Talk:Diccionario de la lengua española

New section (Criticisms of the dictionary)

• I've started a new section and I'm not entirely happy with the title of the section. If you have any better ideas, please feel free to try it out and see if it's better. Also, this is obviously a hot-button topic for some people, so please read the external link provided before considering any changes. I believe I have been fair to both sides.--Hraefen 17:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

X entries

"The earliest editions also had X entries that no longer appear." I'm not sure what this means. Possibilities: (1) Entries where the headword begins with the letter X. If so, this is pretty much obvious, since the article has already stated that the 1803 edition substituted J for X. (2) Ten entries. (3) A certain number of entries, but we don't know how many, so we use the algebraic X. -21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

MISION Y VISION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.17.89 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish or English Title?

I just came upon and was perplexed as to why the article title is in spanish. Considering that this the english wikipedia I'd figured titles should be in english especially when the title can be easily translatable. Therefore I would like to the move the title to: Spanish Language Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, or Dictionary of the Spanish Language of the Royal Spanish Academy. What do you think? Xangel (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

After four years, I saw your question, checked the policy, and yes, the title should be in English, so I changed it. Now it is in English.Thinker78 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Official title

The official title is, simply, Diccionario de la lengua española, and nothing else. DRAE (for Diccionario de la Real Academia Española) is a popular initialism for naming this dictionary but, even if the Spanish Academy uses it, as the Academy also sometime mentions diccionario usual, DRAE and other titles including "Real Academia Española" are not official titles. Thus, this article should be moved to Diccionario de la lengua española. Kintaro (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly. No question whatsoever. If you haven't already done so, I shall request the move forthwith. --Technopat (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Have requested move. --Technopat (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Kintaro (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names"? "Dictionary of the Spanish Language" is not an obscure or made-up name

I will ask Justlettersandnumbers to do his/her proper homework before reverting other people's hard work. He/she should really take into account the significant amount of time that other editors put into editing articles before reverting their work, which is something that a senior editor should know. "Dictionary of the Spanish Language" is not an obscure or made up name, it is actually the official translation in English that the Royal Spanish Academy uses for the name in Spanish of its dictionary, Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Thinker78 (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Revert of Justlettersandnumbers was unreasonable and did not provide explanation

He/she did not state what is the mistake and what is misguided. I spent a significant amount of time editing the article, so I think it is completely unreasonable to revert my work without even providing an explanation. Thinker78 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to name @Justlettersandnumbers: you should ping them. From below it appears that Justlettersandnumbers was right and your claims are without 3rd party evidence in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Diccionario de la lengua española → Dictionary of the Spanish Language – According to "Wikipedia:Article titles" policy, on the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. The Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) itself uses that name in English , as does the North American Academy of the Spanish Language . Article of a Harvard publication also translates it to Dictionary of the Spanish Language. Thinker78 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Thinker78 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose irrespective of how the RAE website wants us to translate it, the usual name for this book in English books is as the current Spanish title: "The RAE's excellent online site contains not only the entire text of its Diccionario de la lengua espanola" " The Diccionario de la Lengua Española in the website http:// www.rae.es is also indispensable in this exercise" etc. Anyone who doesn't believe this please try the "is" test in Google Books. Results for the proposed English title with "is" are zero. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @In ictu oculi:It is not zero, it is one. But the title in Spanish is five. I concede it is a good way to measure. But certainly if you drop the "is" you get much more results. I'm getting from this that the English title policy doesn't apply if the foreign language search results are more numerous? Thinker78 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

    It's a WP:COMMONNAME matter. WP:USEENGLISH often isn't applied to titles if the non-English name is actually more common.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: The "English title" isn't really the English title; you can't buy this book with that name on the cover. It's simply how the real title was translated in the publisher's website's English version. This is not an English–Spanish / Spanish–English translation dictionary, it's an all-Spanish work. So providing a translated title as our article title is misleading and confusing. Thus, this fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE and probably WP:PRECISE. The Spanish (real) title is the WP:COMMONNAME, including in English. A different way of looking at it: we should keep this in Spanish for the same reason Académie Française is at that title, not at "French Academy" or "Academy of French"; it simply has nothing to do with English. We retain proper names in their native language unless there is a consistent English version of that name and it dominates in English-language material (thus our article is at Spain not España) The English translation "title" of this book should be a redirect to the real Spanish one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: I think probably the article titles policy should be updated to reflect this practice because in my opinion as it is it doesn't reflect this. Thus my confusion. Thinker78 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

    Maybe so, but it's notoriously difficult to get even tiny changes to WP:AT to be accepted. The fact is that if you try to do a flowchart of how AT works, it looks like a tangled mess, and no one appears to be interested in changing it. The result is that it takes a lot of experience to fully understand it, and this is frustrating, but we're stuck with it. One simply has to think very hard about every rule in it, and many out of it – in MoS pages, in disambiguation guidelines, in naming conventions pages, in general policies about sourcing and original research and neutrality, in guidelines about how to determine what reliable sources are, etc., etc. – and consider how each line-item of the AT policy is influenced by and exerts influence on them. The fastest shortcut is probably to assume that WP:COMMONNAME will be held to apply no matter what, that arguments against it in a particular case will have to be overwhelming. This interpretation doesn't actually even match the wording of the policy (COMMONNAME isn't even one of the WP:CRITERIA but just the default first choice to test against the criteria). However, it is how the consensus has evolved at RM. I feel your pain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"I think probably the article titles policy should be updated to reflect this practice because in my opinion as it is it doesn't reflect this. Thus my confusion." The problem is WP:AT like many guideline articles has some editors who, even with assumption of the best will in the world, are defacto lobbying against actual encyclopedia practice. Anti-"foreign names" lobbying is a classic example. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thinker78 Thanks for making clear this RM is actually part of a crusade against policy. AusLondonder (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is overwhelmingly that used in English-language reliable sources for this work – compare 27 JSTOR results for "the Diccionario de la lengua española" with three for "the Dictionary of the Spanish language", of which two at least do not refer to this work. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I retract my call to edit the Wikipedia titles policy. I read it again and now I see that it covers this (I mistakenly thought that it applied only to people's or places' names). It says, "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". Thinker78 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Nom appears not to understand the WP:NCUE policy. The first sentence of the policy says "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)." The policy also says "It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage...If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian municipalities etc.)." AusLondonder (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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.