Talk:Accademia della Crusca

nothing to do with the Accademia dell Crusca.

The major part of this article has absolutely nothing to do with the Accademia dell Crusca. It's merely the history of Napoleon's occupation of Tuscany.--dunnhaupt 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I have added another four sentences (and 110 years) to the history section. Plus a catch-penny sub-head of which I am inordinately proud— and to whose loss I am already resigned. But we do need to expand what I have done, fill in the earlier and later history, and trim the Napoleonic stuff. Though the polito-historical context of the re-constitution of the Accademia is no doubt important. Talking of which, the demise of the fifth edition seems to have coincided with the coming to power of Mussolini. —Ian Spackman 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I’d like a cite for the nuvoloni thing. That sounds like a folk etymology up there with that of gringo. —Wiki Wikardo 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Plagiaristic article

Sorry folks, the better part of this article was lifted word-for-word from "Renaissance and reform: the Italian contribution" By Frances Amelia Yates, 1983, and is under the copyright of Taylor and Francis Group. There is some attribution, BUT - you are supposed to quote, not just lift word-for-word. It appears as though the material was put in by an editor who only appears on Wikipedia long enough to put this material in, has no user page and does not contribute again. I don't believe that. He had skill enough to put it in. This is someone who has covered his tracks because he knows this sort of contribution is not allowed. I don't know what you are going to do, but this can't stand. I suggest a complete rewrite with paraphrases of Yates and the same or more attributions to her. I was going to refer to this article from elsewhere but I think I will refer to Yates instead in case you decide to delete it. You editors who reorganized it, nice work, but you should have checked the Internet and you should have flagged the article. Any article that features language too fine for most high-schoolers, language that shows thought and ornament, is immediately suspect. Wikipedia has 3.5 mil articles now and I dare say the better part were copied word-for-word or near it from books and articles on the Internet. They were done so by people at the level of starting an editor war over whether two and two make four. We need to check, check and check. What are walls for? To fill with graffiti, right?Dave (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Anon editions

Editions by an IP on 9-28-10 look nonsensical. Please revert to a previous edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.191.155 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Name questioned

One of the early members was Giovanni Battista Doni, but he was not a founder. The name given to "Soto" looks suspiciously like Doni. Stewart Fist 06:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart Fist (talk • contribs)

I don't think there's any doubt that "Deti" is correct, Stewart Fist. The only possible source of confusion is that there are two people called Giovanni Battista Deti at more or less the same time. The first is this one, Giovanni Battista Deti (1539–1607), founder of the Crusca and patron of Bartolomeo Passerotti, as discussed here; the second is Giovanni Battista Deti (c. 1580–1630), the rakish cardinal described here and here, and pictured here. Doni was not yet born when the Crusca was founded. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2017

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) PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Accademia della Crusca → Crusca Academy – According to "Wikipedia:Article titles", on the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. Thinker78 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Article has been stable at this title for 13 years. Per WP:TITLECHANGES "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." Only rationale proposed for move is an apparent misreading of WP:UE. To support a move under UE the proponent must prove that "Crusca Academy" is the name preferred by English-language reliable sources, which they have failed to do. AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that violation of a naming policy is a good reason to change it. According to Wikipedia:Article titles "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language". I don't know where I'm misreading. I think it is pretty simple: is Accademia della Crusca in English or not? Regarding the name preferred by English-language reliable sources, I have to say that the Encyclopedia Britannica prefers the name Crusca Academy and it even says that Accademia della Crusca is in Italian. The Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature also prefers Crusca Academy. Thinker78 (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC) edited 05:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • You're wrong. It does not violate naming policy, as I have made clear. AusLondonder (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose nom didn't do the "is" test in Google Books, again. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is overwhelmingly that used in English-language reliable sources for this institution – compare 217 JSTOR results for "the Accademia della Crusca" with 17 results for "the Crusca Academy". While we're at it, might as well note that "Crusca" is not English anyway and a fully English title would be "Academy of the Bran" – which unsurprisingly gets no hits at all on JSTOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Nom is mistaking how WP:USEENGLISH works. This should not be anglicized for the same reason we don't do that to Académie Française.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Whew! I was planning on moving Académie Française also. But I learned a bit how moves works. Next time I will use JSTORE and Google Books to see the preponderance of a term regardless of its language of origin. Thinker78 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing per consensus. PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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.