Talk:Coimbra Academic Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portugal Portal
Coimbra Academic Association is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do:


Contents

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Associação Académica de Coimbra flag.png

Image:Associação Académica de Coimbra flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was move them all. It is very difficult to use Google to indicate what the most common name in English is as it gets mixed up with the professional football club (Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.). But the University is under the name University of Coimbra as is this is indicative that WP:NC#Use English words should apply. Also it will make the leads easier to write because they can take the form "English name (Portuguese: Associação Académica de Coimbra ...)" Also I have remove the word section as it is redundant and would not be used in English and I have added Coimbra University Stadium. I will make the moves but Sebisthlm you will have to alter the wording --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Associação Académica de Coimbra → Coimbra Academic Association — WP:name ("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"), WP:Common name ("When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the [English] Wikipedia put into the search engine?"). There is no reason why this article name is in portuguese (compare e.g. National Alliance of Student Organizations in Romania and Uppsala Student Union). I would argue that "Académica (de) Coimbra" in English text most oftenly refers to the football club. —Sebisthlm (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support per nom. Sebisthlm (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is needless and inaccurate. The organization is not a simple students union. It includes dozens of sports teams and athletes in several sports, including soccer, volleyball, basketball and rugby teams which play in the major sports championships of Portugal, side by side with SL Benfica, FC Porto, Sporting CP and other major Portuguese clubs. Associação Académica de Coimbra is a registered trademark. There is no other way to name it. In the official logo you can read AAC not CAA. The UEFA name for AAC OAF is the Portuguese version and for the other teams is probably the same. We don't call Royal Madrid to Real Madrid or Sports Coruna to Deportivo de La Coruña. However, I agree with redirecting Coimbra Academic Association and other English versions of the name, into this article. Yodaki (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: "needless and inaccurate"? Might I remind you that this is the English Wikipedia? "Associação Académica" is impossible to write on a non-portuguese keybord, and it's impossible for an English user to know what to look for when searching Wiki. Have you read WP:name and WP:common name (especially the quoted passages)? As for inaccurate, I just took the seemingly official English name from the article itself. By reading the article itself I get the impression that the article is about a student union wich also has different sports sections, and not a former student union turned multi-sports athletic club. If it is a student union, I think the name should be translated as my examples above (why should only Portuguese subjects be named in portuguese when other subjects are generally translated to english?). If AAC, as you suggest, is a trade-marked sports club, then by all means the name (apart from the different sections) shouldn't be translated (In that case I suggest e.g. Académica de Coimbra - volleyball section). Sebisthlm (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we make all possible combinations of the names in English for all the sports sections/teams, and redirect those combinations to the current articles which were created with the official full name in Portuguese. Académica de Coimbra - volleyball section, Academica volleyball and Academica Coimbra (volleyball) are good examples of redirects which could be included in that job. The red links on this page are also a good start to please all potential English-based searches for Académica's sections, departments, etc. It must be noted that disambiguation pages were already created for Academica, Académica, Académica de Coimbra, and they could be expanded in the future. Yodaki (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

[edit] Review

From my talk page:

