This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bhutan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Bhutan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BhutanWikipedia:WikiProject BhutanTemplate:WikiProject BhutanBhutan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified one external link on
Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
These are mainly national and regional sources, it would be more convincing if US/UK/Canadian/Australian sources would be available. If there aren't any such sources, better stick to
WP:NCUE.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. I got far more ghits for the proposed name than the current one
[6][7] so although I'm very hostile to time-wasting RMs based on the
official name rather than the
article title policy this one seemed justified, just not on the rationale in the proposal. So I checked the first of the sources given above
[8] and it is a reliable secondary source, is in English and uses the proposed name exclusively.
Andrewa (
talk)
15:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I actually get more via your second link (158) than via your first one (90). In both cases the numbers are so small that I doubt a common name has been established in English.
Dekimasuよ!06:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Rreagan007, the evidence seems to me to indicate that the proposal is English. Not to you?
Marcocapelle,
Dicklyon, yes perhaps it would be better to have other sources, but the ones we do have (which include at least one reliable secondary source and possibly others, see above) seem to support the move. Is there any evidence the other way?
Andrewa (
talk)
23:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, yes, there are
a few hundred books that use the English version we have now. It's not the majority perhaps, but preferring English still seems sensible here, since the alternative will not be recognizable as the name of a party or anything associated with Bhutan.
Dicklyon (
talk)
02:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
That last sentence makes a very interesting point. We have as far as I can see always considered an English-language title to be either a descriptive phrase or a proper name, but in this case (and many others) there are elements of both. As a descriptive phrase, the translation is as you say more recognisable, and even to readers with no previous knowledge of the party. But as a proper name we assume that the more commonly used form is the more recognisable. At least that's the way our policy etc seems to work to me. Policy also of course dictates that rules are to be
ignored in need. Does that make sense to you, so far?
Andrewa (
talk)
04:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I'll try again. I think the point you are making is a good one. But, as far as I know such arguments have not been accepted in the past. While recognisability is certainly in the summary of WP:AT, the evidence that has been accepted as to whether the title is recognisable has been usage. You seem to be proposing that we also look at the underlying meaning. I think this is a good idea but probably won't work. It complicates the policy, which is not ideal, and I doubt we'd get consensus to do it anyway.
Andrewa (
talk)
12:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
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.