Talk:Syracuse/Archive 2

No consensus
I'd say the poll is a no consensus and is starting to start fights, even (which further suggests that there's no consensus)

So it looks like there's still some discussion needed. I was going to suggest "stop bickering and just make a dang dab page", which is how you typically end 99% of these move wars. Then I actually looked, and the survey was actually ABOUT whether or not to have a dab page. Well I'll be dang-fangled.

Now what?

Kim Bruning 20:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was also asked to close this poll, and I have the same feelings as Kim; there are more than 3 important subjects that involve the word Syracuse. Not only you have the Italian and American cities, you have the University that won NCAA basketball championships. This is exactly why we have disambiguation pages. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The WP:RM say 60% required for consensus. The vote is 66% support, 33% oppose, I'd say thats sufficient. - FrancisTyers · 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged." (WP:RM). - FrancisTyers · 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That numerical criteria was only relatively recently added, and not without objection. In any case, whether to move or not is up to the discretion of the closing admin. older ≠ wiser 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where do you get a 2-1 advantage for Support? Even if we only look at votes prior to the 10th, the vote is 9 to 6.  That's only a 3-2 advantage.  That's exactly 60% support.  Powers 01:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you exclude one vote each fo both of them (newly registered/IP addresses), it's 14 to 7. bogdan 07:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A simple vote proves very little about general importance or demand, merely reflects the interest of the few that are bothering with this discussion. If the group in support of Syracuse, Italy were interested in a true vote then the fact that Syracuse, NY receives more hits should be indication enough as to how a real vote might turn out. --Muska1135 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves: Oops. Who put that approval voting line in? You can't have voting in the encyclopedia namepace. (Else you could have a vote on a math article on whether 2+2=5 or not, that won't work). Percentages don't have much of a point either. If you say you have 60% support, that means that a significant number of people have objections (like, you're pissing off up to 40% of the people!). That might bear thinking about.

I've corrected the requested moves page again. I'd still strongly discourage the use of that procedure, as it has many other flaws, though those are less damning.

Back to the article at hand: Oddly, typically a disambiguation page is the safe compromise in move disputes. It's somewhat annoying that people are trying to now move away from a disambig page. If it was a slam-dunk, with everyone in agreement, fine. Otherwise, I think you'll just be setting yourself up for future conflicts, as each set of new editors tries to renegotiate the compromise in another direction. Can you prevent that scenario?

Kim Bruning 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, first the page was moved with a consensus of one, then it was moved back with a consensus of 3-1, then it was moved back again because that wasn't thought to be sufficient consensus. Now we have a 14-7 consensus, and I think it can go back where it started. As I mentioned above, this really doesn't make it more difficult to get to Syracuse, New York from a click point of view.


 * Kim, I don't think you can have voting for "facts", but if that was the case then this page would be at Syracuse. As I mentioned at another poll, there are concerns that it will be difficult to use "What links here", in this case, we can move Syracuse to (Siracusa or Syracuse (Siracusa)) and then redirect Syracuse -> (Siracusa or Syracuse (Siracusa)) This will allow "What links here" to be used, as only pages which aren't correctly disambiguated will be linked there. - FrancisTyers · 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the 14 to 7 consensus is rather silly because it only polls 21 people, the 21 that are bothering with this discussion page. The fact that so few people care is because they clearly are content with the disambig page as it currently stands. If we were to open up the vote to everyone, those in support of Syracuse, NY would dominate the voting. Even still, very few of them are pushing for direct link to Syracuse, NY and are willing to have a disambig page. --Muska1135 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Err... this is all very interesting, but 14-7 is not a way to measure consensus, is it? Kim Bruning 11:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Going back to an early argument concerning paper encyclopedias, I want you all to look at Syracuses in The New Student's Reference Work of 1914. You'll see both have an approximately equal mention (flip the page). Plus Syracuse University also has a brief mention. Paper encyclopedias don't need disambiguation pages, they just publish everything that they believe is important. Not being a paper encyclopedia allows us to make entries a thousand times longer, but thus we need disambiguation pages. As long as wikilinks are routed directly, there is no reason why there shouldn't be a disambiguation page at Syracuse, as it will only be reached by those typing in Syracuse (or who click it from one of the Syracuses), and we don't know what those people want. Let's please end this silly war and appreciate the fact that we have great articles on Syracuse, Italy; Syracuse, New York; and Syracuse University. -newkai | talk | contribs 11:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to realize that we're having the wrong discussion here. Syracuse, NY is larger, has a larger metroploitan area, an important university, and is much more popular on the Internet. We shouldn't have a disambiguation page, Syracuse should just link to Syracuse, NY with a "If you are looking for Syracuse, Italy..." line under the title. Makes sense to me.--Ruckdeschel 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have a point, but I think that the disambig is the only viable option here. I hate to argue the point of the other side, but Syracuse, Italy has definite notability, and is only marginally smaller than Syracuse, NY.  That, however, is not grounds for a link directly to Syracuse, Italy. AdamBiswanger1 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not a good idea to have Syracuse go straight to Syracuse, NY. The truth is that we really have no idea which one any given reader might be looking for.  The disambiguation guidelines are clear on what to do in that situation: we have Syracuse be a disambiguation page, exactly as it is now.  Powers 01:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that the American monoculturalists have got their way (it's American, therefore it's important) - I would like to ask a simple question:
 * Why is it that the Syracuse disambiguation page shows Syracuse, Italy, which is then described as being in Sicily and Syracuse, New York which is then described as being in the USA. For consistency, shouldn't it be Syracuse, Sicily and then be described as being in Italy.  I am just curious about the different treatments.  Is there a logical reason for that?  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just heard that there is a new residential development at the back of Syracuse, New York, to be called Ortygia Heights. By the end of the year there could be up to 5,000 God fearing Americans living there - I'm wondering whether we need to disambiguate Ortygia, it being a tiny island alongside another insignificant island, consisting of nothing more than a pile of very old rubble.  These new residences will offer the very best in modern living, including 5 bathrooms and a media room.  Prices are going through the roof and everyone is clamouring for a bit of the action.  Now you tell me that that's not significant!  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just an innocent naming custom of America. America is a federalist nation, and so states have a strong identity to Americans.  This is not "monoculturalism", as you have alleged.  Also, this is done to distinguish it from the 7 other Syracuses in the US. AdamBiswanger1 00:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sicily is an autonomous region within Italy - following your argument, should it not therefore be called Syracuse, Sicily?  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this certainly is a great victory for the American monoculturalists who have been pushing for equal representation. If only we could get rid of them and allow the culturally enlightened to have their way and to only care about Syracuse, Italy we would all be better off, wouldnt we?