Talk:Rome Quadriennale

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts 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.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts articles

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Quadriennale → Quadriennale di Roma – Why mix English and Italian? Rome Quadrennial would also be an improvement. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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 policy on article titles.

Comment why use Italian then? Rome Quadriennial would be English. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only an all-English title. Red Slash 05:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why and what? Please look at printed sources before jumping into RMs with opinions. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought most people were familiar with WP:USEENGLISH. Rome Quadriennial, of course, is the title I would support, as you and everyone else doubtlessly figured out within two seconds of reading my comment. Honestly, even the all-Italian title is better than this; I fully agree with Srnec that the mixed version is really not good. Red Slash 08:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for full Italian - since admittedly the full Italian does occur more than "Rome Quadriennale" in English sources it is true, but mainly in listings rather than in running text. Weak because "The Quadriennale di Roma" is only 60x out of "The Quadriennale" + Rome + Art which gets 706x GBhits, so article could also be left at present name legitimately. 65.94.79.6, per your comment knock off the -e and Rome Quadriennal (redlink indicates typo?) gets 7x GBhits. User:Srnec why would "Rome Quadrennial" which gets 306x GBhits be an improvement over current title which gets 916x GBhits? Did you perhaps mistake the Google Book results here? Rome Quadrennial doesn't fail WP:UE but does fail WP:COMMONNAME. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think mixing languages comes off badly for titles generally. It's one thing to say "Rome Quadriennale" in running text, where "Rome" has probably been used before (not "Roma"), but a title which is not a formal/official name ought to be, in my opinion, a little more consistent and careful. The attentive reader will wonder what this is actually called, since it is probably not called the "Rome Quadriennale" by the hosts. Srnec (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Primarily on basis of WP:USEENGLISH. The statement "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate" comes to mind. Over 12K[1] for the current title. I recognize the title is a language bastardization but I found it extremely difficult to find English language sources that employed the proposed term, even when sorting google book hits for English only.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's funny, because it was extremely easy for me to find more books that use "quadriennale di roma" and "rome" than books which use "rome quadriennale". Srnec (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, largely per Labattblueboy. English sources use mixed English/Italian, so we should, too. See also Venice Biennale, Florence Biennale for other commonly used mixed-language titles. Dohn joe (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Labattblueboy. We may dislike mixing two languages in a single name, but if that's what sources call it in the real world, so be it. I look forward to the RM for bicycle - such an ugly latin-greek hybrid! Linguistic consistency requires that we move it to dicycle. bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what constitute "sources"? The event is not named the Rome Quadriennale, and use in reliable sources seems quite split between the three options:
- 83 hits for "quadriennale di roma" rome -llc
- 81 hits for "rome quadriennale" -llc
- 45 hits for "rome quadrennial" -llc
- Tell me if your results differ. Srnec (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, a search for the full Italian name - restricted to English-language results - takes the total down to 28. And in going through those results, most are direct citations of Italian-language books or catalogs. The true number of English-language uses of "Quadreniannale di Roma" is in the single digits. Dohn joe (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

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.