Talk:Syracuse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

dabbing

Made this a disambiguation page, which I believe is a fair solution seeing that Syracuse, Italy is of of historic significance, and Syracuse, New York is of modern significance. I use Wikipedia:Disambiguation as my backup for this move. This site states:

"Equal" disambiguation: all articles are moved to distinct names, and the "Mercury" page becomes a disambiguation page — a simple list (or sentence) that points to those specific articles, perhaps explaining the differences among them.

"Primary topic" disambiguation: if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains at "Mercury", the general title. The top of the article provides a link to the other meanings, or if there are a large number, to a page named "Mercury (disambiguation)". For example: the page Rome has a link at the top to a page named "Rome (disambiguation)" which lists other cities named Rome. The page Cream has a link to the page Cream (band) at the top.

This site was "primary topic" disambiguation. Seeing that both cities are of relative equal importance, and there has been a struggle about this before (see original version of this page), I have made this page "equal" disambiguation. newkai 02:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure they are of relative equal importance? How do you decide that? I see a lot of work has been done with the New York one, but surely article size does not indicate relative importance. What's so special about Syracuse, New York? Adam Bishop 05:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's a little difficult. Syracuse, Italy definitely fills the history books more, but Syracuse, New York has more present-day significance, especially to the English-speaking crowd (the university, industry, etc.) Syracuse plays a moderately import part in U.S. history (Eire Canal, used to be 20th largest city, salt production, etc.). I think Syracuse, Italy's role is mostly secondary (eg. looking up an inventor or mathematician), seeing he's born there, and clicking on a link. People who actually search for Syracuse are probably looking for the New York one. Also, Syracuse, New York has 2,020,000 Google results while Syracuse, Italy only has 301,000. Even on the Italian Google there are virtually no results for "Syracusa" (Syracuse in Italian). The Italian Wikipedia's article is empty. Don't get me wrong, the ancient Syracuse is definitely more important in history, but not for the English Wikipedia crowd, especially for direct searches. newkai 06:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure it's more important to you because you live there, but I doubt that necessarily means everyone else looking for Syracuse is looking for your particular Syracuse. Even other Americans must be looking for the Italian one sometimes, and there are many other English-speaking countries in the world. I think this is similar to London, Ontario vs. London, England - I'm from the Ontario one, and in the past year I and others have added a lot to that article, but nobody is suggesting the original London should be disambiguated. London England is more significant than Syracuse Italy, I guess, but I think the idea is the same, one was named after the other, older, more significant one. What about Rome, New York, and Rome, Italy? Or York, Pennsylvania, and York, England? Or any hundreds of other places in North America named after European places. (By the way, it's Siracusa in Italian, "Risultati 1 - 10 su circa 1.350.000 per siracusa.", and it: does have a stubby little article, it:Siracusa.) Adam Bishop 13:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between London, England and London, Ontario. Seven million people vs. 300,000. Rome, Italy: 2.5 million, Rome, New York: 34,000. This difference doesn't exist between the two Syracuses, in fact, Syracuse, New York is even a little larger. London was also the center of a much larger empire than Syracuse, Italy was ever a part of. I don't dispute that Syracuse, Italy has more historical significance (although once again, not for itself but for who lived there and what wars took place there). But I believe Syracuse, New York has a larger modern-day significance, especially to the English-speaking crowd. Look also at how much attention and content Syracuse, New York has gotten. Thanks for the Italian clarification. The Dutch version of "Syracuse" also made this kind of equal disambiguation, and that's in Europe! newkai 14:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And here's my best argument: In August 2004 there were 14757 requests for Syracuse, New York, and only a mere 2366 for Syracuse, Italy. The users of en.wikipedia.org primarily want the American version. http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200408.html (Warning: 88MB)

Well, lucky for everyone, I'm way to lazy to start a move war/edit war over this :) Adam Bishop 02:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you :) I think the current setup is a good compromise newkai 05:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American Wikipedia

I must stress that this is not the American Wikipedia and given the status of English in the world today, it's basically the 'global' wikipedia. When outside the US someone talks about Syracuse, it's clear that one means the city in Italy. In fact, until two hours ago, I didn't even knew there was a city named like this in the US.