--Muska1135 08:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is a touch extreme, afterall, I too have occasionally enjoyed American culture, for example, The Brady Bunch. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  07:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing that you are so much in favour of equal representation, transparency, a fair go for all, etc. perhaps you can finally do something about the fact that Frankfurt should really be a disambiguation page.  Afterall, in Australia, the word has a specific meaning, and this is the English language wikipedia.  I trust I can count on your sense of fair play and rational thought.  I would hate to think that a Sicilian place name has been specifically targetted merely because it is nothing more than an island of greasy wops - fair's fair.   Or have I once again come across yet another example where anything related to Sicily is treated like shit, but if something is American, well hell's bell - you can't argue with that can you?  Yet another example (amongst many) where Wikipedia's noble sentiments and good intentions fall well short in practice..  Best regards.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  07:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh stop I'm getting nauseous. I don't care if it were Syracuse, Italy, Syracuse, Zimbabwe or Syracuse, Mars.  I'm writing an encyclopedia, you're writing an encyclopedia.  That's all we're doing.  This is not a war of cultures.  Other editors and I have proven that there is sufficient ambiguity for Syracuse to need a disambiguation.  Is that because of my American superiority complex?  No, I don't even like my country.  However, I sure as hell do like rational decisions, and to grant Syracuse, Italy ownership of Syracuse would most certainly not be one. AdamBiswanger1 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Being a monocultarilst myself I am in favor of equal representation where appropriate. Personally I feel that Syracuse, NY has a greater claim to having a direct Link than Syrcuse, Italy does. However, this claim is not sufficient to have a single link to Syracuse, NY, and thus I am content as it stands. Of course this is a radical claim to someone who is so wise in the ways of culture (being from Sicily and demanding a direct link to the Sicilian page and ignoring rational arguments). As to your Ortygia, maybe when Ortygia Heights wins a national basketball championship, has a nationally recognized university, receives more hits on google, wikipedia, and has a larger population than Ortygia, Italy it might be worth considering a disambiguation page. Oh, and as to American culture you might also want to 'occasionally enjoy' General Patton and the 7th Army who saved Sicily from the Germans, but of course the Brady Bunch will do for now.--Muska1135 10:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know how many Sicilian citizens were killed during that particular "liberation"? Are you sure that that landing (62 years ago almost to the day) was for the benefit of Sicily? Have you started work yet on making Frankfurt a disambiguation page yet?  If not, why not?  Some are more equal than others?  I also forgot to mention the The Bugs Bunny Show. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Once the Frankfurter sausage receives more google and wikipedia hits than the city I will consider it.--Muska1135 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its over. Even when it wasn't over, this had nothing to do with the United States, Italy, even Sicily much less Sicilians.  This is about two cities named Syracuse, and whether one was overwhelmingly more notable than the other.  This entire argument has been the biggest waste of time.  Think of all the new articles that could have been created!  Why on earth would you want to keep it going?  What does WWII have to do with this.  What do hotdogs/german cities have to do with this.  And what does the Brady Bunch have to do with anything?  Move along move along, nothing to see here.  --Niro5 13:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because for me, it is an example of the world viewed through American eyes. If another Syracuse had existed in Albania or Tunisia, this debate would never have happened.  I've just pointed out that Frankfurt remains there, when there are a dozen items at Frankfurt (disambiguation).  There are probably thousands of similar examples.  You may think it has nothing to do with the United States or Sicily, but I disagree, it has everything to do with them.  This action was taken (contrary to the vote) because you are American, because you can, and because the real, original Syracuse is merely a 2,800 old town in little ol' Sicily.  If that's the way you want to run things, that's fine, just have the guts to come out and say it rather than try one of those "we're bringing democracy to the world" type of lines.   The basic argument here is that if Americans look up Syracuse, they're looking for their Syracuse (afterall, who could ever have imagined that bloody Sicily would have stolen their name!).  So all these google arguments sound pretty hollow to me.  I've just opened up my Columbia Encyclopedia, and it certainly gives primacy to the original Syracuse.  All the U.S towns and the university get a tiny mention in comparison.  But here in Wikipedia, primacy is given to whoever shouts the loudest and longest.  Now run that argument about notability past me one more time, and see if you can do so with a straight face.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the dozen or so entries at Frankfurt (disambiguation) are even remotely close to the German city in terms world-wide recognition in the English language. With Syracuse, there is a fairly considerable liklihood that either the Italian city or the US city might be the intended referent of the term. It pretty simple really. Where one term is overwhelmingly recognized as the primary meaning of the term, it gets primary topic. Where there is no clear consensus that a single meaning of a term is predomninant, the term gets equal disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation is the best way to retain a world-view. It gives equal treatment. And if Americans type in Syracuse looking for the NY version, they'll see there's another big one, and the same goes for anybody looking for the IT one. That the Columbia Encyclopedia gives primacy to the IT one is all nice and good. There's a lot of encyclopedias out there, and this isn't always the case: eg. [[s:The New Student's Reference Work/4-0404|Syracuses in The New

Student's Reference Work of 1914]]. Anyways, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia anyway, and we shouldn't always try to measure ourselves in comparison to paper versions. Finito. -newkai | talk | contribs 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Establish notability on the article itself, not the disambig. AdamBiswanger1 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is this sense of victimization coming from? No one attacked Sicily. In fact it was the Sicilian page that started this by changing the status quo that had been perfectly suitable for the past two years. Disambiguation pages are good for Wiki. They expose people to things they might not have known about otherwise. The fact is, to have sole possession of the page you really have to prove unequivocal primacy. Rome, Italy v. Rome, New York. Athens, Greece v. Athens, Georgia. I apologize if the arguments from our side rang hollow to you, but perhaps that is because those facts support us. Do not make this an issue of nationalism, because I assure you it is not. The people of Syracuse, NY hold the people and city of Syracuse, Sicily in high regard, lets not forget that Syracuse, NY is among one of the most Italian in the U.S. This is an issue of prominence, and paper encyclopedias do not measure prominence in the same way as the public in general. Encyclopedias Britannica and Columbia are valid arguments, but so is Google for its own reasons. This acrimony is damaging to wikipedia and, indeed, to your own arguments. I suggest that rather than trolling here, you spend your considerable energy and talents expanding that Ortygia stub you seem to be so excited about, rather than beating this dead horse.--Niro5 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And risk going through all this again when Ortygia Heights is fully established? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just looked up my Columbia to learn a bit about Syracuse, NY - I note an annual fair has been held there since 1841. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to glean too much else of interest.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's why we are so fortunate to have an online, paperless, user editable encyclopedia.