial response (probably a set of questions rather than a response). In other words I would prefer nothing else to happen right now other than the three main people concerned summarizing their position. I am not going to add anything myself until that has happened. --Bduke 06:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that Evrik agreed to both rounds, the second one on 20 Jan.Rlevse 10:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll respond later in the week. --evrik (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per BDuke's request, I will agree not to change any more pages until this is resolved. --English Subtitle 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a nice idea - just minutes after you made up a name for the Albanioan organization. --jergen 07:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Matrix
As I said before, I was just trying to start the discussion about the non-English names. Perhaps we can create a matrix to make it easier for people to see what we're talking about? --evrik 10:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Europe
The following are the countries listed at EuropeanScout.

The Americas
The following are the countries listed at InteramericanScout.

Asia Pacific Scouting
The following are the countries listed at Asia-PacificScout.

African Scouting
The following are the countries listed at AfricaScout.

Arab Region Scouting
The following are the countries listed at ArabScout.

Note: Nearly all members of the WOSM-Arab region have official names in two or three languages, mostly in English (or French) and Arab. --jergen 07:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Eurasian Scout Region
The following are the countries listed at EurAsiaScout.

WAGGGS members
Lists only existing articles, for full list see List of World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts members:

Albania

 * Although I don't speak Albanian either, I have browsed around about and I can't find any reliable citation for this translation either. On the contrary, the translation seems a bit dodgy, and therefore I fully support your deletion of it in the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC).
 * oppose as per Wim van Dorst, we can't find a reliable translation of Beslidhja, hold off until we do. Chris 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose as per Chris ;-). Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
 * There is no page, sq:Beslidhja Skaut Albania to cross reference. I think we need to move forward with the best information possible. --evrik (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know any of these users?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_sq
 * --evrik (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I can see someone has already helped. I'm also fluent in Albanian and I don't agree with the above translation. I don't know anything about the organization itself, and unless someone does it might not be a good idea to call them the Albanian Scouting Association. Roughly translated in context, it would be "Albanian Scouting Alliance" or "Albanian Scouting Brotherhood." Beslidhja here does literally mean pledge as was mentioned above, but that shouldn't be translated literally into English (for obvious reasons).UberCryxic 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is really hard to translate "Beslidhja". It literally means "faith-binding" and I think would best translated as "allegiance pledge". Therefore, you could use the 'Albanian Scout Association' as the main name for the article, but keep the original one also (redirect page maybe)… Feel free to ask for help, as this time I didn’t really understand what I was supposed to do.--Albanian since Stone Age 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --evrik (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If even fluent speakers of Albanian disagree on the translation we should not move the article - or even redirect it from Albanian Scout Association. There is also no official source for any translation. --jergen 09:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. If there is no meaningful or official translation we should not move it. See also my alternative proposal for making sensible, logical redirects instead . --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fluent in Albanian language.

Explain: Scout is not Skaut in Albanian but means zbulues/zbuluese or praroj/prarin.
 * As much as I see you don't have any problem with the name, can't you see that you have created a problem without existing.
 * 1) This is my first time reading about this "beslidhje" or what ever it is (structurally).
 * 2) I sad there is no problem about the name because there is the name in the badge: Besa scouts Albania, so why you don't use that name as a base?
 * 3) Literal terror 1.Besa or Beslidhja 2. Scout 3. Albania used as Beslidhja Skaut Albania. This is a real lingual terror 1 is in Albanian, 3 in English and second is in new language NWO.

According to elements (Beslidhja, skaut, Albania) its obvious that the name: Beslidhja Skaut Albania is not correct not in Albanian not in English.

If you don't use Besa Scouts Albania, the other names are just imaginations and nothing related with facts and are not accepted because this is encyclopedia and not blog space.

Just as a translation: Beslidhja Skaut Albania - basically can't be translated from Albanian into English because is not all in Albanian language, in Albanian dictionary there is no word "Skaut" or "scout".

