Talk:Milan–San Remo

Cycling High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name

Milan – Sanremo → Milan – San Remo or Milano–Sanremo — This article started at Milan-Sanremo, then moved to Milan – San Remo, and is now at Milan – Sanremo. The way I understand the Wikipedia Manual of Style on dashes, it should be at Milan–Sanremo, but after two moves I think some discussion might be needed.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common English usage is Milan – San Remo, but the official Italian name is Milano–Sanremo. So the last move is not correct anyhow. After further examination I see there has already been some discussion at the city's talk page, on how to write the name, but there was never any conclusion. What I find strange is that the majority of Italian well known cities uses the common English name, instead of the "correct" Italian one, San Remo being an exception. As a Norwegian, I know the cities as Firenze, Napoli, Torino, Milano, Venezia, Toscana, Genova, and so on... But since all of these articles uses its common English name, why shouldn't Sanremo? I'm always looking for consistency, so this article should either be named Milano–Sanremo or Milan – San Remo! lil2mas (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, complicated. I would avoid the discussion on the name of the Italian city here, and go for consistency within Wikipedia with Milan–Sanremo. And if the Italian city article is renamed to San Remo, change this article into Milan – San Remo. I don't think Milano–Sanremo is a good idea, because Wikipedia has a "rule" that English variants are preferred if available.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the English variant of Sanremo is San Remo! We cannot apply a rule to one part of the article title, and not to the other, can we? lil2mas (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Sources: Britannica.com, Encarta.MSN.com, Encyclopedia.com[reply]

I completely see your point, but that is a discussion for the Sanremo article. And I don't want to go there. If you want to take up the challenge to have that article changed to San Remo, then go for it.

I would say that consistency within Wikipedia is important (which would mean "Sanremo"), but accuracy is also important (which would mean "San Remo"). Because you prefer San Remo strongly, and I prefer Sanremo only weakly, and there is nobody else here to give his/her opinion, shall we move it to Milan – San Remo? On second thought, I will add a "moveto"-template to this talk page, maybe that will somehow attract somebody with a perfect solution.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we should move it back, but good thinking adding the template, it doesn't hurt us to wait a couple of days extra! =) But what did you mean by consistency within Wikipedia, BTW? If Sanremo has been used in some articles, it isn't harder than exchanging them with San Remo, to obtain that consistency? lil2mas (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to Milan – San Remo because nobody objected in a few weeks. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do object: the name of the race (and of the town) is Milan-Sanremo. Italians prefer Sanremo strongly (they consider San Remo as a mistake).--Enzino (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Enzino. If we're going to have Vuelta al País Vasco at that and not Tour of the Basque Country (which is actually very commonly used in English), clearly we as a Project prefer local names. Or is that changing? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) A cycling News headline today catches my eye - Sanremo: Napolitano Keeps Dreaming Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move per request. I have also moved all associated articles, templates and the category they share, and fixed all internally to refer to this form of title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan – San Remo → Milan–San Remo – Consistency with dashes across all road bicycle races. See Category:Men's road bicycle races and Category:Classic cycle races. The vast majority of the foreign articles don't use a space between the dash [1]. This issue was brought up at a current FAC. Bald Boris 23:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per the naming conventions for other races. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rationale is sound XyZAn (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thats how the race is officially written as well Dimspace (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have always wondered why the name had the spaces... Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milan–San Remo. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160318143016/http://www.cyclingnews.com/milan-san-remo/preview/ to http://www.cyclingnews.com/milan-san-remo/preview/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/first-edition-cycling-news-for-january-26-2006

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) 19:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Milan–San Remo. 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) 07:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]