--Niro5 21:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the annual fair see Great New York State Fair :) -newkai | talk | contribs 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I note that this article confirms the Columbia statement that the fair was first held in Syracuse in 1841, yet two sentences later the Wiki article says that 2006 represents the 160th anniversary of the Great New York State Fair.  Something doesn't quite gel. In any event, it's great to see an event with such a long history - but it still doesn't change my view that Wikipedia is cheapened somewhat by not allocating "Syracuse" to the original 2,800 year old Syracuse (the largest Greek-speaking city in antiquity, the birth place and home of Archimedes and one time capital of the Byzantine Empire, albeit short lived).  Furthermore, given what I have just stated, and as someone has already mentioned, the title Syracuse, Italy is a touch misleading.  Yes, it is true that Siracusa has been a place in Italy since 1860, but equally, it is true that it has existed for 20 times longer, and for much of that time as a Greek city.  So while "Syracuse, New York", might be intuititvely meaningful, "Syracuse, Italy" is not necessarily intuitively meaningful (especially for someone who is more attuned to the historical Syracuse than the modern day Syracuse).  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  02:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally the present affiliation is used. Syracuse, New York, under the name Onondaga, existed priorly too, not under US rule, but rather, Native American rule. If you want, you can add "formerly of Greece" or something to the disambiguation page. -newkai | talk | contribs 06:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing
I've removed the listing from WP:RM since the survey is "closed." My take is that there really isn't consensus here, and the business about moving being the default really only applies when the debates get very little attention. Here, there were plenty of people on both sides. Hence, no consensus, and things stay how they are. Mango juice talk 16:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank god, now to move on to more important things!--Niro5 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Troy
I'm just curious - why does Troy take us to the historical Troy directly, and yet Troy (disambiguation) show dozens of Troys, including many in the USA. I need to ask why Syracuse has been singled out in this instance. My clasical history is a bit sketchy, but didn't Troy cease to exist two and a half milennia ago? Yet Syracuse, the largest Greek-speaking city in antiquity, birthplace and home to Archimedes, for a short period the capital of the Byzantine Empire, existing continuously for 2,800 years, doesn't get a guernsey. I am simply struggling to make sense of it all. Once again, is it one rule for some and not for others - some being more equal than others? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite simple... There's no Troy with such modern significance. I know you're probably not a big fan of it, but try Google, and you'll almost exclusively get ancient Troy. -newkai | talk | contribs 06:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't buy it. I think the explanation is as follows:  Americans may have heard of ancient Troy, but they mostly don't know about the original Syracuse - that's pretty much it.  Relying on Google is a reinforcement of that simple fact.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  09:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This whole episode has been a classic case of: Anglo-American focus. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  10:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a disambiguation page for a reason... -newkai | talk | contribs 06:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are so unhappy with Syracuse, Italy, why not change it something not already occupied. Why are you so eager to prove Anglo-American focus, so that you can title your article with an Anglo-American bastardization of its name. I understand that you must transliterate, and that the spelling could probably go a couple of ways, but how come when I type "Syracuse" into the Sicilian wikipedia, I come up with nothing? When I type in "Syracuse" to the Italian page I get information about the American City? In truth, I hear just as many people talking bout "Siracua" (or Saracusa to you), as I hear Ancient Syracuse. As long as we are trying to be accurate, we should have Siracusa be yours, and Syracuse be disambiguation. Why refer to an ancient city with a modern and foreign language. But I realized that this isn't about rationality, it's about ego. Why else would you still be arguing about this after what, two weeks? Again, I really think that you should turn your attention to Ortygia, its screaming for your help.--Niro5 13:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, very little of what you had to say then made any sense. It really isn't about ego, because you probably know by now I have plenty on my plate.  Anytime I see a certain type of Western hegemony trying to manifest itself on Wikipedia, I try to stand up to it.  But I do it through commentary, I rarely take overt action.  I do know I am on a hiding to nothing - but by the same token, I feel I need to point out that to my eyes this is entirely an American perspective, and it seems to have been done even though the vote did not go that way.  I can't help thinking all this has been contrary to at least two key Wikipedia policies, but I understood a while ago that these policies are mainly applied to reinforce Western hegemony.   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your perceptions are a bit off. If there was a "Western hegemony" here, "Syracuse" would redirect to "Syracuse, New York" instead of being a disambiguation page.  Or "Syracuse, New York" would be listed first on said disambiguation page.  You'll note that neither is true.  Instead, you say that "Syracuse" could only reasonably refer to the original, in Sicily?  You've provided no evidence that the Sicilian Syracuse is overwhelmingly likely to be the one a particular reader wants; in fact, all of the evidence presented indicates that there is a significant likelyhood that the New York Syracuse is the one being searched for.  (Note: Not that it's the most likely choice, just that it's a significantly likely choice.)  In the face of that, we have little choice under WP guidelines but to use a disambiguation page.  None of the counterexamples you've attempted to use involve a city as prominent as Syracuse, New York.  If there's any bias here, it's hardly fair to place it at the feet of those arguing for equal treatment of the two cities, is there?  Powers 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that the survey ended up at 15 to 8 in favour of Syracuse linking directly to the original Syracuse. If I were to put this question up on the Wikipedia mailing list, I wonder what the response would be.  If the response on there was split 50/50, I would gladly accept that I am flogging a dead horse. The treatment for Syracuse still seems to me to be at odds with the treatment of Troy.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's at odds; they are different situations. Troy, New York is not well known outside of Central New York State; Syracuse, New York is.  Powers 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Troy, Michigan? And once again, we are talking about a city that ceased to exist about three millennia ago - I am pleased that Troy takes us to the ancient Troy, but I am still struggling to accept that Syracuse does not do the same, especially when it has continued to exist for 2,800 years, and is the source of the New York name in the first place.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Troy, Michigan appears to be fairly notable. You may be right -- maybe Troy should be a disambiguation page.  It does seem odd to have it go directly to the ancient city.  Regardless, however, each case is different, often in subtle ways.  We can't do something to Syracuse just because it's what we did with Troy.  Every case is unique and needs its own solution.  That Syracuse is the namesake of the New York city has no bearing on which one should get precedence.  That the Syracuse in Sicily is thousands of years old has some bearing, but is only one factor.  It seems clear to me that either Syracuse is likely to be the one for which a user is searching; that, and only that, should be the determining factor.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please do present it.  Powers 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am neither American nor Italian, neither Sicilian nor even European. I'm Canadian and I have no relation to America or Italy except that I've visited both (but neither NY nor Sicily).