Anyway my attitude is: Leave the name just as it is until you find the real name and the real names can't be changed, in other case what ever you do it is wrong reaction. (Puntori 11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC))


 * I called Geneva today and spoke to someone at the WOSM office. I was told that the name in English is Association of Albanian Scouts. --evrik (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to who? Some guy at WOSM? Their info (from their website) has not proven very reliable so far. If you are gonna check, do it with the Albanians. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup. Some guy at the WOSM. I sent an email as well, and am awaiting a written response. Since the Albanians have stated there is no direct translation, and since there is no 'official' translation, I think written confirmation from the WOSM is pretty good. --evrik (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is getting (too close to) original research in my book. If there is no translation, we should not translate. We are not translating some names here on Wikipedia, because there is no (official) translation. Here are (quite) a few examples: Confédération nationale du travail, Inspection Générale des Affaires Sociales, Ligue des droits de l'homme, Christliches Jugenddorfwerk Deutschlands, Zentralrat der Muslime in Deutschland, Asociación de Trabajadores Inmigrantes Marroquíes en España, Instituto de Actuarios Españoles, Associazione per il Disegno Industriale. There are literally thousands of articles like this. No available official tranlation, so not translated. Making up English names for organizations like this is original research. Wikipedia will be the only one using those names (and maybe the one guy at WOSM who came up with a translation). As stated above, I have no objections to using "neutral" names like Scouting in Albania, but inventing new names for these organizations is not what we should be doing here. To be honest, I also do not agree with you that there currently is consensus to translate these names. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

--evrik (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Asking the WOSM what the name in English is does not constitute original research, and is inline with WP:UE. --evrik (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because WOSM is not the body who decides on those names. You should ask the Albanian organization, not WOSM. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:UE clearly states: Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm ... this is not transliteration. --evrik (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * New quote from WP:UE then: If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form. In cases where only the native name is used it is obvious that name is also the more common one. Of course you can now say that these are not different spellings, but translations. But if we rule out both what WP:UE says about transliterations and about different spellings, there is nothing left to refer to. WP:UE doesn't say anywhere that we should or shouldn't translate names of organizations (you claimed WP:UE does say that, not me). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)
 * Beslidhja Skaut Albania makes no sense in English. From what I can gather, it is not common in Albanian ... nor is it commone in English. The native spelling is not common in English (and is only in recent use). --evrik (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is not the official name of the organization, ofcourse it should be moved. But we should try to figure out the official (Albanian) name, before we can even think about translating it (if at all). Otherwise we are moving an article to the incorrect translation of the incorrect official name. This will make things only worse. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG oppose to move. Sorry, Evrik, but moving this article to anything other than its correct Albanian name is out of the question. I fully support the arguments brought forward by Reinout, and thought it correct to state as such. WOSM is definitely not the decisive organization in this issue. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
 * (just making my way though the Requested Moves category and noticed this) - Why don't we get someone who speaks Albanian to call up the Albanian Scouting Organization and ask them if Beslidhja Skaut Albania is even the right title for the organization? --humblefool&reg; 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just left a mesage here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scoutsalbania
 * Support Move English Subtitle 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Algeria