Anyway, in Wikipedia, it's customary that the original city to have the title... bogdan 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, we don't have Athens at a disambiguation page, nor Dresden or any one of the countless other town/city names, Portsmouth, Exeter etc. - FrancisTyers · 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, nearly all the comparisons mentioned are not worthy, as they compare a city of millions with a town of several thousand in the US. Syracuse, New York and Syracuse, Italy are of equal note. Their population is similar (Syracuse, New York is even slightly larger). Syracuse, Italy is of historical significance, Syracuse, New York is the urban center of a region with over one million inhabitants. Furthermore, as I have shown two years ago, Syracuse, New York is requested more than Syracuse, Italy. This disambiguation page has been in place for two years, and it is ridiculous to change this without consensus. Users looking for Syracuse, New York now have to click three times to reach their requested information. Just because you think an American city is insignificant, doesn't mean everyone else does. And if you really want to go by your "name recognition" argument, you'll find just as many people in the US and Canada who never knew Syracuse, Italy existed. I highly object to this move. -newkai | talk | contribs 12:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse, Italy is more notable, all the other places called "Syracuse" got the name from there, in fact, it is even more notable because Syracuse, New York is called that name. Your perspective seems to be in the minority here. I think a reasonable compromise could be had by adjusting the disambiguation note at the top of the Syracuse page when the Italian city is moved back. For example, "For the city in New York of the same name, see Syracuse, New York, for all other uses, see Syracuse (disambiguation)". - FrancisTyers · 13:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Francis is right here: the Italian city is so famous, that other cities were named after it! bogdan 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Syracuse, New York was named after Syracuse, Italy (although the reasons are kind of random, see History section). What I'm saying is that not every older use of a city name qualifies making that one the main article. In many cases there's no doubt... Athens, London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, etc. have no other municipality of comparison of equal size. But I do not think it applies to Syracuse. While your move does make it one step easier to get to Syracuse, Italy for those looking for that one, it makes it much harder for those looking for Syracuse, New York. And while that 88MB file is no longer accessible, believe me, Syracuse, New York is highly frequented. I know this isn't an American Wikipedia, but that doesn't matter. Look at nl:Syracuse... that's Dutch and they have the same disambiguation! This isn't a Historic Wikipedia or a European Wikipedia either. It's a current, English language Wikipedia, and both Syracuses are significant today. As to my opinion being in the minority... It's 9 am on the American East Coast, 6 am on the West. People are asleep! -newkai | talk | contribs 13:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think to my compromise proposal? It will not make it more difficult to get to Syracuse, New York than it is already (2 clicks). - FrancisTyers · 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems bogdan has moved it back. I've taken the liberty of updating the disambiguation note per my suggestion above. - FrancisTyers · 13:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While it's undoubtedly better than the three-click situation, I do believe this qualifies for "Equal" disambiguation. Like I said before, this isn't a Rome, Italy vs. Rome, New York. (Side note: Taking a 20-hour Wikication [need to relax instead of getting heartburn]... Please don't think I'm ignoring further comments!) -newkai | talk | contribs 13:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Newkai. The historical significance of Syracuse alone does not grant it ownership of "Syracuse". Syracuse, Italy should only be the primary page if it is clearly and unequivocally more notable than Syracuse, NY, which it is not. AdamBiswanger1 17:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree there. Syracuse is more notable than Syracuse, New York. - FrancisTyers · 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well anyway, that's neither here nor there. Unless Syracuse Italy is enormously and obviously more notable/famous/popular than Syracuse, NY, it should not retain ownership of that page name. Take a look at NRA. AdamBiswanger1 03:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Britannica says: "Syracuse Italy more important than Syracuse NY"

This is Attilio from Italy. First, I say that I agree with the idea that this is a global and not US or UK or AUS wikipedia (a thing that most people tends to forget, and here is full of articles starting with "John Smith is a musician"... of what nationality? American? English? South African? etc.) As usual it's hard to define if an entry is more important than another... I decided to jump up to my good ol' Encyclopaedia Britannica, and it devotes double lines to the Italian article than the US one (by the way, I'm proud to reveal you that "our" WP articles are both better the EB's!!). I think the traffic reason has its importance, but at the same time I guess that the data our friend points out maybe could be limited to US traffic: I think that very few users outside US known Syracuse, NY, thus, if this must be an international encyclopedia, it is probable that users from throughout the world would probably aim to the Sicilian city in 99% of the cases. Ciao!--Attilios 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. Syracuse University, in Syracuse, NY will probably fetch the most results, and it has several satellite campuses across the globe. And even if Syracuse, Italy is more notable/popular, the main point is that if Syracuse, Italy is only marginally more important, and does not supercede all other Syracuses by leaps and bounds, then "Syracuse" must link to the disambiguation page. AdamBiswanger1 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How's it not international if users get a disambig page when entering Syracuse? I think that's about as international as can be! -newkai | talk | contribs 12:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Google Says "Syracuse, New York is More Important than Syracuse, Italy"

To make an excellent counter argument, 9 of the 10 first Google results are in reference to Syracuse, New York when entering "Syracuse". In fact, 18 of the first 20 are (Syracuse, Indiana is #20). So one out of 20 Google results for Syracuse is about the Italian one. I'm not saying Google is almighty, but neither is Britannica. -newkai | talk | contribs 12:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, my post was largely humour. Frankly speaking, I cannot understand why do you stick so much about this question. What's the problem if 9 surfers out of 10 will jump first at Syracuse Italy? Maybe they'll learn something new: I think American society, in mean at least, is so self-referenced that a refresh of ancient, European culture will be sound. Now seriously, I think here we should provide a cultural product whose quality and ideals should not relate mainly on "quantity" of the traffic towards articles, but chiefly towards their "quality". If this was a service, like Google is, Syracuse US should have pre-eminence. But this is first a cultural product, at least in what I've seen to date.. and thus, being an encyclopedia, maybe we should refer to Britannica. See ya soon! --Attilios 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And we have quality... in both articles... -newkai | talk | contribs 12:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that in an Encyclopedia Syracuse, Italy MUST be pre-eminent to Syracuse, New York, without regarding how many googles click the latter receives more. This, of course, IF the spirit here is that to produce an Encyclopedia. Open to Opinions. --Attilios 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But why MUST Syracuse, Italy be pre-eminent to Syracuse, New York, when they are of similar importance. I just don't understand your argument that Wikipedia apparently would be of lower quality if the two major Syracuses would be treated equally on a disambiguation page. -newkai | talk | contribs 13:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is boring me. Be happy with your nice and worlwide important Syracuse, New York. Ciao.--Attilios 13:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather be editing some article then argue here as well. Be happy with your nice and worldwide important Syracuse, Italy. Maybe I'll visit it some day. Ciao. -newkai | talk | contribs 13:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