The primary reason I gave for voting to support moving Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse or redirecting from Syracuse to Syracuse, Italy was that nobody should ever refer to Syracuse, New York as simply Syracuse unless context makes it clear that we are referring to the American city. However, there are many, many contexts in which Syracuse, Italy cannot be referred to as such. It is simply Syracuse because throughout most of its history, it was the only Syracuse. When writing about the Norman Kingdom of Sicily I should not be forced to disambiguate Syracuse. It is sloppy to write "Syracuse" when "Syracuse, NY" is meant: if it is nearly universally agreed that the New York city needs to be at Syracuse, New York, why not allow people who incorrectly link only to Syracuse when they mean Syracuse, NY to get there through a disambig notice at the top of the page on Syracuse (the Italian city)? I can, as of yet, see no strong reason for requiring Syracuse to be the dab page and not Syracuse (disambiguation). Srnec 04:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC) What Syracuse needs is for a Hollywood blockbuster to be set there. After all, it did wonders for Troy. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Syracuse on its own is generally what people use for the school. The full name of the school is not used espcially when discussing sports.  I'd say allot of the facts used here are really perceptions.  Vegaswikian 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Powers 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well - they are overwhelmingly American perceptions. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being silly. Apparently you've stopped trying to make substantial arguments and are resorting to feigned ignorance over whose perceptions are being mistaken for facts.  Powers 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Touché! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse on its own for the school? Who's got the perceptions? Who in Europe has ever heard of Syarcuse University? Outside of a sports context, when would this be used? I think you completely ignored my arguments in that response: the "people" you refer to I rarely bump into. Srnec 03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * LtPowers is very correct. Having lived in several Asian countries, I can tell you that their knowledge of ancient European history is about as complete as your knowledge of their ancient history.  But don't forget the throngs of South and East Asians who attend Syracuse University and other American universities, they have certainly heard of Syracuse, NY.  (maybe this explains the preponderance of Google hits for S,NY?)  Suddenly, the Europeans are sounding biased.  Not to mention that the loudest one here is a bureaucrat for the Sicilian wikipedia.  Now, the reason I haven't mentioned these is because we all have our biases.  I'm not attacking anyone, or calling anyone maliciously biased, but let's not have the pot call the kettle black.  We all have out biases, which is why we use objective facts.  S,NY has their objective facts, S,IT has some too (though certainly not as thorough).  S,NY may be offering a lot of "overwhelmingly American perceptions" but I have heard nothing but overwhelmingly European perceptions given in reply, e.g. "well I've never heard of Syracuse, NY".  Ridiculous.  Can't we all just get along!?--Niro5 14:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting along fine. My whole argument for moving Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse and the dab page to Syracuse (disambiguation) is that "Syracuse, Italy" is only proper in limited circumstances (after the formation of Italy), but "Syracuse, NY" is always proper for that city. Therefore, it is not too much to ask that Syracuse, NY and Syracuse University be used instead of the shorthand Syracuse: but Syracuse cannot be called shorthand for the Sicilian city, as that city was the only Syracuse in the world throughout most of history. Srnec 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither Srnec or I have said that we have never heard of Syracuse, NY or that we are unaware that there is a world class uni there. The original Syracuse has existed for 2,800 years, at one stage was the largest Greek speaking city in antiquity, was at the centre of the Punic Wars, was the birthplace of Archimedes, was the imperial capital of the Byzantine empire for a short period, continues to be home to a heap of historical treasures, continues to exist as a smallish city where it has always existed, described by Cicero as "the greatest Greek city and the most beautiful of them all", the ancient core of Syracuse is part of the UNESCO World Heritage List, and it is the origin of the name for the city in New York.  On top of that, we all know that American cities are commonly identified with the name of the state, whereas the moniker "Syracuse, Italy" is a combination that you are only going to see here in Wikipedia.  Using the official Italian name, Siracusa, may have been a solution, but the English form of the name has existed for centuries, certainly far longer than the American name.  So I think someone is gilding the lily when they suggest that this is a case of being decided by objective facts, it's anything but.  Lastly, it seems entirely at odds with the treatment of Troy, a city that ceased to exist over 3,000 years ago.  As FrancisTyers has intimated, wikipedia is being swayed by the knowledge that the average American possesses of the world, but, shouldn't we be swayed by the scolastic standards of a top shelf encyclopedia?   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  00:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhodes
I note that Rhodes links directly to the island, with its population of some 110,000, despite there existing countless pages the use the term Rhodes. The province of Syracuse has a population of some 400,000. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're grasping at straws again (as above with Frankfurt). Rhodes (disambiguation) lists twelve other articles, not "countless" pages. And of those twelve, which might you suggest even remotely rivals the Greek island in notability? Srnec puts forward the strongest argument for having the ancient city at Syracuse rather than a disambiguation (i.e., that links to a place name in "Italy" are anachronistic for many (possibly even most) of the links for the ~2,500 year history of the place). I never voted in the poll precisely because I was not strongly convinced either way, though I remain slightly more inclined toward leaving it as a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Srnec has certainly made a better case than I and is a far more credible witness, but you are also being selective in what you choose to cite. On at least three occasions on this very page I have said that Syracuse has existed continuously for 2,800 years (the figure is probably closer to 2,700 years - that's my mistake); and on at least two occasions I have mentioned that Syracuse, Italy is a slightly misleading title, because Syracuse has only been part of Italy for one twentieth of the period of its existence.  I have had to come up strong because there was a view forming amongst your cabal that this was a worthless discussion with no merit and that in fact either the New York town or the uni should have primacy - and then I am accused of bias!  Thats what I find the most incredible - that people here actually think this issue has no merit - if that doesn't smack of taking a purely American perspective, I don't know what does.   The three examples I have given:  Frankfurt, Troy and Rhodes are incredible in that they were the first three, and only three that I bothered looking up - and to my amazement, each of them took me to the orginal place.  All that is fair enough, but I am just curious about the treatment of Syracuse, and I am wondering whether the real reasoning is that we have an American city and a Sicilian city, and Americans aren't able to countenance the prospect that the Sicilian one may have primacy in an encyclopedia.  