This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. 1090 ghits for the old name as opposed to 54 for the new.
[1][2]. Maybe AfD as non-notable? But the alternative name suggested gets 12,700
[3] which is a bit more like it. Worth relisting perhaps.
Andrewa (
talk)
14:38, 27 March 2017 (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.
Move discussion, part 2
Now that
the deletion discussion has been closed as "Keep" we may want to reconsider the title of this article. The alternatives proposed so far are:
The present title was a translation of the former name LLH, and won't do now that the name has changed to FRI, which translates quite differently as "Association for gender and sexual diversity". On the choice between Options 1 and 2, the guideline nearest to helping appears to be
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). If we go by the test "the title commonly used in English-language sources" the answer is LLH. However, that name was changed in 2016. One of the travel guides gives the full Norwegian name for LLH together with an English translation: the other travel guide and the Ashgate book give the Norwegian name only. This would argue for similar treatment of FRI, as in Option 2.
However, we also need to review whether the title should contain both the abbreviation and the expansion. Per
Manual of Style[When] a given acronym has several expansions, none of which is the most prominent ... an article should be named with the spelled-out phrase and the acronym should be a disambiguation page... There are plenty of other candidates for the initials "
FRI", so the solution seems to be to make the title of this page
Foreningen for kjønns- og seksualitetsmangfold, with an extra entry in the disambiguation page
Fri. Any thoughts?
: Noyster (talk),08:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Please note that "FRI" is not the abbreviation of Forening for kjønns- og seksualitetsmangfold. "FRI" simply means "FREE" in Norwegian, as in free to love anyone you choose. However, the organization uses "FRI" as a short form of the name, both in Norwegian and English. In time, FRI – The Norwegian Organization for Sexual and Gender Diversity will work itself in to be the title commonly used in English-language sources. As the name change only happened in 2016, the amount of ghits for the new English name is low, and it is lower than the Norwegian name simply because the organization is Norwegian and publishes far more information online in Norwegian language. However, for a resource such as Wikipedia, it would make sense to use the full English name as title of the article, i.e. FRI – The Norwegian Organization for Sexual and Gender Diversity, as this is the name used by the organization itself. Using the English name would also make it easier to find, as most non-Norwegian users would normally not search by words containing Norwegian letters, such as the ø in kjønns-.
HH&2s02br4 (
talk)
13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If "FRI" is merely a word formatted in all-capital letters rather than an acronym, then it seems to violate our guidelines against using "vanity" all-caps styling (
MOS:TM,
WP:AT/
WP:TITLETM,
MOS:ALLCAPS). Lots of organizations use all-caps formatting to try to stand out and look more important or distinctive, and we generally avoid letting them do that on Wikipedia. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
19:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
OK thanks, I'm convinced now that the English words have currency in external sources and are presented fairly consistently. There is variation in the punctuation mark, the capitalisation of "The", and the spelling of "organisation". The four sources you quote yield:
FRI: the Norwegian Organization for Sexual and Gender Diversity (state.gov)
FRI, the Norwegian Organisation for Sexual and Gender Diversity (hrw.org)
FRI - The Norwegian Organisation for Sexual and Gender Diversity (iarlj.org)
FRI – The Norwegian Organisation for Sexual and Gender Diversity (oslo pride)
Good to hear I am making some progress in convincing you. As far as "Fri" vs. "FRI" goes, I don't know what more to say to persuade you that the correct spelling would be FRI - The Norwegian Organisation for Sexual and Gender Diversity. As I have said time and time again, this is the spelling the organization itself uses, and I have given examples of that above from articles. If I was able to attach an email as example, I could send you the signature block used by the organization's Communications Advisor, showing that members of management in the organization all use both the Norwegian name; FRI - Foreningen for kjønns- og seksualitetsmangfold and the English name; FRI - The Norwegian Organization for Sexual and Gender Diversity in all written communication. This is the official answer and the correct spelling. If I'm not able to convince you, then please do not call the article Fri (Norwegian organisation) as this would not be descriptive enough to enable users to tell which organization we are talking about.
HH&2s02br4 (
talk)
07:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The
article title policy tells us not to go by "the spelling the organization itself uses", but you do have a get-out clause
HH&2s02br4 where it allows use of the trademarked spelling when it is demonstrably the most common usage in [independent] sources..., as you have shown to be the case here. OK, I'm going back to
WP:Requested moves with your proposed title. Sorry this has been such a drawn-out process
: Noyster (talk),22:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Requested move 30 April 2017
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose: "FRI" is not an abbreviation. It is merely a word (synonymous with "FREE") written in all-capital letters, so using that in all-caps it seems to violate our guidelines against using "vanity" all-caps styling (
MOS:TM,
WP:AT/
WP:TITLETM,
MOS:ALLCAPS). Lots of organizations use all-caps formatting to try to stand out and look more important or distinctive, and we generally avoid letting them do that on Wikipedia. If "FRI" was an English word, we wouldn't write it in all-caps, so we shouldn't do it just because it's not in English. As
MOS:TMRULES says, "avoid:TIME, KISS, ASUS, The PLAYERS Championship" —
BarrelProof (
talk)
04:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
But as pointed out just above, the
article title policy allows use of the trademarked spelling when it is demonstrably the most common usage in [independent] sources..., which is the case in the four English-language sources quoted here
: Noyster (talk),11:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
We're looking for English-language independent reliable sources. If I understand what sources you're referring to, some of them don't seem especially independent. They are mostly promotional. None of them are something like BBC or some other reliable news organization. In the absence of a substantial number of really objective third-party sources, I would suggest not using the word in all-caps letters. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
18:34, 1 May 2017 (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.