We need to come to a consensus. The same people are reverting back and forth. -newkai | talk | contribs 11:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam really shouldn't be doing Copy/Paste moves. They violate the GFDL and should be reverted on sight. - FrancisTyers · 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But wasn't this dispute started because someone copy/pasted Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse? -newkai | talk | contribs 11:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the page was moved, not Copy/Pasted. - FrancisTyers · 11:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Enlighten me on this one... I thought the move function only works when the page-to-be-moved-to is non-existant. -newkai | talk | contribs 11:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't that I made a no-no by not jumping through the right hoops--it's that we need to reach a concensus on this issue. Admittedly I was wrong, but let's deal with the issue at hand. AdamBiswanger1 11:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that -newkai | talk | contribs 11:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam, in order to find the consensus, you can propose the page move (Syracuse -> Syracuse, Italy), following the steps described in here: Wikipedia:Requested moves#Steps for requesting a page move. bogdan 12:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But where was the consensus to move Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse? Was that on Wikipedia:Requested moves too? -newkai | talk | contribs 12:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but at the time, we had a consensus: me, Adam Bishop and Francis Tyers vs. you, so I've been bold. :-) bogdan 12:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested the page be moved here. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 13:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The July 3 move from Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse was innapropriate, given that there was full knowledge that such a move might be considered controversial. I am moving the pages back to their pre-July 3 locations until the dust on the requested move poll settles. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. You've just joined the club of Wheel warring admins :-) bogdan 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there had been more common sense employed than boldness, such actions would not have been necessary. :)older ≠ wiser 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Syracuse → Syracuse, Italy — "Syracuse, Italy" was moved to "Syracuse" via a copy and paste, thereby making anyone who searches for "Syracuse" not go to a disambiguation page, but straight to Syracuse in Italy. It is my belief that a disambig is direly needed here because Syracuse, New York is actually larger than Syracuse, Italy, and Syracuse University will also be the desired target of many "Syracuse" searches. The opposition's argument seems to be an assertion that Syracuse, Italy is more important than it's counterpart in New York, and I would not disagree. However it is not more important or notable to a degree that it does not warrant a disambig--the differential is too small. For example, it has not reached such a differential as London, England and London, Ontario have. Also, note that for this to be done, the "Syracuse" page must be turned into a redirect towards the disambig. — Talk:Syracuse (disambiguation) — AdamBiswanger1 13:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I've restored pages to their pre-July 3 locations, we need to be clear on what moves the survey is requesting.

• A support vote is for the ancient city of Syracuse, Italy to be located at Syracuse and for the disambiguation page to be at Syracuse (disambiguation).
• An oppose vote is for disambiguation page to be at Syracuse and the ancient city to be at Syracuse, Italy.

In both cases, Syracuse, New York will remain unchanged. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. older ≠ wiser 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

SURVEY CLOSED Thanks for your time.

Support

1. Support move. The American city was named after the famous city of Syracuse, now in Italy. It was an important city in the history of Europe for almost 2800 years. bogdan 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Being Italian, I may be judged a bit prejudiced; but honestly, I believe the Sicilian city is by far the most famous of the two.--Aldux 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Syracuse is far more important and notable than Syracuse, New York, for the reasons I have outlined above. - FrancisTyers · 14:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support simply on seniority, not on importance/notability. Of course,a disambig note on the top is a must. --dcabrilo 16:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I really don't follow that logic. Pursuant to that tenet, shouldn't Queen Elizabeth of Portugal be granted Queen Elizabeth based on seniority? "Seniority", as you call it, should only add to notability, and notability should be the only factor in disambiguation disputes. Now what we have here is a competition that is too close to call. AdamBiswanger1 17:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

   Not a good analogy. A better analogy would be Cleopatra. bogdan 17:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

   Respectfully, Bogdan, the fact that Syracuse, New York was named after Syracuse, Italy is entirely irrelevant and is a matter of trivia. Many towns in the region are named after Mediterranean cities (Utica, Ithaca, etc.) Other than their names they are completely unrelated. I do, however, like the second analogy. I would like to say this one more time so people read it. Syracuse, New York is larger than Syracuse, Italy, and more than twice as many Wikipedia articles link to it. 17:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC) AdamBiswanger1 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

   The founded cities were named after ancient cities, because many of your early leaders were people with a good classical education. :-) bogdan 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

   Adam, as far as your royalty analogy goes: I think it should be Elizabeth Windsor really, but that's just me. As far as seniority goes, it probably wasn't the best term, but I hope I got my message across: since naming convention is simply about names, it's only logical to use Syracuse for the town originally named that way. Also, Syracuse existed since 8th century B.C.E, way before there was Italy per se, Syracuse in North America (one of several at least) is much more tied to USA. --dcabrilo 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Support - If this must be an international Encyclopedia, we must think outside the US borders, and the opposers, casually?, are all from US and probably live in Syracuse, NY. And are you sure that a Thailandese or Burkina Faso user will ever check Syracuse New York? Syracuse Italy is on every decent book of history... --Attilios 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I definitely understand your historic significance argument. However, just as the Italian one might be "in every history book," the New York one has the edge on modern significance (nearly every listing on Google). -newkai | talk | contribs 08:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   I repeat it. Number of googles click must have (almost) nothing to do with what we must write here. If this was entirely true, we should devote 90% of space to porn entries. --Attilios 08:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   I agree about Google hits. But this debate is damaging. It just adds to the Europe-USA rift that wastes a huge amount of time on WP. Why not just say both Syracuses are important, and use the tried and true disambiguation solution? This feels like a "My Syracuse is more important that yours!" argument. Do we need this? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-06 09:01 (UTC)

