Jump to content

Category talk:Cities and towns in Italy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion

[edit]

(copied in from various user talk pages)

I'm doing the towns now. If you want to do the cities, that would be great. Thanks. Vegaswikian 06:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done with Cities.  :) I noticed that in the new Category:Cities and towns in Italy, there are now several "paired" subcategories, like "Cities in Abruzzo" and "Towns in Abruzzo". Do those need to be merged too, or is that a separate issue? --Elonka 07:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed the "paired" subcategories, like "Cities in Abruzzo" and "Towns in Abruzzo". I'd suggest doing an umbrella nom for all of the city and town categories to rename them to Category:Cities and towns in foo. Might as well clean up all of them and not just the paired ones. Vegaswikian 08:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "umbrella nom", it seems to me that that's already been covered in the original version, which included A categorization scheme like Category:Cities and towns in Sicily, where towns/cities of all sizes are together should probably be adopted. If you agree, I'll fire up AWB and start on the work. --Elonka 16:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use of words 'like' and 'probably' lead me to say that the intent was not clear to include these. On the other hand, if, as it seems likely, combining those categories would not meet any opposition it would be reaasonable to create the new categories and then move everything into them. The fact that you saw the intent of the CfD to include those and I did not should not be a big issues. Especically since the problem becomes clear only after you merge the parent category and I did notice that. If you go do the move, let me know when you are done and I'll add the category redirects. I think the redirects should be left here since it is too likely that someone will recreate the old cats in the future. Vegaswikian 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure either. I've gone ahead and added a question on the talk page of the user who proposed the merge in the first place, User_talk:AKeen, to see what s/he thinks. --Elonka 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would surely be best to combine all of these paired categories - there is no differentiation between what qualifies as a "city" and what is a "town" in any of these and I was hoping to eventually standardise all of the Italian geography categories into "Cities and towns in ..." There are twenty regions of Italy, most of which have double city/town categories, and there are also duplicate categories like Category:Coastal towns in Italy and Category:Coastal cities in Italy- AKeen 05:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the clarification. Approval has been given, so we can "make it so". Feel free to start combining, and I'll help as well as I can. --Elonka 05:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I'll start helping to combine. Also, thanks for noticing this and helping set the move in motion. - AKeen 05:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I was looking through the Italian Wikipedia, I see that more often there they do what you've been doing with the Sicilian towns, which is to call things Municipalities. Perhaps it's worth doing another "Category merge" proposal, to get rid of "Cities of" and "Towns of" categories altogether, and replace everything with "Municipalities of"? --Elonka 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of categorization, Italy is subdivided into 20 regions which are then further subdivided into smaller administrative units called provinces. Following the template of Sicily (one of the regions of Italy), each region, for example, Campania, should have a parent category for the whole region Category:Cities and Towns in Campania, which is then filled with categories for each province in the region:Category:Municipalities of the Province of Salerno, Category:Municipalities of the Province of Avellino, etc. For regions other than Sicily (Campania, Liguria, Veneto, etc), the next level of organization hasn't begun yet, eg towns in Campania have not been categorized into their proper province, but this can't be accomplished until there is a single parent category for the entire region instead of both Category:Towns in Campania and Category:Cities in Campania into which the province categories can be put.
I think the main issue at this time is fixing the parent categories for each region. The province categories (Municipalities of the province of...") can be tackled once the moves are completed. No region other than Sicily has categories for provinces yet. -AKeen 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "commune" the appropriate term for Italian municipalities? john k 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested recategorization

[edit]

So if I'm understanding everyone's concerns above, this is how things need to be recategorized. I chose a couple paths, like to Rome, Milan, and Palermo:


Does that look right?

This would mean that currently existing categories would get moved as below:

Remaining questions:

