Talk:Latina (disambiguation)

Primary topic
Personally, I even believe the primary topic for "Latina" should be the Italian city, but I'd be (sort of) willing to just leave it as a disambiguation page. However, I consider reverting to redirecting to Latino unacceptable. "Latina" is most definitely the feminine of "Latino"... in Spanish. This is the English Wikipedia, and I really, really don't believe that's a primary use of the word. For that matter, the other uses on the disambiguation page don't seem particularly strong, either: one is the province that the city of Latina is located in, another is a valley still in Italy (which would normally be called "Valle Latina", not really just "Latina"), then there is a district of a city, and a magazine, and the name of the Latin language in Latin. I really do think the primary topic is the city here.

I have discussed this before, and Google (whose results should be judged by quality, not quantity strongly hints to the Italian city being a pretty primary topic, with most other meaningful uses of Latina apparently being confined to sites in Spanish.

So in a nutshell, if there is a primary topic, I believe it's the city, not the Spanish feminine of "Latino"; if there isn't a primary topic, then this should be Latina (disambiguation), I believe.

--LjL (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether you think the primary topic is the Italian city or that the base term should be a disambiguation page, either should be accomplished by a requested move rather than changing the target of the redirect. If the city is the primary topic, then by naming conventions, it should have the undisambiguated base name. If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should occupy the base name. older ≠ wiser 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So which move should I request, given I do want the disambiguation page to be shown if there is no consensus about the city being the primary topic? I've already seen a few move requests go bad because it wasn't clear what the article was being proposed to be moved to. --LjL (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think the city is the primary topic, propose moving the city, if you don't think that will gain consensus, then propose moving the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, as I noted in my edit summary, I think Redirects for discussion would be a better venue here. Dekimasu よ! 14:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The criteria listed at WP:RFD don't appear to include this case, from what I can see. They mention "deleting to make space for a move", but that seems to imply that the move has already been decided and agreed upon - which is obviously not the case here. To me, this looks like a disambiguation issue first and foremost; then once a course of action has been decided, I suppose there might be a need to kill the redirect. --LjL (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I don't think there is any need to discuss deletion. In the past it was common to use RFD to discuss retargeting, but maybe that has changed over time (it's still mentioned at the top of the page, but deprecated except in difficult cases towards the middle). Dekimasu よ! 15:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But even then, Bkonrad said it's inappropriate to simply retarget this page, and that it should actually be whichever is relevant if "Latino" is not it. --LjL (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the topic has been discussed previously. By my reading of the page history, the first version from 25 February 2002 of the page that is now Latina (disambiguation) was a redirect to Latino . At the time, the page appears to have been titled Latina. The next edit on 19 August 2002 changed it from a redirect to a disambiguation page. On 15 December 2007, the disambiguation page was moved from Latina to Latina (disambiguation) and, at the same time , Latina was changed to be a redirect to Latino. Since that time, except for an edit that was quickly reverted by the same editor, the page has been a redirect to the article about the demonymn (however it was titled). That really doesn't tell us much. From August 2002 until December 2007, Latina was a disambiguation page. Since that time it has been a redirect to the demonym. In either case, there doesn't appear to have been much controversy or discussion. The long tenure as a disambiguation page would support moving it back. The apparent lack of objection to the December 2007 page move and subsequent redirect could also be taken as consensus for that arrangement.  So on the one hand, you could be WP:BOLD and have the redirect be deleted and then move the disambiguation page. Or just propose the move and let due process determine the course. older ≠ wiser 15:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is clearly an objection by Dekimasu, who reverted my change (not on the grounds that it was not the proper way to turn this into a disambiguation page, but simply based on the claim that "Latino" was, in his opinion, clearly the primary topic). Anyway, the whole issue was brought to my (perhaps our) attention by a move discussion for the article about the city of Latina. --LjL (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for your edification, I arrived at the Latina, Italy discussion through WP:RM and discovered the redirect alteration because of an increase in links to Latina (disambiguation) as shown at WP:TDD. Anyway, yes, the move of the dab shouldn't be considered uncontroversial, because I have objected to it. If you're open to letting the results of a move request determine the target of the redirect as well as the location of the disambiguation page, I'm fine with that. Dekimasu よ! 05:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the comment at the top of the page to the effect that "Latina" is an uncommon word in English, I think that's incorrect, no matter what quality of link you are considering. The "female of Latino" meaning is intended for 37 of the top 40 Google news hits (the other 3 are for the magazine) and 100 of the top 100 Google books hits in English. I've never before heard it argued that English speakers are expected to use the word "Latino" to refer to women. (For what it's worth, I don't speak Spanish.) Dekimasu よ! 15:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe. I'm not a native English speaker myself, and I did say I'm willing to be convinced this should be a disambiguation, rather than pointing directly to the city (it's what my reverted change was about, after all; I never actually redirected this to the city's article). I was basing my suspicions that "Latina" as feminine of Latino was uncommon in English on the fact that the first few hits on plain Google refer to other things (the Italian city, as well as what I guess is the magazine that Latina (disambiguation) talks about, as well as "an extensive collection of early Christian Latin texts"). Since these, on their turn, don't appear to be exceptionally common English uses of the word, I figured "feminine of Latino", which has hits mostly only on the following pages, wouldn't be exceptionally common, either. As for Google news and books, well, I guess not a whole lot is happening in the city of Latina... But again, while I'm willing to admit the city might not be considered the primary topic, I do believe in that case a disambiguation page should be used. --LjL (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have put the redirect to the dab page back until this is resolved. So far, I don't see a case being made for anything other then the city redirect or the dab page being here.  So the redirect tot he dab page is the best solution until a consensus is reached on which of those two should be here.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to disagree with the argument, but 100/100 is definitely "making a case" for Latino. Dekimasu よ! 00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)