While Frankfurt certainly should lead directly to the German city, Troy seems a bit suspicioius since it is a city that has not existed for over 3,000 years, and re Rhodes, I thought that the Rhodes Scholarship was one of the most important, if not the most important, in the world (certainly as notable as Syracuse Uni in world terms).  I still think this all stinks to high heaven, and accusing me of clutching at straws does not change that view when everything is considered in its entirety.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Srnec's (along with some others--Srnec just happened to be one of the more recent participants) presentation may be more convincing because it is not tinged with anti-american ranting and accusations of cabalism. Regarding Rhodes, although the Rhodes Scholarship is fairly well-known, it is rather uncommon to refer to it simply as as "Rhodes". Hence there is no good reason to disambiguate on that basis. There is a weak case for Troy to be a disambiguation page, but I think it is a pretty weak case. The ancient city of Troy is still very recognizable today through the Homeric epics and derivative retellings (even despite the rather appalling state of U.S. education today in classical knowledge). However, there is no such singular recognition commonly associated with Syracuse. Certainly it was an important center of antiquity. But unlike Troy, it did not feature prominently in an epic tale that is commonly recognized as being a bedrock of western culture. older ≠ wiser 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm more than willing to make Troy a disambiguation page based on your argument that Troy, Michigan is a notable city. Would that satisfy your sense of equity?  Rhodes is different because no other place is as notable as the island (and, as Bkonrad noted, the scholarship is not usually called just "Rhodes"), and the Frankfurt issue compares a major city with a hot dog.  Apples and oranges.  Powers 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If my case has merits, don't concentrate on debunking his: attack mine or accept it. Srnec 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that there is a problem. "Syracuse, Italy" is awkward, however, "Syracuse" alone is far too ambiguous to be anything but a disambiguation page. IMHO Siracusa is the best title for that article. It's the only Siracusa in the world (Syracuse, NY is still Syracuse in the Italian Wikipedia), and it has been Siracusa for its whole history. You may not agree with me that Siracusa is the best title (that is for you to decide), however, I would hope by now you can agree that (at least outside of the classics), Syracuse does not unambiguously refer to the Italian city.--Niro5 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It has most certainly not been "Siracusa" for its hole history. It was a Greek city until the Middle Ages, and the Greek name transliterates to Syrakousai.  And how ambiguous is "Syracuse," really? A lot of not terribly big English cities get the main article, despite the existence of US cities of some significance with the same name. (Portsmouth, Exeter, Winchester, and Plymouth, for instance).  john k 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Syracuse, Italy is just a bad title, because a) European cities aren't generally known as "X, Country," and b) the city wasn't in Italy until 1861. Syracuse, Sicily would be slightly better - the city's always been on Sicily, and Sicily has been a distinct political unit of one kind or another since the late 11th century. Siracusa might be mildly better, except that this name is never used when referring to the ancient city, which ought to form the focus of any article about the place. It seems to me that the only decent alternatives would be to put the Italian city article at Syracuse or to have Syracuse, Sicily (or Syracuse (Sicily)). I'd prefer the former. The modern Italian city and the city in New York are of roughly comparable importance, but the importance of the ancient city, I think, tips the balance decisively over to the Sicilian Syracuse. At any rate, given that the move vote was 15-8 for just Syracuse, and the original article was there and the initial move to Syracuse, Italy was made without there being a clear consensus that this was the right thing to do, I think it should be moved. The seeming wikipedia status quo that allows the situation 1) one person moves a page without establishing a consensus to do so, with only nominal protest at the time; 2) another person notices this later, protests, and does a requested move; 3) a majority is found for the original title, but not a consensus; and therefore 4) the page has to remain where it is due to lack of consensus; is a noxious one. Syracuse was the original location of the article, and as such a consensus should have been required to move it to Syracuse, Italy. The vote has clearly showed that there is no such consensus, and that a supermajority, in fact, support having the article at Syracuse. The fact that newkai's unilateral move gets to stand because there wasn't utterly overwhelming opposition to it seems like a perversion of process. john k 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference to Portsmouth, Exeter, Winchester, and Plymouth confirms what my view has been all along, that there is one rule for some and then a completely different rule for Sicily.  While I like to follow the exploits of Pompei (in the FA), these are quite startling examples when contrasted with the treatment of Syracuse.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Memphis, Boston--Niro5 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Portsmouth, England is twice as large as the nearest US version, Portsmouth, Virginia. I'd check the rest, but I'm way to tired. -newkai | talk | contribs 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, how about Durham and Durham, North Carolina? The city in North Carolina is about 5 times the size of the one in England, and, like Syracuse, New York, contains a major university (although in this case, so does the English city).  Even the City of Durham, which is bigger than Durham proper, is less than half the size of the one in NC.  What about Cambridge and Cambridge, Massachusetts, which are approximately the same size?  What about Worcester and Worcester, Massachusetts?  Again, the American city is considerably larger, and in this case the English city is not especially notable.  john k 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like there are some potential move requests there! -newkai | talk | contribs 09:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What about Plymouth? Plymouth Rock; Plymouth, Michigan; Plymouth the automotive manufacturer. The original Boston is far less significant than Syracuse and the American Boston is far more significant than Syracuse, NY. Ancient Memphis no longer exists, but I wouldn't mind if Memphis redirected to the Egyptian city. Please, address the argument I have given so many times instead of these secondary arguments which only prove that Wikipedia is inconsistent. Srnec 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You won't find a Plymouth in the US that is anywhere near the population of a quarter million that the English one has. You can click all 30 or so of them, and tell me if you find more than one or two that even have above 10,000. Seriously, find some comparable examples... Not this microvillage vs. large city junk. -newkai | talk | contribs 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm quite frankly not surprised that you wouldn't mind if Memphis went to ancient Memphis. -newkai | talk | contribs 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What you say about Portsmouth and Plymouth is true in terms of outright size (although in terms of notability more generally speaking, I would have thought it was a close run thing). Winchester is an interesting example, it is a town of only 40,000 and there are at least three US towns of the same name that have over 20,000.  It would appear that all of these names have been subject to argument, but in the end, these cities got to keep their names (none of which are staggeringly significant in world terms).  At the end of the day, Sicily simply has too few people to argue its case here, the result being Anglo-American focus.