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

Move --evrik (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose we rename this article. This change is proposed in order to bring this foreign-language Scouting article title into compliance with the spirit of both WikiProject Scouting - Rules Standards, Article names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The discussion about this is currently taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Translations. --evrik (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support changing name from French to English. --evrik (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this one, it is a straighforward translation and is used by the NDI and UNICEF . --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree: There is no source that this translation is in official use and that it refers to the SMA; the above references may refer to any of Algeria's Scouting organizations. There is Scouting outside WOSM. --jergen 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that there are more scouting organizations in Algeria. If that is the case, this may indeed be an ambiguous name. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Algerian Muslim Scouts (SMA, الكشافة الاسلامية الجزائرية, Scouts Musulmans Algériens) is the national Scouting association in Algeria."
 * This is from the article:
 * It is clear in looking at the title that it is in French, and not the Arabic language (or English). There may be Scouting outside the WOSM, but the WOSM site is authoritative (IMHO), and we now have other links provided by User:Reinoutr. --evrik (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, you are the only one seeing WOSM as authoritative - see the opinions above on the Albanian issue.
 * Is there any source besides WOSM who gives Algerian Muslim Scouts as translation of Scouts Musulmans Algériens? Both sources only mention the existence of an organisation under the English name, but we don't know if it's the same as Scouts Musulmans Algériens. --jergen 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I had to laugh when you said, "As far as I can see, you are the only one seeing WOSM as authoritative." It's like me saying, "As far as I can see, you are the only one not  seeing WOSM as authoritative." The article itself gives the name in three languages. I say we should be using the one in English. --evrik (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you had looked at history, you would know that the article started with the French title; the English translation was only given as an explanation. Somebody changed this without moving the article...
 * Concerning the authority of WOSM I'll quote two of the remarks on Beslidha Skaut Albania:
 * WOSM is not the body who decides on those names (Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr))
 * WOSM is definitely not the decisive organization in this issue. (Wim van Dorst)
 * And please don't try to avoid my question: According to which external source is Algerian Muslim Scouts the official translation of Scouts Musulmans Algériens? --jergen 20:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is enough evidence here to move the name from French to English. --evrik (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Avoid? No, let me quote the statement above, "... translation and is used by the NDI and UNICEF ."


 * Sorry, but you didn't answer my question - none of the two given sources proves that Algerian Muslim Scouts is the official translation of Scouts Musulmans Algériens; the French name - of which the mentioned English title may be a translation - isn't mentioned. I'd like to have a source that gives both version - until now it is possible that the English translation refers to any other Algerian Scouting organization. --jergen 11:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and make the move. --evrik (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments after move:
 * Object: Evrik, why are you dicussing these moves if you are going to move regardless of whether or not there is consensus? In this case (Algeria) there was one person in support (you), one who was doubting (me) and one who was opposed (Jergen). Why on earth did you decide to move it anyway? Little use in discussing them then. I am gonna object to all moves, unless you will take these discussions more seriously. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that I have taken the discussions very seriously, and for that reason did not make a change on Albania. There is a point where trying to reach consensus means that something is going to be stalled forever - paralysis by analysis. Yes, I did make the change. However, there were several good sources for the name chosen and the name chosen was in line with WP:UE and  WikiProject Scouting/Rules Standards-Article names. --evrik (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This move is clearly vandalism since there was no consensus reached. The same applies for the deletion of the discussion. --jergen 05:14, 28 November 2006
 * He did move the complete discussion to the talk page of Algerian Muslim Scouts. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This was not vandalism. The change made was in line with WP:UE and WikiProject Scouting/Rules Standards-Article names, and the discussion was moved to the talk page as an archive. I did this because to keep each discussion on this page would make it unworkably long. --evrik (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * @ Evrik: Why did you start a discussion when you move the articles regardless of it? Pls revert this move in the next days. --jergen 05:14, 28 November 2006
 * @Jergen. If you promise not to oppose each move and to work together on these articles, I will agree to wait longer for the next article change. --evrik (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Evrik, you are turning things around now. We are not in a hurry to do anything. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. We should only do these moves if there is consensus, and in this case there is NO consensus. Also, WP:UE does NOT say anything about translating names of organizations, as I have explained above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said anyone was in a hurry, but if I wasn't crediting both of you with WP:AGF and working in the Scout Spirit I might think that you were intentionally dragging out this process when it is clear that foreign-language article titles are not in keeping with WP:UE. I also think that claiming that every move needs consensus might also be a way of slowing down the process when these article titles should be in English. --evrik (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry for renaming any of the articles... Sorry, as long as no proof is given that Algerian Muslim Scouts is the official translation of Scouts Musulmans Algériens I cannot accept this move. You couldn't find any source outside WOSM stating that the English translation refers to the SMA but you moved the article despite this very poor sources and without reaching any consensus. --jergen 13:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and this is another example of disagreeing just to disagree. What is wrong with using Enlish on the English wiki? --evrik (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Evrik: You cannot accuse us of something and say in the same sentence that you are not doing so because you are assuming good faith, that is ridiculous. Either you are accusing us of dragging this out or you are not, which is it? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure I can, just like I can say that using the term bollocks is a violation of WP:Civil without actually issuing a warning. --evrik (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So in a construction like that, one can say anything without having to face the consequences? In that case, if I weren't being civil and assuming good faith, I'd say that you are an **** **** who is **** and a ****. (An no, I am not being seriously, just showing it is a ridiculous reasoning). Of course you are accusing us of dragging this out (and thus not assuming good faith, contrary to what you claim), otherwise you should not have written your statement about that at all. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither WP:UE or WikiProject Scouting/Rules Standards-Article names require absolute proof. Demanding absolute certainty is neither productive or cooperative. --evrik (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:UE or WikiProject Scouting/Rules Standards-Article names says we should translate names of organizations. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This same guideline says to use the Roman alphabet and standard English spelling (ie, Vienna not Wien). It also says to use the original spelling and alphabet in the first line of the article. --evrik (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in your example (Vienna), there is a clear-cut, well-known English name. In the case of most of these organizations we either have to invent them ourselves or rely on only one webpage. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Move English Subtitle 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Angola