   I think there would have been no problem. It's a matter of understanding what we are doing here. In a cultural encyclopedia, I can't believe that really exist people stressing that Syracuse NY can have pre-eminence, or even equal status, over Syracuse, Italy. It's a matter of obvious way to look at culture from a higher point of view. I've nothing against USA of in favour of Europe, and I would never say that New York is less important than Syracuse, Italy!! I think the problem is that in this encyclopedia is too largely Anglo-Saxon biased: want to speak of US, UK, CAN, AUS users, often of zero cultural background, write tons of info for wrestling, baseball, TV or pop music stars (by the way, often even forgetting to specify they are referring to US or UK...), when entries which should have far more space in a true encyclopedia lay abandoned in the stub Limbo (this is one of the point we must overcome if we want to check Britannica's quality one day...)? Ciao!--Attilios 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Pardon delay, was away from computer. You write: "It's a matter of understanding what we are doing here. In a cultural encyclopedia...." It's not a cultural encyclopedia. It's an encyclopedia. Even if there weren't anything recognizable as "culture" (whatever that is) in Syracuse, New York, there is a huge amount of research going on there. Look at Hegel's Enzyklopädie: a full one third of it is about the natural sciences. Many American cities are at the cutting edge of scientific research. That makes them important. By the way, the notion that "pop" culture isn't culture, is, to put it mildly, questionable. But I agree we need to broaden the horizons of all our readers. Teenagers in Kansas, Sydney, and Liverpool need to learn about the older Syracuse! I agree completely! And you need to learn why Alice in Chains and the Arctic Monkeys are culture, not (simply) "pop culture". We all need to learn. We shouldn't use questions like where to put the disambiguation page to fight these battles. You should expand the article about Syracuse! I should expand the one about Alice in Chains (or whatever)! The "Americans, Brits and Aussies (but especially Americans) are ignoramuses and we should teach them by waging disambig page wars" strategy just causes stress. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-10 21:34 (UTC)

6. Support - I come across this sort of thing in Wikipedia all the time. If something has existed for 2,800 years (often at the heart of a variety of western and eastern cultures), it might be of marginal interest, if it has any connection with the USA for 5 minutes - well, shut the gate, hold me back, obviously that must be significant! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - I am born in Switzerland, but I never heard about Syracuse, NY until my graduate studies. I think that all of you agree that on average, if you ask a non-American, he probably knows Syracuse in Sicily rather than Syracuse NY. User talk:Gmelfi 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - the Italian city was originally at Syracuse anyway, and was moved by someone from the one in New York...I tried to argue against it at the time but he wasn't listening. Adam Bishop 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Nor was I this time :) -newkai | talk | contribs 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, that was you :) Adam Bishop 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

9. Support. Maybe I'm hopelessly Euro-centric, but I would personally never expect the unqualified name to refer to anything other than the Italian place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, Syracuse in Sicily is far more notable and important than the one in New York. Google hits are skewed because Americans dominate the web, and Syracuse isn't an English location. It's also the source of the name for Syracuse New York. 132.205.45.148 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support This is a wiki, with historical articles. In that context, the Italian, and Greek, Syracuse has greater interest and more links. Septentrionalis 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    Note to editors: Please use logic.  : ) AdamBiswanger1 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    Your second sentence is being debated below. Syracuse, NY has both more links on Wikipedia and elsewhere :) -newkai | talk | contribs 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

12. Support. Unqualified, Syracuse ought to always refer to the original Syracuse. This is understood. The argument from the number of links is a strong one, but Syracuse, NY, has always been Syracuse, NY. Syracuse, Italy however makes little sense. The original Syracuse was not considered a part of Italy (it wasn't) and any reference to Syracuse unqualified must refer to the original Syracuse which transcends modern polities and therefore needs no qualification. If London, Ontario ever exceeds London, England in population, the latter will still have the benefit of first name recognition: it is London, the Canadian city is just named after it. Srnec 00:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    "this is understood"? By whom? If you do not agree with the Italy part, change it to Sicily. If more generally, you do not agree with the specificity, than change the wikipedia guidelines, because place names must be specific. the question is not "is the Italian city more important," the question is "Is the American city unimportant." Over and over again I hear the examples of London/London, or Rome/Rome. Lets face it, S,It is no London England or Rome Italy, and S,NY is no London, Ontario or Rome, NY; If you need to cite such extremes to support your idea, it shows that you neither believe it, nor do you want me to.--Niro5 11:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