 * I note that the intro to Exeter says: This page is about the city of Exeter in Devon, England from which the name originates.  - clearly, to end any discussion that there was initially about it keeping the name to itself.  Of course this is one of the arguments (amongst many) that we have used here, the original city, still existing after 2,700 years, should keep its name, especially when City, State is a common descriptor in the US.  I personally could accept  Siracusa or Syracusa (Latin form), but the English term for centuries has been Syracuse.  The Sicilian form Sarausa is clearly out of the question, and probably only goes back about 800 years, i.e. it would be little older than the English form.   Syracuse, Sicily may make more sense than Syracuse, Italy, since it has always been in Sicily (the name coming from the pre classical age Sicels)  and Italy is  relatively new as a political entity.   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On Memphis and Boston, fair enough they stand out as the most notable - but I am curious as to why they both direct to the City, State form of the name as the title of the article. If all American cities are titled in this way, and I am only now starting to get the impression that they are - why is there even a huge debate about Syracuse going to the original?  Especially if in the intro in italics, we mention something similar to the Exeter article, and, most importantly, we provide direct links to both Syracuse, New York and Syracuse University, while continuing to have a Syracuse (disambiguation) page.  What is lost exactly in doing that?  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All cities in the US except for New York City (because New York, New York would be too awkward) use city, state form as their title. That's currently a general format (which is, however, still being debated). In any case, that doesn't mean that is what people search for. Even Los Angeles in under Los Angeles, California. Furthermore, I am still unable to see how a disambiguation page resembles Anglo-American focus. It is about as worldly as you can get. -newkai | talk | contribs 09:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think more cities worldwide should have a sub-divisional state or state (country) after their name. For example, I was born in a city called Bochum. Except for mostly people in the German-speaking areas of Europe, no one has a clue where that is. Every time I want to use it, I end up piping it Bochum, Germany . What a pain. -newkai | talk | contribs 09:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are still avoiding the central point. Syracuse, New York follows the standard in referring to US cities (ditto Syracuse University).  The original Syracuse, the one that has been called Syracuse (or equivalent in various languages) continuously for 2,700 years, the largest Greek city in antiquity,that was once the imperial capital of the Byzantine Empire, it has always just been Syracuse - and precisely in that form in English since Chaucer's time.  The references to the other two important Syracuses can be at the top of the page, along with a link to Syracuse (disambiguation) - Syracuse should simply be Syracuse, and if anyone stumbles across it by accident, they can be told that it is from here whence all the other Syracuses originate.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  10:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no law that states Syracuse, New York must always be referred to with the state name. That is simply a naming convention here on Wikipedia for article titles. That doesn't apply to the point about what someone is looking for when they type in Syracuse. You're now suggesting a triple top disambiguation!? "This article... For Syracuse, New York see... for Syracuse University see... For all other uses see..."? That's ridiculously long and just reiterates the point that Syracuse should be a disambiguation page. Equal disambiguation represents a world view! -newkai | talk | contribs 11:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one important point that we are disagreeing on here is how people search this encyclopedia. People don't search wikipedia like a paper encyclopedia. It says "search" on the left side of the page, not "article title". If someone types in just plain Syracuse there, they could be searching for any place names Syracuse, (though as has been shown ages ago in this article, they are most often searching for Syracuse, New York). To make "Syracuse" the page for the Sicilian city alone you would have to prove that Syracuse, NY is vastly less important than the original (i.e. Rhodes, Rome, London, Boston etc.) The very fact that most people who type in Syracuse are looking for the one in New York I feel makes it impossible to reach this very high bar you have set for yourself. As far as I can tell, Syracuse, New York is the largest City named for a Greek city in the world, certainly in the United States. Syracuse, Italy is awkward. Come up with a different solution.--Niro5 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Worcester? Durham?  Has anybody proved that these cities are "vastly more important" than the considerably larger American cities with the same name?  I'd say the Sicilian Syracuse is vastly more important than Durham, England, and that the New York Syracuse is no more important than Durham, North Carolina.  Plus, why should the majority have to come up with a different solution?  Most people voted to move Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse, and there was never a consensus for Syracuse, Italy in the first place.  Shouldn't it be up to the pro-Syracuse-as-disambiguation-page people to compromise? john k 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is going to go on forever huh? How many Administrators need to close this?  (I think we are at three now).  I agree with User:Newkai, we need to put in some move requests for those cities.  But as Srnec said, those arguments "only prove that Wikipedia is inconsistent. Srnec 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)."  It has been proven without a doubt that there is ambiguity, and no concencus or else two weeks later we would not sill be arguing about this.--Niro5 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Syracuse-as-disambiugation-page" is the compromise. =)  Disambiguation pages are the clear preference in Wikipedia guidelines (if not in actual practice, which we may need to rectify) in cases such as this -- when there is no clear solution either way.  Powers 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How often a page is searched for is CERTAINLY an indication of how important it is. Just because the word "the" doesn't have seven letters, or a 2,800 year history doesn't mean it isn't important.  Certainly S,NY isn't all that important in the world of Classical Scholarship.  But it sure is important to the majority of people who are more interested in it that S,IT.  So we have two different cities each with a claim (history/popularity) for this site.  Man, if only there was a way for them both to have it! Bingo! Disambiguation is the compromise!--Niro5 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that a "majority of people" are more interested in Syracuse, New York, than the original Syracuse? Google searches and the like are notoriously Americo-centric. john k 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Niro5 meant a majority of people who are more interested in the New York city than in the Sicilian city consider Syracuse, New York to be important. I could be wrong, though.  Powers 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How often people search for a certain city is not indicative of its importance. If people find Syracuse (the original) when searching for the American city, they will see a disambiguation notice at the top of the page that will bring them straight to what they were looking for. As is, they have to go through a disambiguation page anyway. Srnec 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we don't give preference based on importance; we give preference based on popularity. Powers 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not quite right to say that we give preference based on popularity. Hypothetically, if there happened to be a wildly popular Pokeman character named George Bush, we would not change article names based simply on relative popularity as represented among Wikipedia editors. What is fair to take into consideration are external indications of relative notability. Where there is no clear indication that a specifc usage of a term is predominant, then equal disambiguation is appropriate. That there are cases where a minor English city has primary topic status over other much larger places shouldn't necessarily be taken as a model to emulate -- it may merely demonstrate the diligence and assiduousness of UK editors in asserting their interests. For a very long time Lincoln was not a disambiguation page, but was instead taken by the article now at Lincoln, Lincolnshire. It really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has edited Wikipedia for more than five minutes that there are numerous inconsistencies. But I don't think it is such a good idea to take examples of some inconsistencies and make rules based on them. The general guidance for primary topic disambiguation is pretty simple (even if it is not consistently applied).
 * So far no one has offered compelling evidence that the term "Syracuse" is predominantly used to refer to the ancient city. The primary thrust of the argument is that it is inaccurate and anachronistic to have links related to the ancient city tied to the modern political entity of Italy. The argument in favor of disambiguation is not only what people might expect when typing "syracuse" into the search box, but also on how likely it is that editors will create links to Syracuse and intend either the ancient city or the NY city or the university or something else. Currently, What links here for Syracuse is nearly devoid of incorrect links in the main namespace. This is because by having it as a disambiguation page is it regularly (and easily) reviewed for such mistaken links. If the ancient city is moved to this name, then it immediately becomes more difficult to sytematically clean up such links.
