Talk:Riviera (disambiguation)

Think this page should be merged back

Why exactly was this split into two disambiguation pages? I don't think people will find it obvious that certain geographical regions are at "Riviera", while others called Riviera directly are here. Just have a single long disambig page. SnowFire (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riviera isn't a dab page, it's a list. For example, Chinese Riviera (and pretty nearly all of the entries) would not qualify as a dab entry as a partial match (WP:PTM). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very hair-splitty interpretation of the guidelines. It's obvious that "X Riveria" is potentially a link of interest if someone types in Riviera, but so is the Riviera Hotel. You seem to agree that both of these links have merit because you didn't delete the list entries for only being a "partial match." But I doubt the average user will understand why the entries are split. Really, Riviera functions exactly like a dab page - it's a simple list to get you to the Riviera you actually wanted with little content itself (and I doubt an attempted article called "List of places called Riviera" would get very far, there's nothing holding them together except name - that is, the exact case disambiguation pages are designed for). The rule on Partial Matches is there to cut down a huge wave of "articles that have this word somewhere in it;" if something actually might be referred to as Riviera, or at least "The only part I know is Riviera, and it's in this region, but I don't know the exact term," then it's a totally merited entry on the disambig page. A unified page can keep every single entry on the two pages at the moment in clean conscience without breaking the spirit of the rules, nor the letter of them either I would argue.

Would you have any objections if I just re-merged them? Or would you like to get a third opinion at WT:DAB? SnowFire (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with a third opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, dropped a request over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Third opinion requested, we'll see what others say. SnowFire (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the split make sense and lean towards leaving it the way it is now. But I recommend you go with a fourth opinion. --B2C 06:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Riviera" might be considered a set index page, but it really does not meet the criteria for a set index page, in that by its nature it does not add any encyclopedic information about the set, above and beyond that which could already exist at the top of a disambiguation page in the short introductory sentence / sentence fragment. Set index pages should not be created at the expense of the good navigation aids provided by disambiguation pages. At best, the common link that the items share is the derivation of the word riviera and that they are all coastlines which is what riviera means. See Talk:Riviera#Origin of name. Hence they are not linked other than by the name. On the other hand, if the primary page were just about the Ligurian Riviera I could see a justification, but if all the diverse geographical (but not other) places called rivieras are included then it is not a set index page such as the list at Chinese Rivers is. I do see the argument that partial matches are usually not appropriate on disambiguation pages unless they are also known just by the undisambiguated tag. It would be strange to have a short article, named "Riviera" about the Ligurian Riviera pointing to two main articles (French and Italian), with a long list in the "See also" section, but that is what our guidelines would seem to require for a primary target. Similarly, it seems strange to split what to all intents and purposes is a single disambiguation into two pages because of WP:PTM. Is a compromise necessary, or can we follow the guidelines? The choices include:

a primary topic about just the Ligurian Riviera (with or without listing the partials as see alsos), with a disambiguation page that does not list partials (Guidelines met);
a primary topic about just the Ligurian Riviera, with a disambiguation page that is more expansive than the guideline at WP:PTM would like;
a single disambiguation page that does not list partials (Guidelines met);
a single disambiguation page that is more expansive than the guideline at WP:PTM would like
a list page which does not meet set index criteria, but which excludes non geographic uses and places them on a separate disambiguation page (Clarityfiend's solution);
a list page that, for utility, ignores both guidelines and includes all uses of the term riviera (SnowFire's solution).

For me there is some utility in listing the partials, and it is not that long a list. There is also utility is having one stop shopping, again where the length is not an issue. So I would go for #4 or #6. Since I think that the partials, where they do not have Wikipedia articles, or where their Wikipedia article does not detail their riviera name, cry out for citation to reliable sources, my preference would be for #6. That would also allow for expansion of the lead with citations. Utility before rigid following of guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I see them both as dab pages. A list of things called Riviera is a dab page. Merge them back together. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, SmokeyJoe, believe that the partial matches should be included? Do you, SmokeyJoe, think that it is better as one list or one disambiguation page, in other words should it have citations or not? --Bejnar (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the listing of the many Rivieras as outside the intent of WP:Partial matches Riviera means coastline, or land near the coastline, and specially, and practical terms, refers to specific lands near specific coastlines. It is not the case that every new land discovered then created new places called Riviera, or at least that is not my understand. I understand that there is a finite list of historical places still called rivieras. It is not really like the case of Baltimore Zoo. So, I like your option #4, identical to #6 as I understand the above,
I think it is slightly better to list all on one page, because not finding an expected Riviera on the DAB page may confuse some people, and I don't think it is likely to hurt. On the other hand, if the DAB page becomes clearer at indicating that the many Rivieras are to be found on the Riviera, then that would be OK.
The question about citations still has me confused.
I think it is very important that the full list of accepted Rivieras remains listed somewhere, and hope that older ≠ wiser's prediction of their removal will not happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless these are commonly known as simply "riviera" rather than X riviera, they would fail inclusion on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"commonly" leaves room for interpretation. Commonly among who? Do the locals count? Do the 19th century locals count? In any case, what is important is that we have the information well organized so that our readers readily find it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same standard for any partial title match. A reliable source calling it without qualification "Riviera" and cited in the article. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable, yes, but as a definition of "commonly", "occurs in a reference" is pretty weird. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source using an unqualified form would give an indication of common-ness. If reliable sources qualify usage per context, is it an indication that the usage is relatively uncommon. older ≠ wiser 14:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with leaving them split. Most of the entries currently on the Riviera page would be removed from a disambiguation page as unambiguous partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 20:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd go with a primary topic about just the Ligurian Riviera (with a listing the partials as see alsos), together with a disambiguation page that does not list partials, noting that that solution meets the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the French Riviera to be the main topic, though I wouldn't object to making it a joint primary topic with the Italian. The rest of the proposal sounds find. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Riviera" sounds to me like a legitimate broad-concept article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me. The concept of a "shore" rates a broad-concept article. Riviera, un-modified, means the Ligurian Riviera, and for many readers means what is also known as the French Riviera. See above. --Bejnar (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See renewed discussion at Talk:Riviera#Proposed merge with Riviera (disambiguation). --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]