Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/July

Chile

Has a naming convention for Chile ever been sorted out? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) simply states A naming convention is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board. There is nothing on that page that sets out an agreed formula, though there a several references to a formula being agreed, and referring to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This is just going round in circles. Either a naming convention exists, and should be documented at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), or it doesn't and the referral to Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board should be deleted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that no specific convention has ever been agreed (at least, not one that operates at the moment), and nothing has been under discussion for about 2 years, so until someone makes another proposal, I think we should remove this reference. (I have done so.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Italy

These changes are very strange. You have to know the administrative division of Italy wery well to find a city. Instead of Pula, Italy it's Pula, Sardinia. --78.70.221.227 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• (cur | prev) 16:52, 8 July 2010 Skinsmoke (talk | contribs) m (48,064 bytes) (→Province of Bolzano-Bozen: Capitalisation) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:50, 8 July 2010 Skinsmoke (talk | contribs) (48,064 bytes) (→Province of Bolzano-Bozen: Clarification) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:47, 8 July 2010 Skinsmoke (talk | contribs) (48,002 bytes) (→Italy: Clarification (as agreed during the discussion that led to the consensus a year ago)) (undo)

That was the consensus arrived at when the naming convention for Italy was agreed. The previous convention was far worse, as it used the province code (Pula (CA)). There was little support for the Pula, Italy format, and a lot of support for the Pula, Cagliari (the provincial name as a disambiguator) format. The eventual consensus was a compromise which received general support, as it was thought that the Italian regions are based on historical regions, and are fairly well established. It really is no different from the disambiguating conventions in place for the United States, Australia, Canada, South Africa and parts of the United Kingdom (for England and Wales we use the county (equivalent to Italian provinces) as a disambiguator, but for Scotland the constituent country (equivalent to Italian regions) is used). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam

FYI, a naming convention for Vietnamese proper names—with regard to diacritics—is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Diacritics. I posted it here on the project page, but figured I'd leave a note on the talk page too. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Italy: rioni of Rome

A number of editors seem to be unhappy that the naming convention for Italy is being applied to the rioni of the City of Rome. I have copied below the relevant discussions from talk pages:

Hi Antique Rose. I note that you have reverted the recent moves of the Rome rioni. A new naming convention for Italy was agreed a year ago, under which all Italian placename articles, if they need to be disambiguated, should be placed under Placename, Region. The policy is clearly set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy. You should also note that disambiguating by parentheses is deprecated for placenames. Your reverts are directly contrary to these guidelines. I note that you also claim there are lots of villages called 'Borgo' in Lazio. There may be, but either they have no articles on English Wikipedia, and are therefore irrelevant when considering disambiguation; or they are not simply named 'Borgo', and therefore do not need to be disambiguated. Please abide by the convention that was agreed and arrange for an administrator to undo your reverts. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the discussion that led to the new convention concluded that frazioni (the equivalent in the rest of Italy of Rome's rioni) should be treated the same way as comuni or any other placename in Italy. I hope the above doesn't come across as too harsh a tone. I know only too well how difficult it is to keep up with naming conventions, particularly when they change, and have been caught out myself before now. However, the article moves did provide a link to the convention in the History. A side effect of your reverts, by the way, has been that the appropriate article is no longer highlighted in the Rioni of Rome template at the bottom of the page. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but I wasn't aware of this new naming convention. Could you please show me the discussion about frazioni, rioni and comuni? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 01:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and find it—it's hidden in the archives somewhere. I had to find it for someone else a couple of weeks back, so shouldn't be too hard! Skinsmoke (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Even easier than I thought! It's at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/August#Naming convention for Italian cities. There were only about seven editors involved, but it was an extensive and far-ranging discussion, in which most editors changed their position to come to a compromise. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Borgo (Lazio)

Hallo Skinsmoke

sorry to disturb you, I am writing about this redirect. Borgo is one of the original 14 historic quarters (rioni) of Rome. All over Italy there are hundreds, if not thousands, quarters and frazioni which bear the same name. You can google a little bit to discover it. Just to make an example of a town which I know well, the ancient part of Nocera Umbra, is called il Borgo. This means that this redirect is - at the best - ambiguous ,and therefore senseless. Moreover, a rione is a part of a city (Rome), not of a region (Latium), therefore it should be superordinated to the city. If we want really to be precise, then we should rename the article to Rione Borgo (Rome), and then rename accordingly all the other Rioni. I hope you got my point. Cheers from the Eternal City, Alex2006 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about disturbing me. On Wikipedia we determine disambiguation terms by what other articles we have; not by what potential articles there may be. We have articles on just two places called Borgo: one in Corsica, France; and one in Lazio, Italy. We have plenty of articles with Borgo as part of the name (18 in total): Borgo Santa Lucia in Campania; Borgo Tossignano and Borgo Val di Taro in Emilia–Romagna; Borgo Velino in Lazio; Borgo di Terzo, Borgo Priolo, Borgo San Giacomo, Borgo San Giovanni and Borgo San Siro in Lombardy; Borgo Pace in Marche; Borgo d'Ale, Borgo San Dalmazzo, Borgo San Martino, Borgo Ticino and Borgo Vercelli in Piedmont; Borgo Valsugana in Trentino–Alto Adige/Südtirol; and Borgo a Mozzano and Borgo San Lorenzo in Tuscany. However, all those 18 are pre-disambiguated (their name is not simply Borgo).

The example you gave in Nocera Umbra is somewhat irrelevant. Firstly, it is in Umbria, but more importantly we have no article about it, there is no redirect to it, and it isn't even mentioned in the article on Nocera Umbra. For the purposes of disambiguation, it is therefore irrelevant. However, in the unlikely event that an article was created, it would be under Borgo, Umbria.

If subsequently there was another article created for a Borgo in Lazio then, under the naming convention for Italy, the articles would be named under the Placename, Province format. If we had two within the province of Roma, then we would move to the Placename, Comune format.

As it is we only have to differentiate between two places in Lazio: Borgo and Borgo Velino.

One final point is that disambiguating by parentheses is deprecated for placenames, unlike (I think) on Italian Wikipedia. Your suggestion of Rione Borgo (Rome) would therefore be Rione Borgo, Rome. However, with the Rione in the title, there would be no need to disambiguate at all. There may well be an argument that all the rioni should be titled Rione Placename, but I am not sure you would find widespread support for that. We do not title articles on frazioni as, for example Frazione Borgo Santa Lucia, nor do we title articles on comuni as, for example, Comune Borgo Velino. I would hazard a guess that such a proposal would be met with widespread opposition. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)