13. Support. As per Srnec. It's like prefering Athens, Georgia over the original Athens. --FlavrSavr 00:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    No it is nothing like Compairing Athens georgea to the orriginal. See that? I used just as much evidence to suport my claim as you.-Niro5 11:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    Niro5, the problem here is really one of contexts. Perhaps in some contexts Syracuse could refer to the New York municipality when unqualified, but in historical contexts, never. In literary contexts, never. The title of an encyclopaedia article, however, has no other context than that it is an encyclopaedia article. This said, what is more encyclopaedic? The original Syracuse, since it is not insignificant (as evidenced by the fact that it has cities named after it), is the best candidate for the page Syracuse. The New York city would only be called Syracuse unqualified by a very sloppy individual with a limited education, unless the context warranted it. I am not going to call you uneducated or unread, because I don't know if you are, but to ask why "this is understood" and by whom indicates what you do not read. As I would have hoped you knew (and still hope), educated writers will regularly refer simply to people like Alexander and Dr Johnson, seemingly ignoring the fact that there are many Alexanders and Drs Johnson. But the figures being referred to are simply "understood." Syracuse is city with a history of importance which makes the minor American municipality pale in comparison (on a truly global, historical scale). Srnec 17:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    Similarly, I will not call you sloppy, or unintelligent because you have either not taken the time to read the arguments on the page, or did not understand them. I assure you that I am neither. Your points that in a literary and historical sense S,IT is more well known are well taken, and I fully agree with you. In what context then is Syracuse, NY more notable? In the context of wikipedia. Syracuse, NY is searched more often, and is linked to more often that Syracuse, Italy. Plus, as you neglected to notice, no one is saying that Syracuse, NY ought to take sole position of the Syracuse page. We are arguing that the Syracuse page should remain as it has been for two years, that is, as a disambiguation page. Clearly in literary and historical circles, Syracuse means Italy, not NY, yet more people still seem to visit the Syracuse, NY page. Until that changes there is clearly ambiguity, and where there is ambiguity, we should provide disambiguation.--Niro5 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    I have read the arguments. I chose only to address those raised in direct argumentation with me. Wikipedia is not its own context. This is an encyclopaedia, I'm sure there are some Star Wars articles that get more hits than far more important articles, but that is no case to concentrate on Star Wars articles. What pages people visit have no bearing here. There will be disambiguation, but at Syracuse (disambiguation). It seems mighty silly to have to link to Syracuse, Italy when discussing the ancient Greek presence on Sicily. Linking to Syracuse, New York every time, however, is sensible. I do not have a strong objection to the current state of things. But having spent time writing articles where I link to Syracuse, it seemed silly to have to dab those links because of some American municipality which far less historical significance. Srnec 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    So you favor your usage over the majority's usage of Wikipedia? Yes, S,NY is of less historical signifigence than S,IT, I can see how then S,NY would be of little signifigance to a classical historian. Yet, S,NY remains of more signifigance to Wikipedia users in general. Three times as many pages link to S,NY than to S,IT. I can see that this is difficult to realize from your Ivory Tower, as you cannot offer any empirical evidence to support yourself. Is it a fact that "Pygmalion" is more notable than "My Fair Lady?" Is Beetovan's "Ode to Joy" more important than Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World"? Its not as simple as people's compairisons have been. Until this site becomes WikiHistory, you'll just have to understand that other people use this encyclopedia.--Niro5 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    What you call "majority usage" is irrelevant. As I said, I'm sure there are more people searching for Chewbacca than Charlemagne, but that doesn't mean the one is more important for the encyclopaedia. Indeed, it is less so. If somebody links to Syracuse without disambiguation, they ought to know that that will not get them to Syracuse, New York. However, it is not true that somebody linking to Syracuse should know that it won't go to Syracuse, Italy. I don't live or frequent ivory towers, but yes, in fact, Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" is more important than Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World". If you would like to know why, please ask. I apologise if my initial remarks were perhaps condescending (that was not the intention), but I hope to convince you through honest argumentation. If you still don't see my point, let's try again. There is more to a city than its population and how often Wiki articles link to it. Srnec 03:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

    The Majority usage is not irrelevant, however, your Star Wars references are. S,NY is not fictional, nor are S,NY's achievements limited to a fleeting existence in pop culture. Again, I understand your argument, and I still find it lacking. Perhaps you shouldn't explain the argument anymore, but rather support it. When people search Wikipedia, they don't do it in the traditional way that they would search an encyclopedia, they search by terms. So, a perfectly educated person may type in "Syracuse" without disambiguation and expect to find S,NY. Population, wikilinks, and you forgot to mention number of visits and google hits indeed are not everything, because if they were, the page would belong to S,NY alone seeing as it wins in a landslide in each instance (except population). A city founded in the common era can be more encyclopedic than wookies, nor does it need a famous mathematician running naked through it streets to be notable. Clearly both cities have have arguments for and against them, which is why they need to stay disambiguated, its only reasonable.--Niro5 14:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

    If a perfectly educated person typed in Syracues expecting to find Syracues, New York, I'm shocked. Somebody perfectly educated may, if they live in New York, sometimes forget that the nearby Syracuse is not the more famous one, but then they would understand why they didn't end up at Syracuse, NY, but Syracuse, Italy. By moving Syracues, Italy to Syracuse, we're just being accurate, leaving Syracuse, New York where it belongs. But the original Syracuse is famously associated with many states besides Italy and deserves not to need disambiguation just because some people (mostly probably New Yorkers or at least American who don't know too much about history) forget there is an older, more significant Syracuse. Srnec 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

