Jump to content

Talk:Syracuse, Sicily/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Etymology

Does anyone know the etymology of the name? - Lars951 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse 3A

What does the word mean to the French? [1]

Is it really necessary to visit this place? Come on , isn't the beach better?

r u kiding me? no really this is really dissapointing, i thought that it was gonna be interesting.

I know italy is a beautiful place so u could've put some more pictures and less text!Really i was quite bored!

Voting on naming

See talk:Syracuse for whether Syracuse should be a DAB page, the NY place, or the Sicilian place.

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 <Name of town, Sicily> and/or <Name of town, (provincial short name)>. 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)

following to 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC) copied from the Talk:Syracuse page.
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. <town, Italy>; 2. <town, Region>; and 3. <town (XX)>, 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:

  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.

What do you think? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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)
Fair enough John. I agree that mixing the anglicised name with an abbreviation used predominantly in Italy may represent poor form. I also have to admit that for the bulk of Italian towns and cities, the name of the region will be sufficient to disambiguate. Perhaps the Italian abbreviation could be used in those rare instances where we need to disambiguate within a region. That actually does sound like the most logical route to take - but - what do we now do about the current Wikipedia policy? This really is the perfect time to sort it out because less than 50% of all Italian comuni have been done to date - and I am sure that all three disambig formats are being used, which is an undesirable state of affairs. I would appreciate your advice on that one, or indeed from anyone who knows what one should do in these circumstances, i.e. to tackle an existing policy. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You can propose the change at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). Wait a day to see if anyone objects, then just change the article. john k 10:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Without going into the naming convention thing immediately above, I agree that this page should be at Syracuse, Sicily, not ..., Italy (if not at Syracuse). The main American Syracuse doesn't call itself ..., USA, so there's an instant exception to the ..., country format (which, by the way, is American anyway, isn't it? Why should America get to be divided into states when the rest of the world is divided by country, in an international encyclopaedia, especially when the article under question is about a Sicilian city?) mini-rant over. Sensible city-naming, in my opinion, uses what I would call a broadly recognisable geographic region, which is the point: disambiguation. Political divisions at our point in history should not take precedence over (a) recognisability, and (b) accuracy. People have different mental pictures of [Sicily] and [Italy], just as it would be more immediately obvious to describe Belfast as being in [Northern Ireland] than in the [UK] (regardless of pedantic—and fluid—political conventions). Similarly in inline text, explaining the location of a place, one would write 'Syracuse (on Sicily)' or perhaps much more generally 'Sicily (in Europe),' where the aim is to briefly tell the reader an unfamiliar location. Historical regions can be appended to cities which are best known for flourishing at that time; modern states can be appended when the discussion of the article is on how a city reached the form it's in now. I'm getting into conventions now, so I'll stop. I'll just say I felt disoriented when I looked up Syracuse and found the page at ..., Italy. Njál 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one more note: Sicily, as a large island, is much more recognisable to an anglophone than a region such as Liguria (which I just picked at random off the Italy#Administrative_divisions page). Naming conventions, while great for most purposes, should not be allowed to murkify otherwise easily-named articles. Forcing things into badly-shaped boxes is not a good method of categorisation. Njál 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