 * Now, honestly, I am open to being convinced that the ancient city is the predominant usage. Certainly there is a bias in relying on Internet sources alone, if only because Syracuse, NY and Syracuse University have a such high visibility on the net due to being a cneter for high-tech education and business. If there were a way to analyze printed materials, it might show something different (or not--hard to say for sure until the analysis is done). But in the meantime, I think that moving the ancient city to Syracuse, Sicily may be a good compromise. older ≠ wiser 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (city names) suggests that we should disambiguate Italian cities by province name, i.e. Syracuse (SR). But this seems stupid.  I'd prefer Syracuse, Sicily, I think. john k 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea since Sicily outdates the unified Italian State... In other words, (correct me if I'm wrong), that Syracuse was always part of Sicily, even when that island was under Greek control. -newkai | talk | contribs 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would certainly prefer Syracuse, Sicily to Syracuse, Italy. It is true that we use the provincial name to disambiguate Italian comuni, but that is more for when a name is shared across the Italian regions, or even within a region.  In this case, Syracuse, Sicily makes far more sense (even though I still think that the title should really go to the original city, which is certainly significant in historical terms - and continues to exist after 2,700 years!).  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

cities vs. municipalities
Why are Syracuse, Kansas, Syracuse, Missouri, Syracuse, Nebraska, and Syracuse, Utah defined in the current disambiguation article as specifically not cities. They are all chartered as cities, and thus have the same legal standing as the city in New York. They are obviously small, but there is no definition I'm aware of that says something has to be big to be a city. john k 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point... Now how should be address this...? -newkai | talk | contribs 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-American Focus
Some may not like the fact that I have made the claim of Anglo-American focus. I remain convinced that if Syracuse was a little hamlet in England, this discussion would not be happening, or if the tables were turned the American city would have been recognised without a moment's discussion. The problem here is that we are dealing with a city in Sicily, and everyone's initial reaction, conscious or otherwise, is to seriously doubt that anything worthwhile has ever come out of Sicily. Now you might refute that claim, but I come across this in Wikipedia all the time - I have to work much harder to write an article about Sicily or Sicilian history than if I were writing an article about, say, North European history. So people will doubt that Normans have ever set foot in Sicily, or that large scale Lombard immigration to Sicily occurred during the middle ages, or that Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor was raised in Sicily and lived most of his life in Sicily, or that there was ever a Sicilian School of poetry, or that the Sicilian Parliament goes back to the middle ages, or that the Isle of Man's Triskelion is most probably influenced by the much older Sicilian Trinacria (surely it must descend from a Celtic or a Nordic symbol! I've even seen the theory that the Sicilian one in fact comes from the Isle of Man via either Vikings or Normans), or that the Sicilian language has ever been used officially and/or as a written language (afterall, it is just a dialect of Italian), etc. There is definitely an inherent bias against Sicily, and I see this discussion as a manifestation of the same malaise. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are not examples of Anglo-American focus. They are an example of an attempt to create a world perspective. -newkai | talk | contribs 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * unless you are a hamlet in England. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey man, don't bring the English or any other european English speakers into this. We were arguing for the move! - FrancisTyers · 13:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Surprising, as Wikipedia supposedly has an Anglo-American bias. -newkai | talk | contribs 09:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You will have to forgive me, but I don't quite understand the point of your last post - isn't that actually consistent with an Anglo-American bias.  The little hamlets get to go to use their own name unadulterated, but Syracuse can't.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑

A) your officially crazy and B) your starting to annoy people. Go edit some Sicillian articles if you have this much time on your hands. --Muska1135 10:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is degenerating. Can anyone really deny that the English wikipedia tends to have an Anglophone bias?  I don't think this is purposeful, just a function of the fact that there's a lot more people from the UK, Ireland, Canada, the US, and Australia than there are from anywhere else. However, neither Worcester nor Durham can be properly described as a "little hamlet." john k 11:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I have exaggerated in using the term "little hamlet", but I am only starting to realise that this is much bigger than the half a dozen examples you yourself supplied, for instance: Sodbury.  My firm belief is that we may be looking at hundreds of such examples - so it makes me wonder again, why Syracuse would be treated differently.  And I have to conclude that at best it is a case of Anglo-American focus - something that we are all guilty of, I include myself in that as a native speaker of English, no one should really take offence at that - but at worst, as I have intimated above, it could well signal something slightly more unsavoury.  Describing me as crazy doesn't change the issue I am raising - and in any event, if people must know, I already spend most of my time on scn.wiki. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  11:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

get a job--Muska1135 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't need a job - I have dedicated the rest of my life to making this world a better place. Just as Marx taught us, there is more to the World than meets the eye, and you might be able to lead a horse to the well, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he'll fall in. There is even space in my heart you Mr Grumpy. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is pointless. This argument is over. Googbye.--Niro5 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost - I've left a note on the Village Pump to canvass some wider views - as someone pointed out, it may even have been you, the 15-8 vote was simply not broad enough and did not reflect the silent majority out there who have no intention of ever stumbling across anything remotely related to Sicily, wittingly or otherwise. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pippu, could you rename the section to "American focus", as I think thats what we're discussing here. I think the European anglophones support the move. - FrancisTyers · 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I archive part of this discussion? It's getting pretty long. AdamBiswanger1 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Village_pump_(policy)/Archive F--Niro5 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you guys have to really stop generalizing... Take a look at the oppose list and check the geos... There's a Scandinavian, a Sicilian, and I've only checked the first half... -newkai | talk | contribs 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to wager that the support side have a significantly broader range of national backgrounds than the oppose side. Besides, User:Cultural Freedom just says they live in Scandinavia, not that they are Scandinavian. They may well be an USian ex-pat. - FrancisTyers · 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I return from a restful sleep. Masses of support has not eventuated, the cavalry has not arrived, the League of Nations has not wished to get involved, there are no text messages from Kofi Annan nor Nelson Mandela.  I have run my race, I have fought the good fight, I have explored every avenue, I have searched far and wide, and it would appear that apart from a handful of enlightened souls - I am all alone in this world.  I will now step back, have a cup of strong coffee and think about what I will do with my life - perhaps I'll go and get a job.  Either way, I will always be ready to stand up for truth, justice and the silicon way!  