Talk:Italia (disambiguation)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Italia (disambiguation) page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Primary meaning

I am not sure Italy should be the primary meaning. I suggest that there may be no primary meaning, this article should be moved to Italia. PatGallacher (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Ucucha 06:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Italia (disambiguation) → Italia[reply]

— At present "Italy" is the primary meaning, I question this, given the large number of other meanings e.g. several ships of this name. PatGallacher (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Given that "Italia" is printed on jerseys for sports teams representing Italy, it's fairly common for a person to expect it to be Italy. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that people who see the jerseys don't know that it means "Italy" and are searching for the meaning here. I personally doubt that. — AjaxSmack 01:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that argument assumes that many viewers would see footballers with "Italia" on their shirts and not realise that this is Italy. However, we could get people searching for e.g. a ship of this name. PatGallacher (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the nominator's argument. Propaniac (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Italia" for most English speakers is alternative word for Italy. If there was a major alternative meaning of "Italia" then I would support this move, but there isn't. Please remember that English is a lingua franca, and that many users of this website may not be native anglophones. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Italia" for most English speakers is alternative word for Italy. True. But would Wikipedia users be searching for Italy when they type "Italia" in the search box? — AjaxSmack 06:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any other significant meaning of "Italia" on the disambiguation page for people to be looking for, it's not like there's a famous song or band of that name. I grant that most people looking for Italy would just type in "Italy", but the primary meaning of "Italia" is still Italy. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your unconventionally-spelled opinion is based on your certainty that nobody would look up any of the other 18 topics known by the name "Italia," because none of them is a "famous song or band." This is why the admins who close move requests really shouldn't rely on just a headcount. Propaniac (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed spelling, thank you for pointing that out. If there was anything known commonly as "Italia", not just a song or band but anything of popular importance, than I would support this movement. You have not given any convincing reason why this article should be moved. Can you really argue that anything on the Italia (disambiguation) page is anywhere near the level of relevence of Italy? Italy is the overwheling primary meaning of "Italia". Just as the primary meaning of Deutchland is Germany, of Nihon is Japan, of Cymru is Wales. Why should this be any different? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not the importance of the topics; the question is which topic(s) are the most likely to be sought using the term "Italia." If I wanted to read about the Chris Botti album, the obvious search term would be "Italia" because that's the title of the album. But, as an English speaker (evidenced by the fact that I am using the English Wikipedia), if I wanted to read about the country of Italy, why would I search for "Italia" instead of "Italy"? Propaniac (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, many users using this website are not native speakers of English. The album you list to is a stub, as are most pages on the disambiguation page. If in the unlikely event that someone is looking for this album (and I think the proportion of users typing in "Italia" and looking for this album and not the country would be very small) than they can easily find the page by accessing the disambiguation page from the hatnote on Italy, as is the arrangement now. You haven't answered my question as to why Italy is any different from the countriwes listed above. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an English Wikipedia. Sure, many users aren't native speakers, but that doesn't mean they should expect to enter any word in their native language and be taken to the correct article, anymore than it means that every user should be asked which language they want to read the article in instead of going to the English article by default. I still have trouble envisioning this user who would choose to read the English Wikipedia, but would enter Italian search terms to navigate it. That doesn't mean such a user doesn't exist, but I hardly think they're so numerous that we should structure this website to best accommodate them. (Also: Italy is listed at the top of the disambiguation page. For your talk about how easy it would be for such a user to find an article about something actually called Italia in English, just by clicking on the hatnote link at Italy to go to the disambiguation page, you seem to be overlooking that it would be even easier for a user who arrives at the disambiguation page to click on the Italy link if that is the article they're seeking.)

As for the other endonym redirects: I haven't looked at them. Maybe they should be changed (I can't think offhand of any reason I would feel differently about those cases than this one). Or maybe there are no disambiguation pages for those terms. I'm of the opinion that we should make decisions about specific pages by looking at what makes sense for that specific page, not by simply copying other pages. I think anyone who has spent significant time working on any kind of Wikipedia cleanup is aware that there are a lot of pages that are totally screwed-up, so copying a page without considering whether that's actually the best way of doing things is not a policy I endorse. Propaniac (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, it's not a big deal either way. I still don't think that making this move will improve Wikipedia. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.