Shouldn't this actualy be at Syracuse, Sicily? The redirect there got deleted, and yet the page still got moved here, this will mess things up pretty bad in terms of double redirects, but it looks as if the damage has already been done... --T-rex 15:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to NawlinWiki this has been taken care of, and I've gone through and removed the double redirects. All of the single redirects are still in place though, and could use some cleaning up --T-rex 15:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Syracuse, Sicily → Syracuse, Italy — Sicily is not a state. Furthermore, the change from Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse, Sicily was not done according to rules. Panarjedde 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Reasonable argument until you got to the bit about secession agenda - where on Earth are these ideas coming from? I've just double checked WP:NC:CITY and the general rule is: ... to name an article about a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept as city name. Well, so far so good, Syracuse, Sicily appears to achieve that. Then there is a specific section about Italy, where it suggests use of the province as the form of disambiguation - we have gone a level of government above that in using the region (an autonomous region at that) but that's not good enough, it must be the next level again. Why? The more I read of accusations of POV, the more I feel that it appears to be coming from the support direction only - especially with these absolute fantasies about nationalism and secession. People - others have already said it, and I'll say it again - I've never known anyone to seriously raise such possibilities in my whole life. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but agree with older ≠ wiser that Syracuse (Sicily) is probably the best title. --Serge 02:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see reasoning above. Syracuse (Sicily) is also a good title — it would make it clear that the American comma-delimited naming system isn't even being attempted, and therefore isn't 'incorrect'. However, let's not row about that. I'm quite happy with Syracuse, Sicily too. Njál 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I do not see any consensus on Talk:Syracuse and its archives to move this from Syracuse, and Srnec's argument (that many of the links here refer to antiquity, for which both Syracuse, Sicily and Syracuse, Italy are wrong) has never been answered. Of the two comma'ed choices, my preference is clear; but this should probably be widened to an approval poll. Septentrionalis 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point, the normal disambig process as far as Italian communes are concerned is to have "Commune" (PR), where PR = the accepted two letter Italian abbreviation of the province. It.wiki disambiguates this way, and it is also the policy to do the same in en.wiki when we are talking about communes within Italy requiring disambiguation. But - as JKenny has pointed out - the situation with Syracuse is different. It is not a case of the name conflicting with the name of another Italian commune or town. Rather, it is a case of the anglicised form of the town's name conflicting with many like-named towns in the USA. JKenny's view is that it is messy mixing up the anglicised name of the town with an Italian abbreviation. I have to agree that that is poor form for Wikipedia. So rather than go to the Italian abbreviation of the province, it is quite natural to go the next level up in administration, the name of the region, Sicily, which in this case happens to be an autonomous region in Italy, as well as being an extremely well known location amongst English speakers. Finally, there is the added point that it reflects Syracuse's location across over 2,500 years of history. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Two points, first I don't see any problem with having the article at Syracuse, Sicily; second, not directly relevant to the current discussion, I don't think "Commune" (PR), where PR = the accepted two letter Italian abbreviation of the province is an appropriate method for disambiguation. Abbreviations should not be used as the disambiguation term. If that is not currently in any guideline, it should be. older ≠ wiser 14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The problems with having the article at Syracuse, Sicily are those listed in the nomination:
  1. The move from the article at Syracuse, Italy was done without a request, so not everyone interested was involved;
  2. Sicily is not a state like Wyoming, "Syracuse, Sicily" is uncorrect.--Panarjedde 14:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree the move was undiscussed. However, there is no absolute requirement that the portion following the comma must be a subnational entity. The purpose is to disambiguate. Syracuse (Sicily) would be equally acceptable. In particular, there is a naming convention (however flawed) for Italian municipalities. There is no clear guidance or precedent on how to disambiguate exceptions to that convention. older ≠ wiser 15:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Provide cases in which the disambiguation for a place is not a (sub)national entity. All of the cases I am aware of have the greatest un-ambiguos (sub)national entity the place is part of. --Panarjedde 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a few minutes browsing turned up Artemis (Loutsa), Avlona, Karpathos, Stari Grad, Užice. I'm sure I could find more, but perhaps my point is that outside of the U.S. and other countries that have adopted the City, State/Province convention as the canonical naming format, there is little consistency in the usage of the comma convention and no great significance attached to what appears in the second portion. If there is no special significance to the second portion of the name, it makes little difference whether it is an official subnational entity or something else. In such cases, the purpose is solely to disambiguate. In such cases, I'd be inclined to always use parenthetical disambiguation rather than confuse matters by using an ersatz City, State convention where that does not reflect common usage. older ≠ wiser 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Take a better look. Artemis and Loutsa are two names of the same place; Avlona needs to be disambiguated with Karpathos because in Greece there are other two Avlona; Stari Grad is disambiguated by Uzice because in Serbia there are other three Stari Grad. So, all of the examples you used actually confim my point, that locations are consistently disambiguated by adding the largest (sub)national entity the place is part of.--Panarjedde 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Karpathos is not a official subnational entity by any reasonable definition. Uzice is simply the nearest city -- there is no indication that that Stari Grad is a part of the city. As I mentioned, this was the fruit of a *very* brief amount of time spent browsing. There are many other examples of such inconsistencies in the application of the comma convention in countries that do not use that as a canonical form. Such inconsistent usage can cause confusion, much as we are discussing here about what is the appropriate disambiguating term. Without a well-defined style manual or common usage to provide guidance, there is nothing at all obvious about when to choose which level of subnational entity. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sicily is a subnational entity. C.f. Autonomous regions with special statute and Regions of Italy. The regions are the primary subnational divisions of Italy, and Sicily is one with particular special privileges as an autonomous region. john k 15:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, but Italy is the largest un-ambiguous (sub)national entity Siracusa is part of. Otherwise, why you do not call it Syracuse (SI) or Syracuse (province of Siracusa)?--Panarjedde 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
When has this ever been a rule? We decided on "Syracuse, Sicily," because it's actually informative in a way that "Syracuse, province of Siracusa" is not. john k 17:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide any other article in which the disambiguation is not the largest political entity the city is part of? If not, the use of Sicily instead of Italy is an exception to the common use, and you should provide a sound reason to accept it.--Panarjedde 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you just provided it below --T-rex 18:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
They are two occurrencies on 20 cases, it clearly show that the "consensus" is to use "Italy" or the province.--Panarjedde 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Except that it also shows there is no consistency in which to use -- some are disambiguated with the province, when it is the only such name in Italy. That seems to indicate the absence of any easily understood, accepted convention for handling such disambiguations. older ≠ wiser 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The province is used when other cities with the same name exist in Italy, otherwise is used Italy. This shows clearly that a common patter is present in the chosen names.--Panarjedde 19:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
<== Among those you list below, the following are disambiguated with the province despite there not being any other articles with that name about places in Italy:
older ≠ wiser 20:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
List of cities of Sicily that need disambiguation
  1. Messina, Italy
    Messina ought to be at Messina, which redirects to Messina, Italy
  2. Vita, Italy
  3. Vittoria, Italy
  4. Ragusa, Italy
  5. Patti, Italy
  6. Naso, Italy
  7. Milo, Italy
  8. Itala, Italy
  9. Floresta, Italy
  10. Falcone, Italy
  11. Favara, Agrigento
  12. Grotte (AG)
  13. Ribera, Sicily
  14. Valverde (CT)
  15. Bronte (CT)
  16. San Cataldo (CL)
  17. San Teodoro (ME)
  18. Sciara (Sicily)
  19. Sinagra (ME)
  20. Villalba (CL)