Philip Baird Shearer, you did it all wrong and broke all the rules. What a mess you've made of the AAC's articles. Yodaki (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with Yodaki that you came to a strange conclusion of a consensus for a move here. Even if mine and Yodaki's discussion wasn't very intense, we were still debating on how to proceed. i was thinking of amending or possibly withdrawing my requests but waiting with a faint hope that some new blood would join the discussion. I don't know how you got a 1-1 vote as a consensus for a move.
I have now raised some principal questions on how these RMs were closed over at WP:AN/I. I would like to make it perfectly clear that I don't think these moves were closed by any sort of malice from your part, something I also have made clear at WP:ANI. I'm not trying to point my finger at you, but rather raise some policy questions. I just think these moves weren't closed appropriately. It may seem a bit overkill to post these questions at AN/I, but I've tried, but not been able, to find another place. Best regards, Sebisthlm (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline did I break? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if the vote is 1-1, how can that be a consensus for a move? Additionally, the RM was closed prematurely - even if the discussion had halted we could have slowly come up with a compromise. Either way, you single-handedly decided to move the pages without consensus, changing the move requests and adding Estádio Universitário de Coimbra. You should have instead adding your views and suggestions into the discussion, so they could have been debated. Again, I would like to be very clear that I didn't think you did this by any malice, the RM was just not handled properly. Sebisthlm (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was over 5 days old the usual time for a WP:RM. WP:RMs are not just about finding a consensus. I will not move a page to a name that clearly breaks Wikipedia policies and guidelines even if there is a consensus for the move, not would any other responsible admin. In this case I gave my reasons for the moves. Basically I agreed with you (Sebisthlm) that the names should be anglicized. If consensus is you only problem then consider I as my opinion was the same as yours that there was a consensus to move the pages. Please remember that anyone can move a page and if the others were being moved because they were being anglicized then it definitely made sense to move Estádio Universitário de Coimbra to Coimbra University Stadium along with the other pages. Do you think that Coimbra University Stadium should be at Estádio Universitário de Coimbra if so why? I just checked and pt:Estádio de Wembley is not called Wembley Stadium would you expect it to be under its English name on the Portuguese Wikipedia? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't follow the outcome of RM debates, but rather that you make the decisions yourself? In that case, what's the point in listing move requests at WP:RM? In this case you single handedly moved the page without taking part in the discussion, adding a page move that clearly breach WP policy (see Category:Football venues in Italy, Category:Football venues in France, or Category:Football venues in Spain). Sebisthlm (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Categories are not policy. See policy documents WP:V and guidelines like WP:MOS and in this case WP:NC#Use English words --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Then why most of the Spanish stadium keep in original Spanish form? The notability of the translation is a factor. Matthew_hk tc 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It works the other way, the non translation into English in English reliable sources is necessary, to show that the rules about using English should not be followed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your not adressing my principle objection of how you managed the moves. Is it policy for admins to move pages against consensus at their own whim? Sebisthlm (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not on a whim. I have explained this above see "The discussion was over 5 days...". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't actually saying you acted on a whim and rhetorically asking the question seemed to just cloud the question, since you're still not answering my policy question. You have only provided your arguments in favour of a page move, arguments that had been much appreciated at the actual discussion. I agree with some of them but not all (certainly not translating the stadium name). The main question is still, how can you make a clearly controversial page move when there is no consensus? What policy support such an action? Sebisthlm (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Which policy questions? See above "If consensus is you only problem then consider I as my opinion was the same as yours that there was a consensus to move the pages." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is that you weren't part of the discussion, so your arguments never got the chance to get tried, as mine or Yodaki's were. Your arguments were also different from mine, e.g. adding the Stadium (I was personally thinking of amending the RM after my discussion with Yodaki). Furthermore, you're saying that you didn't and don't consider an eventual consensus when closing RM's, which is my main concern. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote above about this issue, but see also IncidentArchive376#RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra and the paragraph that starts "See Talk:Coimbra_Academic_Association#Review. If there is not a clear policy or guideline ...". as it gives a couple of other examples. Also see this one Talk:Samuel of Bulgaria#Requested move. As WP:RM says "Most move requests are processed by a handful of RM regulars who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, and page moving procedures". I have done you the courtesy of waiting for you to come up with a reason why my judgement on this was faulty but to date you have not produced one policy or guideline statement that indicates that my decision on closing this RM was at fault. Please consider that the backlog of WP:RM needs emptying again and if every decision was questioned this much few if any moved would be made. Also consider despite raising it 2 times on the ANI no administrator has even flagged it as an inappropriate decision. I suspect that this is because over the last year and a half there has been a move away from just counting opinions to decide these issues to also looking at the Wikipedia policies and giving administrators more discretion. Take this example there have recently been two AfDs on List of massacres with the second one BHG decided to move the page without a consensus to do so (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination)), but people respected her decision as the closing administrator and have not questioned it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. As I've said all along I have two concerns with these closings: the principal concern of how these RM's were closed, and the smaller concern about the actual reasons for the moves. I raised the first question at WP:ANI in lack of a better place to turn (if there is a proper place to raise policy questions about how the move requests are closed at WP:RM, feel free to enlighten me). You have not until now addressed my principal questions, but rather defended your reasons for a page move. I understand that Wikipedia is run by amateurs, which is one of it's strengths, but one downside is that it's extremely difficult to get principal discussions on policies, routines and so forth going. Now you've finally addressed my concerns by saying that "over the last year and a half there has been a move away from just counting opinions to decide these issues to also looking at the Wikipedia policies and giving administrators more discretion". As a Swede I think that concepts like democracy, clarity and accountability are important, so I'm concerned by this development that shifts the "power" from the regular users to the hands of a few admins, who you yourself has said makes a lot of closings in short spaces of time. These are the questions that I think would be better off discussed at another place than in a review of a page move that no-one seemed to care about.

