Talk:Alignment (political party)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

An entry from Alignment (political party) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 February 2007.

[edit] Labor spelling

Listen, the current preferred English language spelling (transliteration) of both the Labor Party and (historical references to) Labor Alignment is without the "U", ergo, that's the spelling we should use! Simple! Moreover, English is a "semi-official" language in Israel, and American English is the variant preferred (though some Israelis still prefer British English), so, according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, American English should be used in this article. Thanks for your cooperation. --PeterH2 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Israeli government documents from the time of the party's existence spell it "Labour Alignment". It doesn't matter what the current preferred spelling is, it matters what the spelling was when the party was in existence. Similarly, this is why Chaim Berlin is not spelt Haim Berlin, because Chaim was the common spelling at the time, even though Haim is now the preferred version. Number 57 08:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't square with my understanding of WP policy, but ok. I'll add a note about the current transliteration. --PeterH2 15:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've removed it (a) because it's not a transliteration (the Ma'arakh HaAvoda is a transliteration) and (b) its just a bit pointless - people know there is an alternative spelling for Labour, so why bother pointing it out in an article where it's really not relevant? Number 57 16:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being rushed and sloppy. Yes, it's an alt. spelling of the translation, not a transliteration. In any event, I don't understand "really not relevant." Giving alt. spellings is standard in WP. It's particularly useful here, since not having the contemporary spelling will make it harder for people to find info about this topic on the Web. Let's leave it as it is? (Say, were you beaten by Noah Webster fans as I child? :) ) --PeterH2 19:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but having the alternative spelling in the article really isn't necessary (and it's not a contemporary translation - Labour Alignment is still perfectly legitimate). Moreover, it is not standard for this kind of article - you wouldn't find a sentence about alternative spelling on Labor (Israel) or Labour Party (UK), so why bother here other than to make a point? If you really want to make it easier to find, create a redirect from Labor Alignment. Number 57 20:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't find an alt. spelling for the U.K. Labor Party because there is no alt. spelling. Why bother here? To give useful information to readers. A redirect doesn't do that. --PeterH2 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But you also wouldn't find one on the Labor Party (Israel) page, even though the party originally spelt it's name the British way! It is not useful information in any way to have an alternative spelling of an English word on an article about an Israeli political party. Also, Americans do spell the British Labour Party without the "u" (see here) so the alternative spelling has about as much relevence here. Number 57 08:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)