Talk:Nizza DOCG

Nizza confusion resolved
This page re-directing to the town of Nice in France was misleading. I have done several things: 1. Examined all pages pointing to Nizza: where the French town (Nice) was meant, changed the link to Nice, which defaults to the French town; where Nizza Monferrato (the Italian town) was meant, changed the link to Nizza Monferrato. 2. Without qualifiers, Nizza means only the Italian wine. I have therefore changed the Nizza default page to the Italian wine, and changed all links to 'Nizza' that meant the Italian town to 'Nizza Monferrato'. 3. To maintain clarity, I have put a hatnote at the top of the article pointing to Nizza (disambiguation): this should help users who weren't expecting a wine page here. Piedmont (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Note however this confusion does not exist in Italian and German: in those languages, the overwhelming consensus is that 'Nizza' is a seaside town in France, and that is where a search for 'Nizza' should lead by default: the Nizza (Nice) page should start with a link to the Nizza (disambiguation) page in each case. The equivalent pages to this page are 'Nizza (vino)' in Italian, and 'Nizza (Wein)' in German. Piedmont (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not quite so, I'm afraid

 * 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: Moved. There was not a consensus that the Nizza wine is the primary topic of 'Nizza'. Usually a primary topic will be well known and will be in the mind of many of those searching for an article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

– To most English speakers, "Nizza" does not automatically imply the Italian wine, nor the city in France or any other place name, as per your rationale above. Therefore the most appropriate option would be to make "Nizza" a disambiguation to all these topics for none of these can claim primary topic status. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG talk 05:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nizza → Nizza (wine)
 * Nizza (disambiguation) → Nizza

Regarding primary topic: this is not a primary topic issue, simply because "Nizza" (without qualifiers) has no other meaning. To use the language of Wikipedia:Disambiguation, there is "no other topic associated with that term", i.e there is no secondary topic. I think that the existing hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page fully covers any possible confusion. Piedmont (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – no primary topic here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – I get results for a restaurant. The wine can't be that significant. MelanieLamont (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reject - "Nizza" on its own is ONLY the Italian wine. All other uses of "Nizza" involve some other word as a qualifier (Nizza Monferrato, Ponte Nizza, etc.). To most English speakers, "Nizza" doesn't mean much - but that is not relevant here. My main point is that the DOCG wines of Italy (they are listed at Category:Italian DOCG) are featured UNDER THE NAME OF THE WINE: for example, Amarone, Barbaresco or Ramandolo. Nizza has EXACTLY the same status as these other DOCG wines, and like them it should appear under its correct name. The fact that Nizza is a new DOCG is also not relevant. Nizza is the unique, unambiguous and correct name of a DOCG wine, and that makes it both significant and notable.Piedmont (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reject - Perhaps editors who claim that "Nizza" has no primary topic, and that "Nizza" therefore requires disambiguation, could explain what other meanings (apart from the wine) the term "Nizza" has. Misslora91 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering you are a relatively new user, I would strongly suggest that you first read Disambiguation and Help:Disambiguation so that you know when and how we use disambiguation pages. And for the answer to your question, please refer to the "Nizza (disambiguation)" page linked to above. I'm sure when you read this page you will be convinced that the various meanings of "Nizza" will warrant the need for this term to be disambiguated. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – unilaterally  in favor of the wine on 17 Sept November 2015; that doesn't make it the primary topic according to Wikipedia criteria, namely overwhelming dominance in common usage (surely there are many contenders at the dab page) and/or long-term significance (can't argue this for a wine appellation which was only instituted in 2012). To his credit, Piedmont initially did the right thing by  instead of the French city of Nice. Ths proposed moves will revert to this appropriate situation. — JFG talk 20:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I live in Italy half a century and did not know about a italian wine. --Robertiki (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A DuckDuckGo search for "Nizza" brings up mostly restaurants named Nizza, as well as a few hotels. These establishments aren't named after the wine. They are named for the city of Nice, whose Italian name is Nizza. The search engine results show that this topic is not primary under the usage criteria ("highly likely...to be the topic sought"). The "long-term significance" criteria suggests that the city of Nice could be primary. As long as no one is suggesting anything else for primary topic, I don't see any benefit to the proposed move. Gulangyu (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled: if I read your statements correctly, you say that there is no primary topic, or that perhaps the city might be considered primary, therefore you should support the move, because opposing would keep the wine as primary topic. Can you clarify your position before the move request is evaluated and closed? — JFG talk 10:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When I started writing my !vote I had not yet decided on my conclusion, so the organization is irregular. Many editors seem to think that the disambiguation page must be primary if there is doubt. I have read the guideline carefully and I do not see anything to support this view. IMO, it is the nominator's responsibility to show that there is some benefit to the move. The proposed move would add cruft to the title of the wine article, but I do not see an upside. Gulangyu (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