You can post a general suggestion that the rules are changed to work as you want them too at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves who knows you may get a consensus to make such a change. But I suggest you do not use this as an example as suggestion that a local consensus should over-ride policies and guidelines will probably not get you very far. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm having trouble understanding what you write. I know you probably write a lot on WP in short periods of time, but try to express yourself a bit more clearly (especially when you're discussing with two non-native English speakers). Second of all, are you actually trying to discourage me from making suggestions on how to (in my opinion) improve WP:RM guidelines? Lastly, My point is not that local consensus should override policies and guidelines, it's that a single admin shouldn't unilaterally override local consensus on controversial page moves by his interpretation of policies and guidelines, and without looking into the subject at hand. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On the smaller issue of reviewing your page move, I have said that I think the move of the stadium was wrong since Stadiums aren't translated per WP:COMMON (again, see all the category:football venues above). Are you actually saying that all these hundreds of Stadiums should be translated and moved. I'm also leaning towards that moving the different sports branches of AAC was wrong if they are professional sports clubs playing in national domestic competitions; In that case they shouldn't be translated, but moved to their WP:COMMON name.

You are turning things inside out WP:NC states "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.". If the foreign name (in a Latin Alphabet) has a common usage in English then it can stay as is but if not then it should be translated. There is no evidence that "Estádio Universitário de Coimbra" is a common name in English all five pages return by Google search of English pages are in Portuguese "5 English pages for "Estádio Universitário de Coimbra" -wikipedia.". As I said above this is not just an English Wikipeda quirk as pt:Estádio de Wembley indicates. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the general WP:NC that you cite applies in cases where there is an English term that is used in English. I don't think it's supposed to be used to translate e.g. name of corporations, associations or sports teams, unless in cases like Red Star Belgrade, where the English translation is more commonly used than it's official Serbian name. You seem to have a hard time agreeing with this (as with the stadia issue above), so I'm asking you, do you seriously think these pages should be moved to their English translation per WP:UE; Real Madrid → Royal Madrid, Djurgårdens IF → Animal Farm's AA, Bayern Munich → Bavaria Munich, Olympique de Marseille → Olympics of Marsellie, Fiat → Iaft or Skanska → Scanian? Moreover, You haven't answered if all the arena names of Category:Football venues in Italy, Category:Football venues in France and Category:Football venues in Spain should be translated, but judging by your move of Estádio Universitário de Coimbra, it seems you think they they should. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Luckily we do not have to right all wrongs of stadia naming on this page, but a look at the links in the Olympic Stadium article by no means shows that the local name is to be preferred to the English name. Further examples like Fiat is pointless as that is a common English name for the cars manufactured by the "Fiat Group" (The group uses the term on their Italian language web site rather than Gruppo so that is not a good example), but note that the article "Fiat Tagliero Building" uses the English word building. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're maintaining that all those French, Spanish and Italian football Stadia should be translated? That's an astonishing viewpoint, but I'll put it forward to all the rest over at WP:Football (it seems that we suddenly have a lot to do). Are you basing this on the fact that five out of 18 stadia from non-English speaking countries are translated? You have also not responded on the club and company names; should they be translated or not? Of course the word "building" should be translated in the "Fiat Tagliero Building", am I making myself so unclear so you got the impression that I would want the word building in Italian or Eritrean? Note that neither the word Fiat (which is an Italian acronym) or Tagliero (which I'm guessing is a name) are translated despite WP:UE, so your example seems to support my viewpoint rather than yours. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I said luckily we do not have to right all the wrongs of stadia naming on this page. If you think the word building should be translated why not the word stadium? I am not suggesting that a foreign name that is commonly used in English should be translated, that would be silly and against the guidelines. But words like stadium should be translated unless it usually is not in English texts (eg Stade de France but Helsinki Olympic Stadium). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm now advocating these page moves:
  • Coimbra Academic Association "the Associação Académica de Coimbra is the student union...under which there are, among other cultural sections, different sports sections competing in the Portuguese league systems" (or something like that) (per WP:UE)
  • Académica de Coimbra "the Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.G. is the autonomous professional football club" (with a hatline at the top of the page:"this article is about the football club; for the students union, see Coimbra Academic Association") (per WP:COMMON)