14. Support. This solution is better. - Darwinek 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
15. SupportThe city is invariably called plain Syracuse in the classics so Syracuse, Italy is confusing. A god disambig header on top should take care of people looking for the town in NY or the University. Eluchil404 06:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose move Syracuse, Italy may well be more notable, but it is smaller and it does not surpass Syracuse, NY in notability enough to be exempt from disambiguation. Also, more than twice as many pages link to Syracuse, NY. AdamBiswanger1 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose While the city in Italy is unquestionably the 'original', it seems that many, if not most readers, would be looking for info about either the New York city or the University in New York. I ran a Google search and 16 of top 20 hits (80%) were for Syracuse, NY and/or the University there. This clearly seems to be a case where disambig is appropriate and necessary. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. To make this encyclopedia truly international, and to reflect the importance of both Syracuses, there should be a disambiguation page at Syracuse. Like I have said before, and similar to above, this is no Rome, Italy vs. Rome, New York or Vienna, Austria vs. Vienna, Virginia. Syracuse, New York is the major urban center of a three-quarter million people metropolitan area, and over a million people Central New York region. As above, this article is highly visited, highly linked, etc. There's a couple more reasons in the discussion above, so I think I have justified myself! -newkai | talk | contribs 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. This is like the Georgia question: both are important. It is simply divisive to try to argue about degrees of "important-ness". The disambiguation page solution is best in cases like this. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-06 08:30 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Even if I'm Sicilian, I think a disambiguation page would be better. In my opinion, there's not enough difference of notability between Syracuse, Italy and Syracuse, NY. --Angelo 09:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Strongly Oppose. This has gotten a little rediculous. I have seen Newkai make countless objective arguments only to be rebuffed with ignorance on the other side. I did not see one objective fact used by the Syracuse Italy Crowd. Google hits? Wiki page witht he most traffic? Anything? The main arguments I read, in fact, had more to do with distaste for American egotism than anything objective.--Niro5 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   A test may be objective but inappropriate. Google hits are inappropriate for this particular task, as they vary depending on country. Traffic statistics per page are not kept anymore. Should I understand by your comment that you are supporting American egotism? I suggest you look at Reliable sources, such as journals, other encyclopaedias, books etc. to see which has the greatest amount of notability. I repeat, Google is a poor indicator of notability, as our very own policy page states. - FrancisTyers · 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Google is very appropriate in this situation. What comes up when one searches "Florence"? Florence, Italy--Not Florence, California. This is only representative of the English-speaking world, but we cannot cast it aside as nonsense. If 18 of the top 20 Google results relate to NY, then that is a strong point in our favor. Also, I'm guessing what he meant by site traffic is "What links here". In that case, S, NY has more than twice as many links (2006). All I can do is repeat what I've already said to try to free others from their romanticised fondness for Syracuse, Italy. Let's be fair. AdamBiswanger1 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   No Google is not appropriate to this situation. Please try not to be condescending! :) As I said above, I suggest you check reliable sources such as journals, encyclopaedias, books etc. - FrancisTyers · 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Even Italy's Google page does not give Siricusa Italy a lead in Google hits. Surely Thucydides mention's the Sicilian city more, however, until I see a fact showing that Syracuse is associated overwhelming more with Sicily than New York, I will continue to be seriously disappointed with your arguements. Despite the previous comments I have read of your's Mr. Tyers, I suspect you have more sense than to beleive that I am in support of American egotism, so I will ignore that comment. American egotism has no more place in this discussian than European elitism. Lets say for instance I have been swayed by all of the arguments the Sicily crowd has made. Should I also be persuaded to switch the Boston page to Boston England, which also has a longer history, smaller population, and fewer google hits than its American counterpart? --Niro5 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Boston, MA is more important from a historical point of view, and I think I would argue that it should be at Boston. Regardless of which language you search in the results are tailored to location. - FrancisTyers ·

   I did originally try google.com and google.it and got the same results. Unless it caters to my IP... In that case... I'm in Vienna, Austria. In any case, it's impossible to tell for most languages other than English, because they generally spell the two cities differently. -newkai | talk | contribs 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Again this story of Google hits? I repeat it, are we working to a Internet service or an encyclopedia? --Attilios 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Google is a good, but not failproof suggestion of an entity's notability. See WP:GOOG. AdamBiswanger1 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Siracusa on Google.it gives ~10M hits

   Syracuse on Google.it gives ~67M hits. The first 40 of which are almost exclusively Syracuse, NY.

   Syracuse, NY on Google.it gives ~30M hits

   Siracusa, Italia on Google.com gives about 4M hits.

