Talk:Quebecer Bloc

Should this perhaps be Bloc Québécois? This form seems to be rare. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This English term (Quebecer Bloc) is a literal translation of the French term Bloc Québécois. There are various translations made of the Bloc Québécois expression (Bloque Quebequense in Spanish, for instance) so why not to do it in English? Xiaoshan Math 02:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the Wikipedia article is this anglicised version mentioned. Furthermore, the spelling is highly suspicious, since the c in Quebecer is likely to be mispronounced and does not render properly French Québécois (where c is read as [k]). I suggest deleting the page, there are enough Gallicisms in the English language and if Bloc Québécois is the only accepted spelling, one has to come to terms therewith in lieu of inventing protologisms. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are versions in other languages where the Quebecer Bloc has its name translated in the language the article is written: Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Polish, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Tamil and Chinese, with the French name within brackets. How could these versions be allowed to write their own locally-translated names in their articles whereas the English version seems not to be authorized one? In the Portuguese wiki, the name Quebecer Bloc is referred to as an unofficial English translation. Xiaoshan Math
 * There is no way the Portuguese WP could be more knowledgeable in official English than English. Just because someine deicided to act puristicly does not mean that this ought to be imposed on the English language as well. There are some parties which are not translated and Bloc Québécois and Sinn Féin (not: We Ourselves!) are just two examples. Think about the similarities between them and why it is so important for both parties to preserve their linguistic identity and to forgo an English æquivalent. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't make up translations. We only include words based on their actual usage.  Please consult WT:CFI for details.  If you think this word ought to be used in English then go ahead and use it all you want, but please don't add unattested neologisms to the dictionary.  Thanks. —Michael Z. 2009-08-09 21:56 z 


 * The Portuguese WP article is “traduzido da wp anglófona,” unfortunately during the period when some 3-edit anonymous Torontonian's agenda was in place. —Michael Z. 2009-08-09 23:05 z 

Xiaoshan, we're not asking "why not?", we're asking "where?". Without citations demonstrating use, a word/idiom does not exist as far as Wiktionary is concerned. Circeus 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification

 * Moved to WT:RFD