Sebisthlm (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sebisthlm, good suggestion. I can't still agree with a different name for the parent institution (the AAC), however, your suggestion will be a remedy of last resort in order to revert all the mess we have seen here. Yodaki (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to use a mix of Portuguese and English for an article name? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the AAC is a (semi-governmental) students union and should probably be translated per WP:UE (see National Alliance of Student Organizations in Romania, Uppsala Student Union, Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice, the Assembly of the Republic or the Portuguese Council of State). On the other hand, the football club (AAC-OAG) should not be translated, but be at the name commonly used in English; Académica de Coimbra ("Coimbra Academic Association" football get 10 English hits on google (no-one as a translation of the football team) while "Académica de Coimbra" football get 25.100 English hits). The multi-sports section (of which several compete or have competed in national competitions) should also not be translated for the same reasons as the football club, but be disambiguated by the different sports (in English). The amateur football section should probably follow the rest of the sports sections rather than the parent organization, but with "amateur football" as disambiguation to not be mistaken with AAC-OAG. If there would be a problem with consistency between the parent organization and the sports clubs, I think (since translating the football club is out of the question) the parent organization should either be at Associação Académica de Coimbra with the football club at Académica de Coimbra, or the parent organization at Académica de Coimbra and the football club at Académica de Coimbra OAG. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Google search that you are doing includes Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. the professional team. It also includes wikipedia entries. If you limit the pages to English pages, include the word "student" and exclude "Wikipedia". The results is "656 English pages for "Académica de Coimbra" football student -wikipedia". If one looks through the first couple of dozen pages returned it is by no means clear that you argument is true. Most of them are for the professional club or they use both terms. If one strips out pages with "Academic" and "Association" then Google returns "about 24 English pages for "Académica de Coimbra" -Academic -Association football student -wikipedia" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you read my post properly (or perhaps I wasn't making myself clear). By "the football club (AAC-OAG)" I meant the professional football club Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. (the G in AAC-OAG was a typo). This is the club that shouldn't be translated. I'm not sure if I get your point on AAC-OAF - are you saying that there is a more WP:common name for the club than Académica de Coimbra? In that case - what? You didn't reply to the question if all football clubs should be translated, so perhaps you're saying that AAC-OAF (and all other football clubs) should be translated? Sebisthlm (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No I did not understand what you were saying and as I closed the recent WP:RM on Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. I will explain. AFAICT Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. or some combination is used in the English media for the professional football team so I see no need to move the article. But for the the other names I do not see a common English usage for any of them so the names should be translated into English in line with the guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
AAC-OAF should probably be discussed at Talk:Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F., but since the discussion has been started here, perhaps you could supply some sources for your claim. I get the following English results for your supposedly common name: "Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F" 995 hits, "Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F" 785 hits, while ""Académica de Coimbra" football liga" get 12700 hits, so I have all along been certain which is the common name of the professional football club. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it should be discussed on the specific talk page and see my qualification above: "or some combination is used in the English media for the professional football team". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And what combinations are those, besides Académica (de) Coimbra or just Académica? Sebisthlm (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shearer man (or boy, I don't know), imagine this comparision/example: In Portuguese we never call Texas Longhorns by its real name in Portuguese language because it would be a very nasty designation. It would be Cornos Compridos do Texas and since Cornos Compridos is easily undestood (slang) as "the guy whose girlfriend is cheating him" this college/university sports team's name would be a total joke. I urge you to understand that sports teams are usually referred to by its real native designation or, at least, by a short form of its native designation. Thanks. Yodaki (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)