Jump to content

Talk:Avigliano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
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: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avigliano, Basilicata → Avigliano – The dabpage Avigliano, created 9 years ago, could be considered redundant IMHO, as for other cases I've seen. I explain: it is a dab between two pages, two Italian municipalities, one named Avigliano (this) and the other Avigliano Umbro. In cases as this one, with a simple name (Avigliano) and a composite one (Av. + Umbro), it could be sufficient a {{dablink}} from this page... at almost with a link "not to be confused with Avigliana". Anyway, in case of page move, I'll provide to make the "markup" fixes... Last note, just to say: Avigliano has a population of 11,700, Avigliano Umbro has 2,600. Thanks for attention. Dэя-Бøяg 03:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - which is bigger may be clear to Italian readers, but 11,700 to 2,600 isn't a big difference for non-Italians. Plus the similar Avigliana justifies the 3rd entry on dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we should not manufacture a false appearance of ambiguity where it doesn't exist merely so that we can have unhelpful disambiguation pages rather than helpful primary topics. I see no evidence that Avigliano Umbro is called "Avigliano"; it is a partial title match and should be stricken from the disambiguation page if that page is kept at all. Avigliana is a different word, and there is no evidence of confusion between them. bd2412 T 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The issue about population is just to say. Main issue is about the most used form when the ambiguity is with 2 subject, and the second is a "homonym with a suffix". My idea, in case of move, could be this dablink: {{dablink|Not to be confused with [[Avigliana]]. For the municipality in Umbria, see [[Avigliano Umbro]].}}. In case of opposition to move, the dabpage should be maintained in the same form, IMHO. Avigliano Umbro doesn't matches WP:PTM, as for that examples in PTM page (Baltimora Zoo and North Carolina). "Umbro" is the suffix, a sort of generic adjective (the demonym of Umbria region), identifying (main) part of toponym is "Avigliano" (North Carolina is linked in Carolina but, of course, not in North (disambiguation)). It could match PTM in an eventual dabpage "Umbro", as well as Stoke-on-Trent is linked in the dabpage Stoke but not in Trent. Sorry if my way to explain/write could be boring or unclear. I like to explain details when I'm involved (and the request was opened by me) but my English is far far away to be perfect :-) . Thanks for both votes and regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed notability tags: all Italian municipalities have their own article (at least from 2006) and, generally, all municipalities, are notable. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using Bing News (sorry, Google), I saw just two or three old (yes, old, like 2010s) news articles briefly or trivially mentioning Basilicata part and one article mentioning Umbro one. How do they indicate notability? Yes, these places exist, but existence does not solely prove notability. WP:Existence ≠ Notability (essay) would help. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain further details: Wikipedia have pages about all municipalities for almost all the countries in the world. Most of them are simple stubs with an infobox and few (lead) text, most of the 36,000+ French municipalities, or the Italian ones (just to make 2 examples), have been created by bots. I think 8-9 years ago. Generally, a geographical place is accepted here, even if it is a micro-stub... To make two examples: I can cite all the US unincorporated communities with an article here (thousands), or the Polish wieś (villages, hamlets), all of them have an article here. It is not a question of they are notable IMHO. I'm still persuaded that many places worldwide are normally unknown (of course), as almost all the asteroids. But about Geography project, this is the modality/criterion I found years ago, and I'm simply applying it. Just to say, the only times I've seen an article about a place deleted, was because it was an hoax, a contentless page or a soapbox. Btw, sorry for my logorrhoea, :-) it was just to explain my actions clearly. Good work and regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a good old "other stuff exists" argument again, eh? I don't know why these "simple stubs" were created in the first place. The only reason I can come up is the time of phenomena of Wikipedia, which would be mid-2000s. Well, I hope someone who knows Italian language finds very old sources confirming notability of both Italian towns. I wonder if you're that "someone". --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: I know WP:OTHERSTUFF and this is not the case. It's a form of respect, to other's work, to explain my edits when it needed. I explained that this is the policy, the standard, and I was only applying me. Any admin or experienced user in WikiProject Geography can confirm my words, also confirmed by the thousands of categories (and navboxes) by municipality. And this is not the good old other stuff or the existence ≠ notability. I repeat, these are rules applied here from many years about places, it is not an issue of my personal opinions. The reason about the time of phenomena of Wikipedia is a question I don't understand: if the rule will change, thousands of pages will be deleted. Ix exists the policy WP:BAND but not a similar thing for asteroids or municipalities, and I'm not THE ruler, it's a general issue. Ask to Geography project if you have further doubts... You wonder if I'm that someone? Would you ask for it to all the people who review hundreds of new geographic articles every day? Well... I'm quite good as source-finder but (repeating) I'm not the master of WikiProject Geography and, just to talk, not the creator of both pages. Anyway: I was writing a longer answer while you answered to me (my short explaination). I realized that, even if that rollback could appear normal for me or others involved into geo-projects, I had the duty to explain better. It is a form of respect for anybody's work, and this is my way of working here. I've not used teasing or know-it-all tones with you and so I hope you keep the discussion. --Dэя-Бøяg 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After discussion, I reluctantly agree with potential notabilities of both towns. Speaking of towns, I oppose scrapping out comma disambiguation. No English reader would recognize just "Avigliano" as much as "Rome". --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Came here to close, but found it difficult to make a call, as although it's tied at 2–2 (including the proposer), the support arguments are far stronger than the oppose ones (which I can't understand; there is only one place called Avigliano, and a hatnote for Avigliano Umbro and Avigliana should suffice). I really can't see the jutification in creating a DAB page for things that don't have the same name. Also, George Ho should have been pointed to WP:GEOLAND with regards to notability of populated places. Number 57 13:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only Avigliano Umbro causes ambiguity, and can be handled by hatnote. We shouldn't add unneeded disambiguation to place names, except in cases like U.S. towns where this is actually commonly used. —innotata 21:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avigliano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avigliano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avigliano&oldid=1205533337"