It looks like that the common use is to use "xxx, Italy" as a disambiguation, with "xxx, <province>" when further disambiguation is needed.--Panarjedde 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1) This doesn't show "common use" as that term is usually used in Wikipedia naming discussions (which is what is common real-world use); 2) it might be nice if you didn't immediately commence moving articles to other titles after listing them here. older ≠ wiser 19:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
1)It does, 2 over 20 is not consensus, 18 over 20 is. 2) Other people did the opposite, where were you then?--Panarjedde 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
9 over 20 is not consensus either --T-rex 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not know how do you count. I see a 18/20 (i.e. 90%) majority.--Panarjedde 13:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What Bkonrad is saying is that the form used in wikipedia articles does not demonstrate "common usage" which normally means "common usage outside wikipedia". Articles are, at present, basically disambiguated haphazardly. That doesn't really say anything about what we should do. Personally, I'd prefer to default to disambiguating Italian cities by region, whether or not the disambiguation needs to be done with another city in Italy or with something else, and only use province if there's more than one city with the same name in the same region. john k 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with John's clarification. older ≠ wiser 20:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm struggling to follow the logic that demands that the name of the country must but used as the form of disambiguation. I think you could find hundreds (maybe thousands) of examples where that does not happen. Indeed the norm seems to be not to use the name of the country. Apart from the obvious North American examples, just one example close to home is Perth, Western Australia. I repeat again, Sicily is an autonomous region within Italy, and as such it's capacity to self-govern are on par with that of the state governments of the USA and Australia. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you realize that only two articles in twenty do not use as disambiguation the largest (sub)national entity the location is part of? If there are no other Syracuse in Italy, why do you need to say "Sicily"? Is this some sort of Sicilian pseudo-nationalism?
And even if you do not care, why did you oppose?--Panarjedde 13:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Note also that there is another Perth in Tasmania, while there is no other Syracuse in Italy.--Panarjedde 13:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The above examples show that there needs to be a general discussion on how places in Italy's articles should be entitled. There is nothing wrong with Syracuse, Sicily, but then it should also be Naso, Messina not Naso, Italy. If there is a consensus to bypass provinces and name the locations directly under Italy, then it should be that way. But it seems to me there is a conflict here, that when resolved, will solve nothing at all. -newkai t-c 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