   As far as I can see Syracuse, NY wins in every fair match up. Google may be an imperfect tool, but it is certainly better than Britanica, and I have yet to see anything else offered in response. The results may or may not be skewed because more American's may or may not use the Internet, but if thats what people are looking for shouldn't we give them what they want? To paraphrase Attilios, are we telling people what we want them to know or what they want to know?--Niro5 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Why didn't you answer to my question? Again, I repeat that measuring the relevance of a site from Googles entries does not minimally influence the size and pre-eminence of its article in an Encyclopedia. Can you understand that we are writing an Encyclopedia? If you try, you'll see that Taj Mahal has less google references than Syracuse, New York... do you really think that, from this basis, an encyclopedia must pay more attention to the latter? Wanna speak of Michael Jackson or Robbie Williams? Do you really think that an encyclopedia can gain more respect and credibility devoting to these figures more space than Syracuse, Italy, simply because they have more Google? It makes me laugh! (A note: all this said, your calculus can also be wrong simply because the Italian Syracuse appears in numerous websites as Siracusa!!!!!) --Attilios 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   I think that what we are writing is far more than a cultural encyclopedia, its an encyclopedia of all knowledge. To use Google as a guide is not to turn Wikipedia into a search engine, but it is basing wikipedia on what people want to know, not what we want to tell them. Who is to decide what knowledge is more important, the few who write, or than many who read. I'm sure Britannica's Editorial Board would insist upon the former, though I assure you the latter is more inline with wikipedia's raison d'etre. If this decision were being made solely on the basis of Google hits, Syracuse NY would occupy the Syracuse page, and Syracuse Italy would be a link. But we do pay attention to the value of knowledge. As important as Siracusa has been in history (though certainly it has not been as important as other cities such as Athens, Rome or even Thebes), I just cannot see how it warrants completely taking over the page. I am not some red-state bush voting rube. I love classical history, my middle name is literally Achilles, and I plan on passing this down to my own children (who I hope to name Hector, Helen and Achilles). I am also a pragmatist, Google may not be completely objective, but I have seen nothing on these pages that approaches it.--Niro5 21:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Exactly. Where's the culture in List of North American area codes!? -newkai | talk | contribs 22:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   No, Michael Jackson isn't more important on Wikipedia than Taj Mahal, but he'd be more important than another man named Michael Jackson who might get some fame tomorrow for something. And Google would reflect this. Once this new Michael Jackson achieved the same amount of Google hits, then we might have an argument. In regards to the calculus, Niro5 tried Siracusa as noted above. -newkai | talk | contribs 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   • Comment: - Despite calls for logic and reason this appears to be degenerating into a debate about primacy. Primacy, or pre-eminence, is not the issue here. There is clearly more than one notable city with the name Syracuse. This is clearly a valid reason to have a disambig page under the main heading of that name which provides links to all the possible articles it references. Which city is "more notable" is a straw-man argument, it distracts from the legimate assertation of mutual notability. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed, the burden of proof is on the sicily side. They must prove not that they are more notable, but that Syracuse, NY, a metropolitan area of over 1 million people, a large notable University, and an important role in US history is not notable. This has not been done.--Niro5 21:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   Never said that Syracuse, NY is not notable. I'm sure here this has never been hinted. Please avoid this victimism which usually comes out when there are few reasons to bring in.

   I assure you that no one is playing the victim. The only victim here is reason. If S,NY is more notable by some measures than S,IT, than they deserve a disambiguation page. S,NY is unequivably searched more. I have heard excuses for this, "Michael Jackson is a pedoefile", "Americans dominate the internet", "People only search the internet for Porn", but not one of these counters the argument. Google isn't perfect, but that is why we give S,IT the benefit of a doubt and give it a disambiguation page. You can argue until you are blue in the face about the cultural importance of S,IT, but more people care about S,NY, and until there is no ambiguity, there must be disambiguation.--Niro5 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Strong Oppose to having the aricle on Syracuse, Italy at Syracuse. While it is clear that Syracuse, New York is the most likely one to be searched for today, however that is not the only factor to consider. A redirect should not send someone to the wrong article a significant percentage of times. This confusing nomination would appear to do just that. There is no case for not having Syracuse as a dab page. This discussion is so far centered on two articles, Syracuse has over 10 articles already with different names. Don't forget Syracuse University which would be the suggested redirect from the sports fans or Syracuse problem for the math nuts. Vegaswikian 05:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Strongly Oppose. Neither Syracuse, New York or Syracuse, Italy is dominant over the other. To not have a disambiguation page would be a disservice to Wikipedia users.--Ruckdeschel 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC) This is my first registered post, but I have been editing on and off for a while. I needed to register to vote, so I did.

To summarize the things to date:

In favour of Syracuse, IT

1. The most respectable encyclopedia in English world, Britannica, devotes more space to Syracuse, Italy.
2. Syracuse, Italy, is known by historians in the whole world. Syracuse, NY, is famous only in the United States.
3. The poll is currently 11 vs. 7 in favour of Syracuse, Italy moved to Syracuse, despite Syracuse, Italy is in an English-speaking country
4. Caravaggio worked here
5. It is an UNESCO World Heritage Site

In favour of Syracuse, New York

1. Google has more entries for Syracuse, New York.
2. Added by Newkai: Larger City and Metropolitan Area
3. Added by Newkai: Those historians that know Syracuse, Italy probably work at Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs (What I mean to say, large research university) Added by [user:Attilios|Attilios]]: this looks obscure and somewhat sarcastic for me.
4. Added by Newkai: More wikilinks