  • JohnK's point, that Italian communities are often called Communes? Should we use that word, instead of "Municipalities"?
Firstly, I'll tackle JohnK's point. The Italian word is Comune. The actual article says: "In Italy, the comune, (plural comuni) is the basic administrative unit of both provinces and regions, and may be properly approximated in casual speech by the English word township or municipality." So while the English word "commune" may have intuitive appeal, after a bit of a discussion those of us involved in the Sicily project concluded that it was not an appropriate translation. We decided to use the term "Municipality" as the very best translation, allowing for the possibility of large cities, smallish towns, and some areas with tiny, scattered populations. You will note that France has been subdivided along similar lines - that's basically what we followed. At the level of Category:Municipalities of the Province of Palermo, there is no reason why that particular category could not come under both: Category:Province of Palermo and Category:Cities and towns in Sicily (which I think would still be a useful category). Re question on Category:Coastal towns in Italy - I don't see why that shouldn't remain the same, afterall, we are using the term "municipality" as a direct translation of comune. If there exists a coastal town - let's call it that. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "commune," I'll just note that the term is most definitely used in English when referring technically to municipalities in countries like France and Italy. We don't ever use it to refer to municipalities in Anglophone countries, but that's a different matter. "Township" would be completely inappropriate - obviously Italian communes are rather like American townships (at least, rural communes are), but the term is simply never used. The term "commune" is used in English in this sense. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, gives the following as the second definition of commune:
The smallest local political division of various European countries, governed by a mayor and municipal council.
The first definition in Princeton University's WordNet is
the smallest administrative district of several European countries. It seems to me that the term is perfectly appropriate. Just because in England the equivalent of a Count is an Earl does not mean that we call continental Comtes, Grafen, and Contes "Earls." This is basically the same situation. "Commune" is the appropriate English word for the Italian "Comune", and we should use it. john k 11:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John - I'm of an age where "commune" has a very specific meaning - I'll come to that in a moment. Wikipedia has a disambig page for Commune which includes an article on Communes in France, but I do note that the word commune is italicised in that article (as is the word comune in Comune. My Chambers dictionary shows: 1. a number of unrelated families and individuals living as a mutually supportive community with shared accommodation supplies, responsibilities, etc (i.e. the hippy thing - that's what I see a "commune" as being); and then 2. in some European countries, the smallest local administrative unit.
So, I certainly don't deny that the word can be used - but I am still not overly convinced that it is the best choice. If "commune" is an appropriate English word, then the Wikipedia article should not italicise it, and the comune article could then define the Italian word as a "commune" - but it does not because I don't think that that is the primary meaning (at least not anymore). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also responded on your talk page, with the basic point that "words can have more than one meaning." I would add that the fact that other wikipedia articles say something is not very good evidence. This won't be the first time wikipedia has gotten something wrong. We have a good English word which is exactly equivalent to French commune and Italian comune. That word is "commune." We should use it when we are talking about the level of government below a province (in Italy) or an arrondissement (in France). We can use "city" or "town" when referring to Italian cities and towns in informal contexts. But when we are formally dividing up a province into its constituent units, the appropriate term is "commune." "Municipality" is not incorrect, but is not necessary - why use a generic word when there is a specific word? john k 12:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could another option be to use the word "comuni" for potential categorization, instead of "communes"? I think if we are going for complete accuracy we should do that, since I don't think most English speakers would see "commune" as an analog for what comune really is, per Pippu's explanation. - AKeen 16:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any English-speaker who knows what the Italian "comune" means knows that "commune" is the English equivalent. Again, why use a foreign word when we have our own word to signify the same thing. That this word has other meanings is irrelevant. We should use correct terms. Most Americans, even, don't know what a "CDP" (Census-designated Place) is, but we still use the term in our articles about unincorporated American locations, because it is correct. john k 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both this categorisation question and how we translate Italian comune into English are of equal importance, and need to be tackled simultaneously. Seeing how advanced we are with the Sicilian provinces, could we continue this discussion at the following talk page: Sicily project where you'll find I have copied some of John's comments, and you will also see that I too am starting to come around to his view, but it's something that needs a broader consensus before we get too far down the track in doing all the Italian provinces - the time to work this out once and for all is now. I encourage you all to give your opinion there - clearly, we in the Sicily project will follow that consensus (please note, I only offer this talk page as a place to discuss this more fully, it is not to suggest that we have necessarily got it right in this particular project). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, why discuss an "all Italy" categorization scheme, at the Sicily page? That's not the way to widen the scope of the conversation. If you want to bring in more voices, I recommend moving this conversation to Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (places). --Elonka 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Scheme Option

[edit]

I think our concern here is mainly the categorization of cities and towns. Region and seperate province categories should be left as-is, I think. I propose the following scheme:

This would mean that currently existing categories would get moved as below:

The Cities and towns for each region could also be nested directly in their respective region category:

Each region could have a category "Cities and Towns of ...." the next level down would be a category for each of the provinces within it. All city/town pages should be listed under their respective "municipality" category, not in parent categories. This could automatically be achieved by including "Category:Municipalities of the Province of *PROVINCE*" in each of the municipality templates like Template:Province of Ragusa (which appears at the bottom of the page of every town in each province) so they don't have to be manually added by editors. - AKeen 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this option. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer categorizing municipalities this way too. --Angelo 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian wiki

[edit]

I'm not totally against the above ideas, but let me play devil's advocate, if I may... I believe that if they're not deleted, the "Cities and towns in <region>" categories are going to be magnets. As long as they exist, I think that people are going to continue to place towns into those categories. If the categories are gone, then new article creators will get the red link, which will show them that they need to dig a bit deeper to find the "Municipalities" category (which is a little less intuitive).

(Keeping my devil's advocate hat on) Another concern is about synching up the categories with other language wikis, especially the Italian wiki. While doing some of the city/town cleanup, I've already noticed problems with moving the language links, when there wasn't a one-to-one correspondence between wikis. In other words, the way the Italian wiki is set up, it looks basically like this:

  • Italy
    • Regioni italiane
      • Regione Lombardia
        • Milano
        • Comuni della Lombardia
        • Province della Lombardia
      • Regione Sicilia
        • Palermo
        • Comuni della Sicilia
        • Province della Sicilia
      • Regione Lazio
        • Roma
        • Comuni del Lazio
        • Province del Lazio

In other words, if we wanted to stay in synch with the Italian wiki, our categories should be:

In other words, in the Italian wiki, they put all municipalities of a region into a "comunes of this region" category, and into a "comunes of this province" category for their individual province. With large cities (Milan, Rome, Palermo, etc.) getting their own subcategories that go right into the region category. --Elonka 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That just doesn't fit into the global system on the English Wikipedia. Non-Italians won't know how to use the category system to find the article about Florence or Verona, so it will hardly be worth having a category system for Italian cities at all. Honbicot 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD Vote

[edit]

The proposal has been submitted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 13. Everyone is invited to participate. --Elonka 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Cities_and_towns_in_Italy&oldid=1229138307"