Talk:Roccamonfina

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kingdom of Naples (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kingdom of Naples, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Kingdom of NaplesWikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of NaplesTemplate:WikiProject Kingdom of NaplesKingdom of Naples articles

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Italy may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved GTBacchus^(talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roccamonfina (CE) → Roccamonfina — Prominent meaning of the town, the article about the former volcano (located in the municipality) is still a red link, the disambiguation page has only 2 titles. It is necessary a simple dablink from the municipal page to the volcano --Dэя-Бøяg 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Uncontroversial IMO. Andrewa (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is it disambiguated as "CE" ? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question, I wondered that too! It seems to be short for Province of Caserta, and is the postal abbreviation and vehicle registration prefix of that province, see Talk:Alife (CE) and CE#Places. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it qualifies as an acceptable disambiguator under English Wikipedia guidelines. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy. The use of the abbreviations in new articles is discouraged, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus for moving existing articles to eliminate them. They certainly seem to be present in a number of article titles currently. With regard to Roccamonfina, I support the move over the dab-page content. Deor (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this disambiguator either, frankly!

But which guideline(s) in particlular? There are an enormous number of guidelines out there, and these are always evolving and not always consistent or even consistently applied. So without knowing which guidelines in particular you mean, it's hard to go much further. On the other hand, if you can be specific there may be scope for improving either the guidelines themselves or their application or both. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Alife (CE)#Requested move for continuation of this thread. The claim that CE here is not an acceptable disambiguator under English Wikipedia guidelines is not pursued there so far, but perhaps Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy might support it. Not that it's relevant to this particular move, which still appears uncontroversial! Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(So far we have a strong consensus to move but a very messy discussion. Wikipedia as I most enjoy it! Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.