Talk:Riviera

In splitting these pages and creating this disambiguation page, I used the description at Talk:Italian Riviera by user User:204.52.215.107, with thanks. Ted Wilkes 13:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"tropical"?
This article says:


 * Because of the worldwide popularity of the French Riviera and the Italian Riviera, it has become fashionable to attach the term to many scenic strands of coastland, particularly semitropical or tropical,

The French Riviera is at something like 43 degrees north latitude. How can that be considered "tropical" or even "semitropical"? Michael Hardy 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) The climate of the Côte d'Azur (French Riviera) is of mediterranean type; which is a climate considered "sub-tropical" in climatic classifications. Sub-tropical is not part of tropical cliamtes but part of the moderate climates. By the way, Italian Rivera is situated a bit more north than French Riviera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.127.3 (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of name
1) Which came "first?" 2) Why is it called a "rivera" at all? (Where did the word come from?) &mdash;OverMyHead 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The word riviera is a common Italian word for "coastline" derived from Old French riviere meaning shoreline of a river or lake. It later came to mean any shoreline, including eventually that of the Mediterranean Sea. In some cases the term is used to indicate not only the bank but a wider region adjacent to the same, so in Romagna this name is given to the regions adjacent to the banks of the waterways. With reference to the sea, it means the coast or coastal sector, especially as used as an element of place names: as in "Riviera Ligure" ("Ligurian Riviera") (or simply Riveria), East Coast (Riveria di Levante) and West Coast (Riveria di Ponente) of Liguria.  --Bejnar (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The are two therms called riviera. The common word riviera and the proper name Riviera with the first letter capitalized. Riviera doesn't derive from Old French rivière but from genoese word Rivea and indicates the ligurian coast. Riviera di Levante and Riviera di Ponente are the only geographic place name accepted. Now the term riviera (sometimes with first letter capitalized) is used in Italy to indicate several coastal areas. Riviera romagnola is commonly used but it's not a geographic place name. Massyace —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