you said that the wine Nizza does not have overwhelming dominance in common usage. That is correct. You then go on to say that it does not meet the long-term significance criterion, because the "wine appellation .. was only instituted in 2012". Let's look carefully at the latter claim. Wikipedia primary topic policy states that both historical age, and that fact that a topic may have ascended to notability only recently, are not criteria that are generally considered good indicators of primary topic. The example cited to illustrate the second of these criteria is ISIS (which has been around for about the same length of time as Nizza), which takes the reader to the Islamic State by default, not to the Egyptian goddess. The fact that a topic has become notable only recently does not prevent it from being the primary topic. The claim that the wine appellation Nizza fails to meet the long-term significance criterion because of its age is not valid. So, are there other grounds for claiming that the wine Nizza meets the long-term significance criterion? Does "Nizza" (the wine) have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term? Let's examine the question in 2 parts: enduring notability and any other topic associated with that term. I already covered the first part in my earlier comments: Amarone, Barbaresco and Ramandolo are all enduringly notable because of their DOCG status. Therefore, "Nizza" is enduringly notable because of its DOCG status. DOCG status confers notability: ALL Italian DOCG wines have their own wikipedia page. Can't we all agree that this is correct? If an Italian DOCG wine did not have a wikipedia page, I would create it myself!

Regarding the second part: note that all the examples cited in the primary topic policy have two (or more) meanings - Apple, Boston, House of Lords, ISIS (strangely enough, both "Apple" and "House of Lords" are also bands with their own wikipedia pages). This is entirely logical: a topic can only be primary relative to another (secondary) topic. To put this another way, the concept of primary topic only makes sense when another (secondary) topic exists. So, I challenge all of the supporters of this proposal: what other topics are associated with the term "Nizza"? I am fully aware of the Nizza (disambiguation) page, which lists 9 entities which include the word "Nizza" in their compounded names, but I don't believe there is any entity other than the wine called simply "Nizza".

So, my answer to the question "Does 'Nizza' (the wine) have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term?" is YES, on two grounds. Firstly, because it has ENDURING NOTABILITY (it may only be as old as ISIS, but hopefully it will endure longer), and secondly, because there is no other topic associated with that term.

Finally, I would urge all commenters on this topic to remain polite and courteous, and to base their arguments on what has been said and on the Wikipedia disambiguation policy. I dislike ad hominem language (that I "grabbed" the name, and "initially did the right thing", implying that I then did the wrong thing) and I have tried to respond carefully to the points other editors have made. I only ask that other editors extend the same courtesy to me. Piedmont (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear, my comments addressed the facts, not the person. You boldly decided to re-assign the Nizza name in good faith, first to a disambig, then to the wine. I happen to disagree with the latter move based on article titling and primary topic policies. I used the expression "grabbing a primary topic" which is a usual way to describe such action on Wikipedia. Stronger language would be "hijacking" or "taking over" the name; "grabbing" is neutral in my view. Regardless, I'm sorry for unwittingly offending you. — JFG talk 05:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. For me, the primary meaning is the city.  If no one can agree on a primary topic, the proposed moves are the way to go.  —  AjaxSmack   14:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, now it's my turn to say sorry - for being over-sensitive. If I had known there was even a possibility that "grabbing" might be a neutral term, I would not have made my comment. I'm a little confused by your comment. When you linked to Wikipedia:OR policy, are you acknowledging that referring to Nice as "Nizza" in English is original research? Because that is exactly what it is, in my view. I am not aware of any reliable, published source IN ENGLISH that refers to the seaside town on the Cote d'Azur as "Nizza": perhaps you can point me to one? If no reliable, published source in English refers to Nice as "Nizza", how can the primary topic associated with the term "Nizza" be Nice on the English version of Wikipedia? Also, please recall that I am not claiming that the wine is the primary topic on the usage criterion - I am claiming that it is the primary topic on the significance criterion. Just like usage, significance can (sometimes does, and in this case did) change. Piedmont (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support these moves 2601:541:4305:C70:6520:5765:605:D4ED (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.