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Less of the "Anglo-American" please! I'm English and if someone mentioned Syracuse to me I'd definitely think of the one in Sicily! I don't think it's an Anglo-American focus or an anti-Sicilian bias; it's only a pro-American bias. Syracuse, NY may be bigger (although only just, apparently), but Syracuse, Sicily is much more significant historically. -- Necrothesp 14:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a generic American bias that leads to disambiguation pages at article for cities that exist in both the US and outside it. There is a countervailing English bias that leads to a lot of English cities not getting this treatment.  Thus, Worcester and Durham, despite neither of those being (by a considerable margin) the largest city of that name.  Basically, Americans try to make all City articles to be disambiguation pages if there's an American city of that name. English users often prevent this from happening if the orginal City in question is an English one.  This does not happen, however, with an Italian city like Siracusa. john k 18:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And continental Europeans are just perfect and unbiased in every way! :) -newkai | talk | contribs 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect if anyone cared enough to object, Worcester and Durham would be made dab pages. If I may be so bold, I think most Americans just aren't as emotionally attached to, rooted in, or proud of, the places they live in as most Europeans are.  Personally, I'm not too fond of Georgia, my current state of residence, but I take up the position that the dab page ought to remain because it would offend my sense of right and wrong to see a positive action taken (making the country the primary article) that is contrary to the rules, solely to satisfy someone's wounded nationalist pride. --dreish~talk 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Support to move Syracuse, Italy
I would like to seek support to move Syracuse, Italy to a more appropriate title. Apart from the arguments that have been done to death above (which I believe engendered a wider spectrum of support), there is the fact that in the Sicily project there are two or three precedents where we use  and/or . One example I can think of is Nicosia, Sicily which redirects to Nicosia (EN), to disambiguate from Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus. I propose having both Syracuse, Italy and Syracuse, Sicily redirecting to Syracuse (SR). This is the standard method of disambiguating in both it.wiki and scn.wiki, and we have started taking it up in the Sicily project, and it is pretty much the Italian equivalent of Syracuse, New York. Another example is Augusta (SR) which happens to be in the same proviince. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would support this, Syracuse, Italy is historically inaccurate. - FrancisTyers · 14:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this. The only relevant information in naming conventions of cities is their current location and relationship to a country.  Would you support calling Aachen, which was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire  "Aachen, Holy Roman Empire"?  Perhaps "Milan, Kingdom of Sardinia"? No, because naming a city after anything but the country in which it is located is absurd.  If you wish to note that Syracuse, Italy was at one point not affiliated with Italy, do so in the history section, but certainly not the title.  If you wish to tell me that Syracuse is not part of the nation of Italy, I will most happily support. AdamBiswanger1 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I misunderstood the proposal to mean a move to simply "Syracuse". AdamBiswanger1 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I support moving Syracuse, Italy to a name more acceptable to the Sicily project editors (that also disambiguates appropriately). But I'm not so sure about using the province abbreviation. An important principle in the general naming conventions is to "avoid abbreviations". I suspect that few people outside of Italy (or the EU) would readily recognize SR as meaning Sicily. older ≠ wiser 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur. I'd much prefer Syracuse, Sicily.  I'd also add that Syracuse (SR) seems like a bit of a strange mix of things to me - the Italian version would be Siracusa (SR).  If we are going to call it by the anglicized name, we shouldn't use the Italian abbreviation. john k 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I imagine there are other Sicilian cities that follow that mold "____, Italy". Just thought I'd put that out there so that we can ensure uniformity. AdamBiswanger1 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you find some examples? john k 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The following two aren't Sicilian, but they have the same format as the old-school Syracuse: Monti, Italy and Pila, Italy... Probably a bunch more, but it's time for my second-favorite hobby after Wikipedia... Viennese Nightlife! Cheers! -newkai | talk | contribs 18:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A glance at Monti suggests that it should not be a disambiguation page. A glance at Pila suggests that Pila, Italy should be at Pila (AO), or some such, since there's another Pila in Italy. john k 21:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may summarise the discussion, I think the solution will become clear. We have three viable options (and I am now thinking more broadly than just Syracuse, but in terms of all Italian provinces and towns, most of which are still to be done): 1. ; 2. ; and 3. , the latter being the official Italian abbreviation used for many official purposes, and also used exclusively in it.wiki for disambig purposes. For this reason, I imagine, it is current wikipedia policy. Now I used to think that this format was undesirable for en.wiki precisely for the reasons already stated, that most English speakers would not recognise it or find it meaningless, which is true. But thinking about it a bit more, it occurs to me that the disambig page is the primary navigation tool and it describes what you are about to link to, the name itself becomes less important than one might first imagine (within reason of course). So looking at the first two options, both sound, but both also capable of endless argument and even invoking nationalistic sentiments (for instance, I will always favour Sicily over Italy because that is my personal bias). The third option has the following advantages: What do you think? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Already used exclusively in a major wiki project and is current policy on en.wiki
 * 2) Many users from it.wiki (and the other minority languages) will assist in completing all the Italian comuni, and therefore there is an advantage in having the one standard that is familiar to them all, rather than 3 options floating around
 * 3) The format is free of nationalistic sentiment, it is fairly innocuous, and in reality, it doesn't take too much to work out what the abbreviation actually stands for
 * 4) The abbreviation does have an official standing in in the country we are talking about.
 * 5) The format has been successful in avoiding all ambiguities in it.wiki - so we can be sure that it will work here as well.
 * 6) It seems the best course of action in terms of uniformity, consistency and ensuring minimal debates as the Italian provinces and cities start to get completed
 * 7) As I have already mentioned above, it is already in use, certianly in the Sicily project.


 * I really really don't like the idea of using an Italian abbreviation with an anglicized name. The abbreviation standard is, as pointed out by someone above, intended to disambiguate when there are two Italian cities with the same name.  The city manifestly does not need to be disambiguated from other Italian cities with the same name, and the mixing and matching of languages is awkward.  Personally, I would suggest that we get rid of the "disambiguate by province abbreviation" rule, entirely, and substitute for it one where we disambiguate by region.  If two communes have the same name in different provinces of the same region, then we can use the province abbreviation form. At any rate, Syracuse, Sicily seems like the course of action which is the most sensible and to which the least opposition has been expressed.  (Has anybody expressed a particular dislike to this version?).  Every other form has been opposed by someone or other. john k 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that this conversation bothers me, but shouldn't we move this conversation to the "Syracuse, Italy" talk page, just to make it easier for anyone wanting to review the subject in the future? AdamBiswanger1 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ok - I've copied everything bewteen the introductory para and your suggestion - I hope that is all right with everyone. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  08:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)