Talk:Banverket

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Stub‑class

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Stub

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 8 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Banverket. The result of the discussion was 'Moved' as to Swedish Rail Administration → Banverket; not moved as to the rest..

Untitled

What is the literal meaning of "Banverket"? 128.12.32.199 06:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banverket is from "bana" which means "(rail-)track" and "verk" which means "(goverment) agency/authority". Poktirity 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Though I appreciate the intentions of following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers), please perform a minimum of research before such a blatant move. Like most Swedish (and many other European countries) government agencies, the Swedish Rail Administration has an official English name. This can easily be identified on the English section of the official web site. This will dictate that name of the article falls under section three of the naming convention, since it is "in the event of the jurisdiction name being a natural part of the subject's name". To avoid a move war, I will wait 24 hours before moving the article, to allow opposition to my claim. Happy editing, Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. I was going off the Swedish-language name given in the first sentence of each article, and as none of those include the word 'svenskar' or similar I was happy that I was moving the article correctly. It rather surprises me that some of these agencies choose to append 'Swedish' to their names. I suppose if they use 'Swedish xyz Agency' then that will be the most common usage in English, and I will go and check the rest to the best of my abilities (and revert this one!) ninety:one 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked some of them , and it's often hard to tell whether they are using 'Swedish' purely as an adjective or whether it's part of the translated official name... ninety:one 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2024

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: Moved as to Swedish Rail Administration → Banverket; not moved as to the rest.. BD2412 T 19:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– If we have Deutsche Bahn and its former Deutsche Reichsbahn/Deutsche Bundesbahn, Nederlandse Spoorwegen, Trenitalia, České dráhy, Iarnród Éireann and National Rail (all of which, remain untranslated) I think that the names of railway related companies should remain in their original (i.e. untranslated) form. So why did we end up translating the railway companies of Poland, Sweden and Ukraine.

However, Swiss Federal Railways (SBB / SBB CFF FFS) should remain as it is. JuniperChill (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:UE. The proposal cites no sources. 162 etc. (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Banverket [1], basically all of the sources in that article all use the local name.

Ukrzaliznytsia [2], [3] and [4], although some also use Ukrainian Railways. The official website partially uses the local name.

See the sources in the relevant articles. I just prefer most railway companies to be untranslated given that most already are like why did we even end up with Iarnród Éireann given that Irish Rail is also in the logo?

WP:USENATIVE might help as especially with Statens Järnvägar there are little sources. Also, Statens Järnvägar (not to be confused with SJ AB and Banverket are defunct btw JuniperChill (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill Then you will need to judge that whether we should rename National Railway Company of Belgium to either SNCB or NMBS. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have said above about keeping Swiss Federal Railways as it is, and forgot about Belgium. However, the National Railway Company of Belgium NMBS/SNCB can stay as it is because Switzerland and Belgium have four and three official languages respectively while Sweden, Poland a Ukraine have one. and while I do not propose a rename for both, I am not stopping people from doing so. JuniperChill (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support perwp:USENATIVE 'Ukrzaliznytsia' is used in english sources and the fact there aren't english sources for the others suggests there isn't a common english name so we should use native—blindlynx 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all except Banverket, of the others, sources do use the existing names (ssr [5][6]; ua [7][8][9];pl [10][11]), so a comparison showing which is the WP:COMMONNAME has to be shown. Searching for the proposed usually gives foreign-language results, notably for "Statens Järnvägar" and "Polskie Koleje Państwowe". Use of "Swedish State Railways" in English as stated above invalidates the "WP:USENATIVE" argument. Preferring the titles be untranslated is not a strong argument as it isn't policy. Neutral on Banverket, as for this article I find sources using either "Swedish National Rail Administration" or "Banverket", but not the current title. But the current title could be a shortening of the former, and in the end, more research needs to be done to which one is used more, but best not as part of a bunched move discussion. There may also be a case for "Ukrzaliznytsia" as used here but should be separately discussed as the existing title is also used. But overall this proposal does not prove WP:COMMONNAME, and the main argument is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCONTENT. Dank Jae 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, would RMs that involve multiple moves have to be related? All of these are to do with railway companies.

Anyway Is there a policy where names of companies including to do with railways should be kept untranslated unless there is a good reason why? Also, like I said, Banverket and SJ no longer exist. And even when they do use the English name, they always use the original abbreviations so always PKP, never PSR. It is not uncommon for someone to use UZ, SJ and PKP (see indirect). But given that the original SJ has no sources (and may not be considered notable by todays standards), it could be argued to use the original name as the title (see User:blindlynx's comment above).

Also, the article SJ AB uses the native names for the Swedish companies. JuniperChill (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UE: "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it". So unless there is demonstrated usage in reliable English-language sources of the foreign-language title, we use English. 162 etc. (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no naming convention for railway companies to only use the untranslated names, so each case has to still be considered individually per policy (generally WP:COMMONNAME) as each company may not be described the same. I have stated that WP:USENATIVE is not entirely strong of an argument here as that usually refers to topics with very little coverage in English at all but otherwise presumed notable, and stating the Ukrainian name is used in English is actually arguing WP:COMMONNAME but with no evidence, rather than USENATIVE. I've found sources that use both either the English or Ukrainian-based names, so clearly a deeper discussion is needed to see which one is more used.

Plus many of these are not black and white, with both the translated and untranslated names being used for the articles here, the policy states the most common one therefore should be used, rather than because of personal opinion or because "others". Dank Jae 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. WP:UE does not mandate translating everything into English. There is absolutely no need to do so if a majority of sources use the native name. It's sad that some editors seem to have this obsession with translation, as if all English-speakers are too thick to use the real name. Some editors even seem to prefer a bad English translation to a native name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes UE does not mandate translations, and USEN does not prohibit translations, but these aren’t “just translations” they are used by sources, just as the originals are, so WP:COMMONNAME needs to be analysed. The proposal doesn’t argue “the untranslated is used more” but that WP:ILIKEIT, which it also used here with no evidence. Dank Jae 13:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Banverket, Oppose the rest per DankJae and after checking book n-gram stats. Dicklyon (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. English names should stay. They are used in English-speaking sources and by companies you listed, when referring to themselves on their websites.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Banverket, Oppose the rest, per Dicklyon and DanJae. — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't believe the above I proposed RM took almost 40 days. At least Banverket got renamed but didn't think news articles would translate the names. A few sources of Ukrainian Railways use the native name but best leave it to that talk page. I will give the number of support results out of 7 total participants (including the OP). Banverket has 5 (or 6 if you include the neutral), the rest has 3. Also, why does the original SJ article still have 0 sources?

Also, I am confused between WP:USENATIVE and WP:UE because UE says '[i]f there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns and so on)' but later states 'In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. 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. (Link in original).

Also if the company has an English version and uses the native name, that may be considered official name which Wikipedia does not follow? JuniperChill (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]