Talk:Sursee-Triengen Railway

Requested move 15 February 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS - With two supports (inc. the nom) and an oppose (with a sympathetic comment from the nom) no clear consensus to move has emerged in this discussion. Policy arguments also appear divided, with WP:UE cited against movement but its relevance disputed. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Sursee–Triengen railway → Sursee-Triengen-Bahn – This article is about the company first and the line second; the name of the company is Sursee-Triengen-Bahn AG and we shouldn't translate a proper name unless it's in common use in English. I think the current dash is also inappropriate; it's not part of the name and the German Wikipedia (for example) doesn't add one. Note that as of 2018 the company also owns part of the Uerikon–Bauma railway so this article will have to be refactored a little regardless. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:UE. If this article is about the company and not the line, then Sursee-Triengen Railway should be the title. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point, and there's good precedent (cf Appenzell Railways). I have no objection to Sursee-Triengen Railway. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Clear common name. WP:UE does not equate to always translating everything into English, but only if that name is commonly used in English-language sources. Should be capitalised in any case as it's a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, WP:UE does recommend translating into English unless the foreign name is commonly used in English-language sources. The references for this article are in German, so there is no precedent to prefer the foreign title in English.

If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.

162.208.168.92 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There is certainly usage of the German term in English-language works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-move discussion

@FOARP: My primary concern is that the capitalization is all wrong, and it's a common problem with translated articles where the line and company are (or were) intertwined. I didn't dig strongly into the English-language usage (assuming there wouldn't be any), but Necrothesp's sources suggest that the German name is in fact used in English, which undercuts 162.208.168.92's position in this case. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to re-debate a closed discussion, but WP:UE suggests that a non-English title be used if such a title predominate(s) in English-language reliable sources, which was not demonstrated. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately some editors seem to have a mania to translate everything into English. I've never understood it, even though I'm a monolingual native English-speaker myself. It's sad that some people seem unable to cope with foreign languages. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)