Jump to content

Talk:Nice

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

Requested move 3 January 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice → Nice, France – WP:USEENGLISH and WP:ASTONISH, in the English language contexts, "Nice" primarily refers to the behavior. The the name of the city is derives from the Greek Nikaia (Νίκαια), which was given in 350 BC. The current name "Nice" is certainly at least a millennium younger. On the other hand niceness as an emotion and behavior is as old as humanity itself, therefore this article title is WP:RECENTISM. Granted, the article about kindness is rather dismal, but that just means there's some for improvement on that end. Many philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists have studies the phenomenon of niceness, so that article can very easily be expanded. The city might have more page views, but it clearly doesn't have more lasting significance. Searching for "Nice" on any search engine first brings up results about the behavior of niceness.

Previous requested move discussions seem to have ignored the third criterion for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: "The article at Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: "defamation", "libel", "slander", "vilification", and "calumny". Even though there is a film with the title Libel, the article at Defamation is still the primary topic for that title and the film must be disambiguated." We have the same situation here; "Nice" primarily refers to the behavior so the city name needs disambiguation.

For those of you who think that "nice" by itself doesn't refer to anything in particular, consider its use in phrases like Minnesota Nice and Naughty or Nice. These not only provide evidence that the term "Nice" by itself not only refers to "kindness" as an emotion, but is a noun. Consider the ironic usage of the term in the book title Nice Is Just a Place in France: How to Win at Basically Everything, where the author jokingly suggests that "nice" more commonly means the city of Nice than the behavior. Countless other Wikipedia articles that include usage of the word nice and have nothing to do with the city so so article title WP:CONSISTENCY needs to be considered as well. Examples include: Nice guy, Nice Girl Project!, Nice & Slow, Nice Work If You Can Get It (musical), and Have a nice day.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of disambiguator should be used, but don't let that prevent the article from being moved in the first place. Prisencolin (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support while acknowledging that it doesn't have a snowball's chance. Give it up. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I get WP:NOTDICT and all, but being nice is a reasonably encyclopedic topic, and it's also an extraordinarily common word that usually does not mean this city, so WP:SURPRISE is a factor as well. Nohomersryan (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for exactly the same reasons I opposed opposed last time. Graham87 10:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alas, I hope I've addressed most of your points from the last two discussions. WP:NOTDICT doesn't apply to redirects, and thus the article that the search term "nice" would point towards is a valid encyclopedia article. Btw all of those WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC claims made were substantiated; and they also don't hold much weight considering there are articles on kindness, pleasure already. If it's not clear what else "nice" really means, at the very least Nice should be a dab page.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I too understand WP:NOTDICT, but there is absolutely no reason to enforce ambiguity in a way that won't make sense to the reader. For the sake of our readers, let's be a bit more WP:PRECISE, shall we? RGloucester — ☎ 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Nice" the word is not an encyclopedic topic - the closest we have is niceness which redirects to Kindness, which is not even really the same thing. We already have a hatnote which presumably is doing its job. Mislinks do not appear to be an issue. Lol at the nom for invoking WP:RECENTISM here, by the way. Dohn joe (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think WP:ASTONISH applies here. The place in France is clearly the primary topic, esp for an encyclopedia. Nice (in "it's nice to do that") is just a low-value dictionary definition that would redirect to kindness. Also WP:TITLECHANGES comes in here too - "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.". There have only been two RMs for this, both pretty much snow closes, with the only real discussion taking place nearly five years ago. I know that consensus can change, but I don't see how a glorfied stub would be the correct article to have as the primary topic over a major city ("fifth most populous city in France"). Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as for page views, it appears that the city of Nice only barely has the majority of views compared to the various synonyms of nice like kindness, altruism, and pleasure.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated earlier, kindness is kind of close, but none of those are synonyms of "niceness"... You don't have to be nice at all to be altruistic, for example. Dohn joe (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Altruism is an accepted synonym for kindness according to Thesaurus.com. "Nice" is just still too vague to refer to anything really.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But altruism is not a synonym of niceness, according to thesaurus.com or Merriam-Webster, which is the whole point here. And "Nice" refers extremely precisely to the French city. Dohn joe (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thesauri say that altruism is synonym of kindness, which is a synonym of niceness so there's still ambiguity there, particularly as far as search terms go. Perhaps a discussion for another time would be consider having case-sensitive titles like there are on Wiktionary, as "nice" (not "Nice") does not refer to the city.