About Ukrainian Riviera and Russian Riviera

 * Has anyone know Ukrainian Riviera and Russian Riviera? 61.230.87.11 (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger
There is a discussion at Talk:Riviera (disambiguation) about merging this page with Riviera (disambiguation). --Bejnar (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Images
Someone deleted the images of this article. I think they're needed to illustrate the character of this term. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That was me. Sorry, I missed your comment here.  Anyway, images are discouraged on navigation pages - the goal is to get the reader to move on to the "real" article, not linger here too long.  Images are thus only relevant when they help disambiguate between meanings, as at Congo (disambiguation).  See MOS:DAB. SnowFire (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a mere disambig. or navigation page for what I can see, but also explains the term itself. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. It looks like a disambig page, it's styled like a disambig page, it is a disambig page.  I suppose the article could be changed into something like "List of places called Riviera" and then pictures stuck in a table, one for each, but this would be tricky at best to sell.  I think keeping it clean and simple and directly at getting to the real articles is best, skips arguing about the best images to represent "Rivieras in general", whatever that means. SnowFire (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you're right what this should be about. An illustration explaining what the original riviera is wouldn't hurt still. We could use the map of the Ligurian coast for instance. It's not a poop-dry scientific article, so adding color shouldn't be a warmongering venture here. :) Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Riviera (disambiguation)
Propose merger with Riviera. Seems kinda arbitrary to have TWO disambiguation pages for similarly-named topics (Riviera is currently coasts and Riviera (disambiguation) is other stuff), especially since neither is super-super long. p b  p  13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: see Talk:Riviera (disambiguation) for some previous discussion. older ≠ wiser 13:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging participants in the previous discussion. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm still of the opinion that riviera is a valid broad-concept article, and not a disambiguation article. A simple google search for "riviera meaning" brings up Cambridge, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Macmillan, Collins, ... dictionaries, all of which indicate that the primary meaning of the term is generic. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am still in favor of a single combined disambiguation page per the old conversation, and I still can't understand the anti- arguments, which make as much sense to me as the old "separate out acronyms from disambiguation pages" debate - it's a distinction without a meaningful difference as far as readers are concerned. The current "Riviera" page is still a disambiguation page; it's not talking about the grand theory of Riviera, but rather is a list of a variety of places that happen to have "Riviera" in the name.  So it's no different than splitting out any old random section or the like, which isn't usually done.  An example of a good broad-concept article is something like Will (philosophy), where it's kind of disambiguation like in that it's a bunch of "here are links to several independent interpretations of the phrase", but at least these different senses of will are somewhat related.  French Riviera, Riviera Country Club, and Panama City Beach are not.  SnowFire (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm with SnowFire on this, Joy. Riviera looks and acts too much like a disambiguation page to be classified as anything but.  A true broad-concept article would contain much more prose and much fewer links to similarly-named things.  p  b  p  17:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of set index articles? See additional comments below. --Bejnar (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not looking enough like a good broad-concept article - so why not edit it and make it so? These arguments remind me of WP:SURMOUNTABLE. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we're the ones saying that it's not surmountable in theory, not just in its current form. :) This often simply doesn't exist.  There will never be a USS Nautilus article on the ship "in general" that ties the multiple unrelated ships & submarines together, because they only share a name.  If you believe it is surmountable - how?  What ties these places together other than a word in their name they share?  Can you imagine any useful information tying together these disparate places?  SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nautilus is also not a disambiguation page. It is a set index, which is what this list of storms is as well . [Added after correction]This article is a simple list of places that are sometimes referred to by the word "riviera" in conjunction with some other term. older ≠ wiser 11:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Storms? I think you're in the wrong discussion. — Gorthian (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * oops. older ≠ wiser 22:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If we know for a fact that there's this real-world pattern of naming various places rivieras, and not in a sense of a proper name (like "Nautilus") but a generic name, it stands to reason that there's potential for an explanation for this to be written that would be better than the one you're currently not satisfied with. There's other examples of such articles in Wikipedia, off the top of my head I recall there's sound (geography), where there's more ambiguity and no apparent existential concerns. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would merge the content of the current Riviera article to the section under the Shore article (q.v.), with a dab hatnote there, and an entry at the Riviera (disambiguation) page for both the unadorned term and its generic meaning, see shore. The primary topic, as I see it, for Riviera is the Ligurian Riviera, consisting of both the French and Italian rivieras.  Unfortunately, Ligurian Riviera defaults to Italian Riviera, although it does note there that Historically it extended further to the west, through what is now French territory as far as Monaco.  So the choice would be to have the naked term go to one of (1) the disamibiguation page, (2) the Italian Riviera or (3) the French Riviera.  