I suspect that all this matter of pushing the "Syracuse, Sicily" name, which was showed to be without foundation, is because of some sort of allegation of independence of Sicily from the Italian Republic. For this reason I challeng the very name of this article for non-NPOV position, and I will be satisfied only when it will be given a sounding reason for a NPOV "Syracuse, Sicily" name.--Panarjedde 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV mark. I think that the previous debate has clarified that majority was for moving to Sicily. I think arguments by john k. are reasonable (i.e., Syracuse had an important role in Sicilian history before even the idea of Italy was born), so I removed back the POV mark. I'm Italian, I can ensure you that no serious "allegation of independence" is now ongoing in Sicily, let us figure if it can have something to share with the name of a Wikipedia article. --Attilios 14:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You have no right to remove a POV tag. I provided a reason for putting it, and a condition to remove it. You can't remove it. I am warning you.--Panarjedde 14:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is really a non-neutral point of view being pushed here, Panarjedde. Nobody appears to be making the claim you're attributing to them, and it doesn't appear that that's the case (other cities in Italy appear to also be named things other than City, Italy). While I think this article should be called "Syracuse, Italy", I don't think your POV tag was placed in good faith. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have never said I am sure it is POV, I said I suspect it is. A common pattern for the choice of the name is "City, Italy" if there are no other places named "City" in Italy. Of course not every single article respect this pattern, because it takes nothing to create a page ex-nihilo, but there is a large majority of articles that respect this behaviour. I will respect the consensus against my proposed move (even if people did not follow the same procedure to move this article from Syracuse, Italy), but the reasons they are providing are not sound enough, and therefore I suspect there could be another reason, a sort of pseudo-nationalism.--Panarjedde 14:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you simply suspecting something without anything else to back it up is really enough for a POV tag. The fact that there is apparently no agreed-upon naming convention for Italian cities (there should be--is there a Wikiproject Italy to discuss this on?) would make it appear that any naming decision that isn't outright ridiculous is acceptable as long as there is a consensus on that particular article for such a name, regardless of the "inner reasoning" of the editors (and without consensus on ", Italy", all decisions should be seen as equal). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no POV to push with regards to Sicilian nationalism. I can't even imagine what POV I might have. I think that using region as the disambiguator for Italian cities makes sense, as regions, unlike provinces, are well known and historically significant, but are usually going to be specific enough to disambiguate among cities with the same name within Italy (although I'm open to correction on the last point). Has anybody who has argued against "Syracuse, Italy" said anything even remotely related to Sicilian nationalistic sentiment? john k 17:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Panarjedde, just give it a rest already. Your claims are getting more and more extravigant, and without basis. Please just let this be. I don't know anyone who has even been to sciialy, let alone trying to start an anti italy revoloution there --T-rex 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That vote isn't really that "fairly evidently related to Sicilian nationalism". Looks to me as though he is pointing out that Sicily has had an identity that long pre-dates that of the Italian nation-state and suggests that being an autonomous region makes it a subnational entity, comparable to that of the U.S. state names used to disambiguate other Syracuses. older ≠ wiser 20:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is someone accusing me of being nationalist? I am Australian, born and bred. I have an Australian passport (only) and I hold no other form of citizenship in any other country. I simply believe that in this particular case, Syracuse, Sicily is a better form of disambiguation (recalling that the original discussion months ago was whether it required disambiguation at all from Syracuse, New York). After a very heated debate, I did end up acknowledging that it did - so it is not as if I am some sort of spoiler - afterall, I have over 20,000 edits - and I contribute as much on Australian subjects as Sicilian subjects. I also recall at the time that there was indeed a broad consensus amongst all that participated in the discussion that Syracuse, Sicily was a more appropriate title than Syracuse, Italy, for many of the reasons stated again above. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are debating on nothing. It is clear that you are not Italian. Sicilian "nationalism" does not exist at all. There are a bunch of nostalgic people dreaming of fabulous "Golden Age" of pre-1860 Bourbons, but they don't want separation from Italy, from what I know. --Attilios 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How on earth did anyone become nostalgic for the Bourbons? The Sicilians hated Bourbon rule. Neapolitans being nostalgic for the days when they were a major capital I could kind of see, but Sicilians? Utter madness. john k 02:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
A case of the ‘Good old bad old days’, as the song says? —Ian Spackman 09:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot believe that Syracuse, Sicily is motivated by some kind of Sicilian nationalism. To call it Sarausa in an English-language encyclopedia probably would be a sign of bias: but noone has even set up a redirect. —Ian Spackman 09:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then here's a redirect for you --T-rex 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
HaHa! Smoked you out, you axis-of-evil pro-anti-Bourbonist terrorist! ;) —Ian Spackman 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Damn! He beat me to the punch - and I was hoping to monopolise that appellation. My life's work ruined. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Guilty as charged... --T-rex 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is "Syracuse" an Americanism in "English" language?.. Siracusa used commonly in England

When Americans are speaking and writing in the "English language" (sic), obviously "Syracuse" is used, this is evident in that some of its towns are named as such.

But in real English articles (ie-English English)... the city seems to be referred to as Siracusa; the spelling it is also known by in Italy[2][3][4][5]. Why should it be located at an American-esque location over one used by English speakers in Europe? - The Daddy 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess Edward Gibbon who spelled it Syracuse wasn't English...? My translation of Saint Augustine's Confessions was published in West Drayton, Middlesex and it also spells "Syracuse" rather than "Siracusa". Also -- what's with the derogatory reference of United States English as "English" (sic), etc.? Should you be so close minded when you fancy yourself an artist and a lover of musicianship on your talk page? MartinDuffy 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syracuse,_Sicily/Archive_1&oldid=1137215386"