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposal is to move the article to a disambiguated title, and leave the current title as a redirect to that new title. It's bad enough we do this with US cities that have unique names (e.g., Baton Rouge is a redirect to Baton Rouge, Louisiana), but at least those cases can be rationalized by the argument that the "disambiguated name" is the most commonly used name. Outside of the US I believe the practice is unprecedented. The proposed disambiguation in this case is not based on WP:COMMONNAME. So what is the justification? That "Nice" is ambiguous with the dictionary word for kindness? Yet redirecting "Nice" to another article is not even part of this proposal, thus revealing how flimsy it is. The "primary topic in English" for the four letter term "nice" is certainly the dictionary word, but our concern here is not the "primary topic in English", but the "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on Wikipedia". Though they often overlap, the two types of "primary topic" are not one and the same, and often deviate when the English language ambiguity is with a dictionary word that has little if any relevance to an encyclopedia, which is exactly the case here. These are the very good reasons this title has never been disambiguated, and they apply just as strongly today as they did on the day this article was created fifteen years ago. --В²C ☎ 21:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:USPLACE is an entirely different issue, as far as that guideline goes. Although the guideline theoretically allows the city of Phoenix, Arizona to claim the title of "Phoenix", the existence of an equally notable mythological bird means that it should be disambiguate. It's the same case here. To be honest, I really still don't understand why everyone thinks the concept of "nice" isn't "encyclopedic" (whatever that means), compared to the city, which should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT into something like kindness, plus these arguments are squarely along the lines of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC or WP:VAGUEWAVE.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I really still don't understand why everyone thinks the concept of "nice" isn't 'encyclopedic'"... Let me put it this way... First, do you really think significant numbers of people will look up "nice" (the word meaning kindness) in an encyclopedia compared to how many will look up the city in France? Second, if you really think Nice should redirect to something like Kindness, that should have been part of the proposal. --В²C ☎ 17:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it happens I actually don't believe more people would want to read an article about niceness than the city of Nice, but that doesn't mean that the topic doesn't have more lasting significance or that WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS may be at play. As seen at Talk:Bernie, the things that people want to search for aren't necessarily what we should prioritize.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per В²C. The primary encyclopedic topic is the city in France. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: Got any proof of this?--Prisencolin (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. See here. Encyclopaedia Britannica lists it first when you search for Nice. (Ignore the "France" in parentheses: that's just standard formatting for them. They also give "Rome (national capital, Italy)".) Or see here, the overview that comes up when you search Oxford Reference online for "nice". The Oxford World Encyclopedia has an article on Nice, titled Nice. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what you get when you search for "Nice" in Google Books search. Also Britannica doesn't have an article on kindness, altruism or any associated concept, the Oxford World Encyclopedia entry about about kindness is within the context of theology so the comparison to Wikipedia should be irrelevant.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was the primary encyclopedic topic, not that it was a more commonly used word than "nice". Wikipedia is broader than other encyclopedias, but it is still just an encyclopedia that "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". The word bat, either as a verb or in reference to sports, is not the primary encyclopedic topic. That would be the mammal. It's not exactly comparable, but it's the same principle at work. Srnec (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the city is clearly the primary topic. Visitors looking for a dictionary definition of the word "nice" are unlikely to look for it on Wikipedia. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 03:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while I agree with the page to be called "Nice, France", although "Nice, Alpes-Maritimes" would be better, I disagree with the need of a disambiguation. Bertdrunk (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per В²C. The encyclopedic topic is the French city. A dictionary would be different, but this is an encyclopaedia. We don't have articles for adjectives, except for a few cases where the adjective is used in ways including an encyclopaedic interest. Jeppiz (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —  AjaxSmack  04:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think anyone looking for an article about the adjective Nice on Wikipedia has not really understood the concept and has confused encyclopedia with dictionary. That said if they were looking for niceness the hatnote redirecting to Kindness should be enough. It would also be possible to add this template to the page.
Look up nice in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Domdeparis (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in infobox

[edit]

I don't think this edit by an IP, which added languages to the infobox, is necessary ... the languages are rarely used in modern times and the equivalent term is already used in the lead section. Since the infobox has been stable for a number of years, there should be a good reason for adding/modifying fields in it, and it should not be done on the whim of drive-by IP editors. Graham87 11:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abolishment of Latin in favor of the Italian language?

[edit]

The article has this passage:

> In 1561 Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy abolished the use of Latin as an administrative language and established the Italian language as the official language of government affairs in Nice.

I find that hard to believe, as the Savoy/Piedmont region was always very strongly piedmontese speakers, and from my recollections they were very late to assimilate the "italian" language.

Anybody has a source? Is it true that Emmanuel Philibert abolished latin? Santiagobasulto (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nice&oldid=1212152218"