Given that the French call the Italian Riveria the "Riviera", I suggest having Riviera default to Italian Riviera with a dab hatnote for the Côte d'Azu. --Bejnar (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So, to be clear, you're proposing Riviera->Italian Riviera, with a hatnote on top? That doesn't seem like the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the Italian Riviera article gets a fairly tiny amount of pageviews, see https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Italian_Riviera .  Even a fairly subpar disambig entry like Riviera: The Promised Land is close, and it's worse if all the other options are included.  ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Riviera:_The_Promised_Land ).  A true primary topic should dwarf the other options; it'd make more sense to use something like "French Riviera" if we wanted to not have Riviera go to a disambig page, but I'd oppose that, too.  ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=French_Riviera )
 * Anyway, I agree that the French & Italian Rivieras are indeed the most important meanings, but that just means they are listed first on the disambiguation page. SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Having the unadorned Riviera be the disambiguation page is fine, but the non-disambiguation content of the set index page that currently exists there cannot be merged. Instead of placing it at Shore, how about List of Rivieras, and tagging it as a set index page ? --Bejnar (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally disagree that this is anything more than perfectly standard disambiguation. A valid list is something like List of departments of France.  This is "places called Riviera", which, well, is what Wikipedia uses disambiguation pages for. SnowFire (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Please don't confuse disambiguation pages with list articles, though they look superficially similar. Riviera contains informative content that doesn't belong on a disambiguation page, and could include much more. Most of the articles listed there would not qualify as entries on a dab page named "Riviera", as they are partial title matches. 's idea is good: changing the title name to "List of Rivieras"; in that case, Riviera could hold the dab page, and Riviera (disambiguation) would be the redirect to it. But it's fine with me if list remains at Riviera, too. Either way, there is an opportunity to expand it into a broad-concept article.— Gorthian (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of trivial criteria that Lists should not have. List of places called Riviera is like List of cities with City in their name or List of cities that end in -burgh.  Luckily, being called "Riviera", even as a partial title match, is perfectly fine on a disambiguation page, aka what it is right now.
 * So, if this article was moved to "List of Rivieras", is there any content here that isn't the list? Is there a grand theory of Rivieras, something that ties it together other than a similar name? SnowFire (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Two things, first not "List of placed called rivieras", but "List of Rivieras". The difference is that "riviera" has a meaning, it is not just arbitarilly applied to a place, unlike the way "Santa Maria" is applied, and that we are dealing with "proper names", albeit graphonyms (description based) and often epithets. Second, you say partial title match, is perfectly fine on a disambiguation page. It is my experience that a fair number of editors would take issue with that statement and consider it to be overly inclusive.  In fact, disagreement with that statement seems to have been one of the causes of separating the two pages. See, for example, older ≠ wiser's statement of 16 June 2013 at Talk:Riviera (disambiguation) regarding Disambiguation: Unless these are commonly known as simply "riviera" rather than X riviera, they would fail inclusion on a disambiguation page. --Bejnar (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, and sorry about the slow response. I see your point, but I don't believe that these entries really are graphonyms, and to the extent they are, it doesn't always make sense to have a set-index article about such a thing anyway.  Put things another way: there is no political reality to the "Riviera" designation.  There is no country or board that hands out a Riviera designation.  And I don't believe there is any "Geographic" reality to it, either, that a space alien given a globe could puzzle out, like List of Norwegian fjords.  It is just a name - a name based on a description, sure, but that's true of lots of names.  For example, look at the chart in Welsh toponymy - there is no need for articles describing List of bryns, with that meaning "places on a hill," even though it's a graphonym.  Lastly, I recognize that I disagree with older != wiser, but I personally don't see the partial title matches of Rivieras as overly inclusive on the disambiguation page?  I dunno, we've established that people disagree, I'm on the side that some amount of partial title matching is just fine.  I would argue that guideline is more intended for something like "Beach" where a list of every entity with "Beach" in its name or description would be unimaginably huge, which isn't the case here.  SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: For those who are having trouble visualizing a broad-concept article, think of what the name "Riviera" brings to mind. Beaches, sun, luxury, resorts, beautiful surroundings, yes? The original "Riviera" is (and may always be) the French Riviera: it's an icon. Other places named "Riviera" are often named that in hopes of capturing some of the glamour of the original. How many times have you run across a phrase like, "It's so beautiful, it's like the [name of place] Riviera"? "The Australian Riviera", "the Riviera of the Caribbean", "the Norwegian Riviera", etc., etc. all come up in Google searches. "Riviera" is a Big Concept, and there are plenty of sources out there to draw on for a Big Concept Article. The different areas named this can be sorted into various geographic sections and even discussed. Lists are not the only way to go. — Gorthian (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a nit-pick, but the original "Riviera" was the Italian (or Ligurian if you prefer) Riviera. The Italian portion shrank when Nice was transferred to France by the Treaty of Turin in 1860. However, I do think that it is time to close this discussion as "No Consensus". --Bejnar (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)