I have said this before too... I am not saying Syracuse, New York is more important in the world than Syracuse, Italy. I'm just saying it is important enough (today... I'm not saying Ancient Greek times here) that there should be equal disambiguation. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're bringing irrelevant arguments: the number of wikilinks is influenced by articles of highways (New York State Route 290...) and templates (Template:New York). It is known that there are more articles on United States topics than on Southern Italy topics... bogdan 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This also appears to apply to the entire internet. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire Internet is largely US-ruled. Us are the richer, mos techonologically advanced and most powerful country in the world. And the English Wikipedia is mostly written by Us editors: you can find a lot articles of obscure Iowa or British Columbia municipalities having far more wikilinks than Syracuse, Italy. As for inhabitants, Milan's metropolitan area is far larger than Rome, but this mean that Milan is more notable and has had more influence? The ruins of Pompeii are uninhabited today: is its relevance reduced for this reason? You must not use numerical preponderances to take advantage in what is a matter of culture. Ciao!--Attilios 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A good analogy would be ancient Troy vs. Troy, New York. The ancient Troy is also unihabited today, unlike the NY city. bogdan 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Note: AdamBiswangers accusation that Bogdan copy/paste moved is unfounded. The page was moved in accordance with normal procedure. - FrancisTyers · 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the accusation of cut and paste moving is unwarranted, though I wouldn't exactly call what happened "normal procedure". Anytime there is an expectation that a move may be controversial or where there are objections, the "normal procedure" would be to seek consensus through WP:RM with greater participation than just a tiny handful of article regulars. older ≠ wiser 14:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for this error--The essence of my point still remains, though: a controversial move was made without consensus. Also, the move was marked as minor. AdamBiswanger1 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you show me a "minor edit" checkbox in the "move page" window, I'll eat my hat. :-) bogdan 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Side note: In terms of history, it should be noted that Syracuse, NY (albeit by a much different name!) became the capital of the Iroquois confederacy somewhere between 1162 and 1600. Just because history of that region isn't as well documented, doesn't mean it's not significant! See also: Onondaga (tribe). Believe it or not, there is history and culture in the United States! -newkai | talk | contribs 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, you should write about it, what was the name of the place before the Europeans came? I'd certainly love to read it :) I agree there is a lot of History and Culture in the US, the US as a place has some great aspects. The land, the people, everything (I'll reserve my comments about both the government of your country — and of course the government of mine!) — I spent a number of months working in Tennessee and it was awesome I regret I didn't see more. Over the years you've had excellent philosophers, statesmen, etc. etc. etc. The revolutionary war is inspiring, not just to me, but to the world! And yet people brand me as anti-american because I want Wikipedia to have a Global scope. - FrancisTyers · 00:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, what would be more inclusive on a global level than keeping the ambiguous name as a disambiguation page?--Niro5 12:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: Are anon IPs allowed in voting? Not sure of the current policy. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The closing admin will not count them. - FrancisTyers · 00:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In a new light

An obvious thought came to me: we should approach the situation pragmatically, and toss notability aside. The deciding factor should be the Popularity of the search. Now I know your first instinct is to throw 100 reductio ad absurdum examples at me, but remember that as an encyclopedia we are catering to readers. My proposition (for all of Wikipedia) goes as follows:

1. The primary deciding factor for these types of matters is the popularity of the search.
2. This may be overridden if the less popular is of an academic or intellectual nature, and giving primacy to the Popular would be none other than outrageous; an insult to the spirit of an encyclopedia. (Such as granting "Franz Ferdinand" to Franz Ferdinand (band))

Surely no one can say this about the two Syracuses.

So, as difficult as it might be to swallow, a more notable entity will have to take a backseat to a more popular one. On the basis of what? Arbitrary public opinion. Oh and one more thing: I can guarantee with the most arrogant and relaxed certainty that Syracuse, New York is the subject of more searches than Syracuse, Italy. AdamBiswanger1 04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should those be the standards? Many wikipedians (such as myself) feel that using popularity in that way creates systemic bias. See Talk:Java (disambiguation). Eluchil404 06:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

We have to pick our priorities. Catering to the reader is a little more important than battling "systematic bias", which may or may not even exist on this issue. AdamBiswanger1 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is a contentious issue. Enough ink [perhaps ASCII?] has been spilled on this discussion page to write several articles, and for what? The status quo has worked fine and without question for two years. The burden of proof to change the page simply has not been met by the false analogies that have been left here. Oh sure, I have been convinced for a while now that Syracuse Italy is a perfectly lovely place, and that it certainly wins out on History. But, the very facts that Syracuse NY is more often searched, Syracuse University is a world class institution, Syracuse New York's wikipage is more visited, Syracuse New York wikipage has more wikipages linking to it, Syracuse New York has a larger population than the original show without a doubt that there is controversy. The very fact that when someone is searching the ambiguous term "Syracuse" it is significantly more likely that they are searching for the city in New York, should be enough to solve this debate. There is certainly ambiguity, and so there must be disambiguation. --Niro5 12:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"There is certainly ambiguity, and so there must be disambiguation." That's an extremely powerful argument. Can we please stop this divisive debate? Both places are important. Is one of them 1.5 times more important? 1.6? Who cares. They're both important. People searching for "Syracuse" should go to a disambiguation page. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-10 07:25 (UTC)

People who had established the "disambig" status quo, now that the poll is verging towards their defat, now are trying to choke out the matter... I'm learning a lot about politics and psychology of debates in this talk page... Bye.--Attilios 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're learning something about the wisdom of giving admins the power they currently have (provided admins are chosen carefully -- and in the case of the admins involved in this discussion, they certainly seem to have been). If voting alone determined things like this, "viral swarms" of anti-Americans (in the reactive or active sense -- cf. Nietzsche, no time to explain) could take over Wikipedia and change essentially anything they wanted. (Indeed, it looks like that's beginning to happen, unfortunately.) There are guidelines about the conditions under which a disambig page should be created. The people trying to change the way the disambig page for Syracuse is currently structured are, whether they know it or not, trying to get around that guideline. They've started a "My Syracuse is better than yours!" war. The admins here are wisely saying: this is just silly; both Syracuses are important. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-11 09:45 (UTC)