Talk:Pieve Vergonte

Possible original research

There are very few inline citations in the article, and there may be original research in the article. Inline citations are needed. Thinker78 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thinker78, the article appears to have been translated from it.wp, but there's no attribution for that here. That article has several passages marked as needing citation; the corresponding passages here should probably be removed from our page without more ado. I see that you've already done a lot of work here; in general, unedited machine translation can be ruthlessly removed – it's almost always quicker to write your own content from the sources than to try to fix someone else's. Except that there are anyway hardly any sources for any of it. Personally, I'd rather see an article like this with adequate sourcing (which it doesn't have, I know) than what we have here, which is essentially a monumental waste of editor time. Here's what Treccani has to say: "Pieve Vergonte. Comune della prov. del Verbano-Cusio-Ossola (41,7 km2 con 2681 ab. nel 2008)". Yes, that's it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I am new in the Guild of Copy Editors; I did read that articles with issues shouldn't be worked on, but I forgot about it. Well, lesson learned. Thinker78 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And, despite what I wrote above, Dhtwiki continues to work on this mass of largely unreferenced content, much of which has nothing 'whatsoever to do with this small town, and should be removed at once from the article. All of the unencyclopaedic content was added by one editor. As a starting point for a better (shorter!) and more relevant article, I propose reverting to this version of the page, before those edits began. In my personal opinion, working on the present text is just a waste of precious editor time, energy and goodwill. Ping Attilios, Thinker78 for comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried telling him, but I guess he got a little bit too excited with this article so he couldn't stop himself from editing it. What can I say, except thank him for his contributions, even though anyone can just hit the delete button on all his work. Thinker78 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope that you don't just revert to some old, stub, erroneous version. I have done a lot of work on things that should stand even if the article is reduced to stub length. For example, I've corrected the names of the franzioni, which were erroneous; and I've put in a link to the state highway that runs through the area, as well as doing a better job with providing coordinates, which had been centered on some scrub. Things like that.

Although I've tried to remove the worst offending irrelevancies and excessively non-notable parts, I see that there is still material that could be taken out under the strict rules of Wikipedia. However, I'd like to see some justification other than labeling everything as original research; and I don't want to risk losing information that someone obviously painstakingly put together using published sources (the History section, for example) just because it lacks inline citations or possibly belongs in a more general article on the area. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, don't tell me, I am not planning on doing it. But someone else may do it. I tried telling you, but I guess the article attracted you. And it looks like it may be a machine translation from the Italian Wikipedia, per above. Thinker78 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, we don't keep irrelevant or inappropriate content just because somebody assembled it. Do you plan to remove all the irrelevant stuff (the inaccurate potted general history of Italy, for example) and provide suitable citations for the relevant content? If so I'll be only too pleased to sit back and let you get on with it; but if not, I will probably do some of that work myself, despite all the effort you have already put in here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My main concern is losing the detail that is here. For example, is there a description of the Roman Stele of Vogogna, with a better rendering of its inscription, with translation, somewhere? The description here is excessively detailed, and apparently unsourced, although not entirely irrelevant; but I wouldn't want to see that detail removed from the encyclopedia without an attempt to place it elsewhere, if it doesn't already exist (my memory of my Googling tells me that it doesn't exist elsewhere online, although it should be found in a compendium of Latin inscriptions). In short, there is plenty here that can be moved elsewhere, or linked if it already does, and the relevant sections reduced to more summary mentions, but not deleted out-of-hand. My ability to read Italian and my knowledge of the area is probably not up to my taking on the job myself, but I am willing to help, as I keep articles I've copy-edited on my watchlist. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation: ... the little successive plain of cultivation

The Italian text has several spelling errors which distort the meaning (e.g. "né" instead of "ne"). A more correct translation could read ".. the little plain susceptible of cultivation is devastated by the torrents Marmazza, Anza and Inferno, which descend rapidly from the mountains above, and flow into the Toce river"
But generally this article (as well as the Italian original) is ridicolously bloated, the topic beeing a completely unknown small village where nothing ever happened, with no mention in any historical document except as an insignificant part of some tiny and just as insignificant other village. Even if it reached the relevance threshold of WP, what I doubt, I would delete the whole of the text and leave only the lede, this is more than enough.
About the Stele: this is in Vogogna which has nothing to do with Pieve. The Stele reads "Quia FACTA EX ....... HS XIII DCC Domitio Dextro II P. .... FUSCO COSS M VALERIO OPTATO.C.VALERIO.THALETE CURATORIBUS . OPERI.DATIS.IMPERIO.VENUSTI.CONDIANI.PROC.ALP.ATRECT.MARMOREIS CREPIDINIBUS.MUNITA", try searching for "Stele di Vogogna" 2003:F5:6F06:7900:DD4A:608E:151D:F332 (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

You're right about the bloat and it was once much worse (see recent edit history). My concern, as I stated above, is that there seems to be a wealth of sourceable regional history that might not be duplicated at more relevant articles. There is the large number of references in the "Sources" section. I've looked through most, if not all, of them (the trans-titles are probably all mine, although I'm not fluent in Italian), and they seem to provide a wealth of detail on the region, if not on this particular newly established town. I would want to see them shifted to more relevant articles, if that's helpful, rather than just deleted. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Did an edit, uninvolved editor

I am not finding the factual accuracy problem, unless it's inappropriate wikilinks someone mentioned. My current concerns are as follows: it isn't clear to me whether the Black Brigades mentioned here are the same Black Brigades that the linked article is about. I would appreciate it if someone who knows this history better than I do would read over the 20th century section: it also wasn't real clear to me who shot who. I concentrated on wikilinks and consistency of format, and have not gotten into the sources. Please do check my work as my Italian is far from fluent. I believe the article is better than it was however. Elinruby (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to do some of the shifting but a couple points: I suspect it's largely accurate; I have rescued a lot of articles that look like pretty much like this from French MT. The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia do not enforce referencing very well, from the point of view of people who did not learn this stuff in high school. I do not claim to speak Italian, so I cannot vouch for the translation, but all that confusing stuff about Kings and Dukes is consistent with what I learned on deep dives into Provence. I am confident it *can* be sourced. Ditto the steles and so on. The fact that so much of it can be wikilinked lends weight to the narrative. But I have gone, I think, as far as a basic copy-edit will take it. There seems to be some question of notability? What parts are those, please? I hate putting a lot of work into articles that get deleted Elinruby (talk)