 * Support change from Portugese to English. --evrik (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, until proof is supplied that these are the same organizations or that this is the official translation. I can come up with many names like that: Association of Angolan Scouts Angolan Scout Association Angolan Association of Scouts (and I added them to your table for that reason) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - Even WOSM uses three different translations on its pages: Scout Association of Angola, The Scout Association of Angola, Angola Scout Association. --jergen 10:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point, the two of you are making this an exercise of the The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea, and we don't need the cannonical proof that you are requiring either. The Scout Association of Angola and The Scout Association of Angola are eseentially the same, and to me (with the websites cited) are clearly the best choice. This is not Wikipédia. --evrik (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bollocks, I am just showing that it is ridiculous to choose between those names. And for the record, the literal translation is NOT Scout Association of Angola, but Association of Scouts of Angola, which would change in correct grammar to Association of Angolan Scouts (in the original name, Angolan is referring to Scouts and NOT to Association)! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you shouldn't swear, as it is a violaton of WP:Civil. In any case, I never said we should use the literal translation. So, are you saying that you could live with Association of Angolan Scouts? Because I care less about which of the three we chose than moving it to an English name - having said that i think we should choose one of the ones used by the WOSM.
 * So, Evrik, pls explain which of the three different translations used by WOSM is the official one... None of them is literal, none of them is used by the organization itself, none of them is used outside of WOSM and its mirrors. As far as I can see you are starting with original research deciding between these variants. --jergen 13:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not original research, but if we had to chose one of the ones from the WOSM site, I would say, "Scout Association of Angola ." --evrik (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep missing the point, over and over again. Nowhere in all the Wikipedia policies/documents/guidelines/whatever is it stated that we should translate names of organizations. By doing so anyway, we are changing the name of an organization to something we decide. That is no longer the name of the organization and hence is an inappropriate name for the article (and is original research in addition). Ever since you started the discussion here, almost everybody disagreed with you. Nevertheless you went ahead and moved one of the articles. I suggest we try to get more input in this discussion before we do anything else. Therefore, I already posted this discussion at Requests for Comments (although that usually does not yield much input). If both of you have any good ideas on how to get more people to join the discussion, I'd be glad to hear suggestions. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing the point. I don't agree with you. The policies say tht if there is a clear English translation, it is wholley appropriate to use it. I'm okay with the RFC, though I would have posted it at Requests for comment/Language and linguistics rather than Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. --evrik (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was not a clear-cut category I could choose. The one you suggest (which was also my first guess), however, is solely for articles about language, not for language disputes on other topics, unfortunately. That is why I chose the Society one. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also Evrik, can you please give the exact quote from a Wikipedia policy where is says that it is ok to translate names into English if there is no commonly used english name available. You keep referring to that, but I honestly cannot find it in the links you supply. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming_conventions - Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. --evrik (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Move English Subtitle 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)