Talk:Alife, Campania

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

CE[edit]

What does (CE) mean? Srnec 21:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the postal abbreviation for the province Alife is in, I think.

yes, CE is Caserta... same as how NA is Naples. - Animagentile (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (1)[edit]

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 to Alife, Italy, but only because rough consensus is that most other names that would be better than "Alife (CE)". A second requested move discussion (for example: Alife), is encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alife (CE) → Alife, Italy — Relisted since there are several options proposed and no consensus as to the target. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stupid disambiguator, so should use a disambiguator that actually makes sense to the English-speaking world, and not some person living in Alife and no one else in the world. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Provincial codes are the most diffused disambiguation, used for the majority of the ambiguous Italian municipalities. As for exemple, it is the only one used for this province. If the policy will change, it might change for all italian municipalities, not simply for this town. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to move this page to Alife (commune), because this is the standard (not only for Italy) for ambiguous titles with only 1 place name. --Dэя-Бøяg 21:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless someone can cite a preexisting consensus for such moves. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy discourages the use of the two-letter abbreviations as disambiguators for new articles, but I can't find any consensus for moving existing articles to eliminate them. Bellona (CE) and Cervino (CE) also exist, to say nothing of all the others alluded to by DerBorg in the discussion section below. Unless a clean sweep is to be made of all such articles, I don't see the point of moving this one. Deor (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, although I still oppose the move as requested, I would support a move of this article over the Alife redirect and the addition of a hatnote on it to direct users to Artificial life. A Google Books and Scholar search suggests that the shortened form of that term is usually styled "ALife", with capitalized L, anyway. Deor (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Provincial codes are, in Italy, an official way to write the complete name of a municipality in some documents (ex: passports, municipal acts, identity cards). Avoiding misunderstandings I repeat: if the policies will be defined in another (and singular) way, it will be better, whatever they are. But still now it seems that it isn't a consensus for a singular way to disambiguate them. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complete statistic (as of today) of the disambigs used for Italian communes (control here). I use the province of Rome as an exemple. Place (RM) 256 (51,9%) – Place, Italy 174 (35,2%) – Place, Lazio 22 (4,4%) – Place (Italy) 21 (4,2%) – Place, Rome 8 (1,6%) – Place (Rome) 7 (1,4%) – Place (Lazio) 5 (1,0%) / Total: 493 articles. In cases of ambiguous communes with only 1 place name: Place (commune) 9 – Place (town) 4 – Place (comune) 3 / Total: 16 articles. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in English "CE" commonly means "Common Era", a synonym for "AD" / "Anno Domini" - so this article is currently sitting at "Alfie (in the year of our lord)" - which is a horrid name. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion started at Talk:Roccamonfina (CE)#Requested move. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy for a relevant guideline, which states in part Articles previously used the two-letter abbreviations for the provinces - these should not be used on new articles.

So it would seem to me that a cleanup of old article names like this one is a good idea too. The main question is, where to move it to? I'm not entirely happy with the current proposal. Andrewa (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nominator' statement. Just before the move will be performed it's necessary tocheck if any else Alife are present in Italy. Theirrulez (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other Alife on Earth. The thtle is a redirect to Artificial life. If that one is prominent, the standard for ambiguous places without homonymous other place is (town), (commune) or (city). If Alife is not so much necessary as a redirect to artificial life, IMHO i suggest to move there this page. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am Italian, and I think I am the one having written or wikified more Italian communes articles here. I agree that it's difficult that a non-Italian could ever have the idea to make a search with "Alife (CE)" in his life (if ever an Anglophone will...), so Alife, Italy would be more fit. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:37, 2 June 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.

Second requested move (as suggested)[edit]

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 Alife is now a disambig of 3 choices. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alife, Italy → Alife — Alife is by now a simple redirect to Artificial Life. As suggested above by Arbitrarily0, i provide to open a second discussion. Note tha the links to "Alife" reguard at almost arguments related to the town. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comment in the discussion above. Deor (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support primary topic. —innotata 20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: primary topic. Who opens a movereq can vote for it? --Dэя-Бøяg 00:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am really not certain why Alife redirects to Artificial Life. If there are any logical reasons for the redirect, and a disambiguator is required, then the page should be moved to Alife, Campania, in accordance with the naming convention for Italy. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:12, 26 June 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.

WP:Recentism?[edit]

Is the city of Alife really not the encyclopaedic reference of Alife? ALife, one of those funny non-WP capitalisations, can redirect to artificial life, fine, but why should Alife require a disambiguation page rather than a hatnote when there is only one correctly spelled use? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 February 2015[edit]

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: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alife, Campania → Alife – Seems to be a consensus on the talk page. – Srnec (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what talk page? The only talk page that I see with any discussions is Talk:Alife, Campania, and besides one comment in 2012, the last discussions were in 2010. There is no recent discussion that contains a consensus. There is definitely no current consensus that would allow this move to be put in the "Uncontroversial technical requests" section. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 04:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Object to speedy move This is clearly why regular RM requests exist. Alife (disambiguation) was moved away from "Alife" on 18 February 2015, just before this move was filed; so this clearly is a disjointed multimove. Since it is a primary topic change, it should have a full regular RM discussion. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a regular RM. In 2010. No opposes. Do you have a better gauge of the "controversial" nature of this move? Srnec (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're disputing the outcome of a closed discussion. That alone needs a new discussion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Srnec User:Niceguyedc User:70.51.200.101: And, if accepted, move Alife to Alife (disambiguation) first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this as uncontroversial because (a) there was a move request with no opposes back in 2010 and (b) one comment from 2012 that indicates support for that proposal. Anthony closed that proposal by creating a dab page, but there was only one other non-redlink on that page, and it was really only a partial title match. That situation is easily resolved with a hatnote. After I posted it at WP:RM, I realised that the page history might accidentally be lost, so I moved the page to the dab title and then just redirected the plain title here. Although the dab page has been bulked up, there is still only one true title match on it: the town in Italy. Everything else is only a partial title match, or else a redlink, or else artificial life, to which ALife and A-life already redirect. Srnec (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose clearly not the primary topic. A simple google search [1] results in no hits for this in the first 100 results. While both google books [2] and google scholar [3] show that Artificial Life is the primary topic -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence that this is the primary topic, and it seems most unlikely. MWOT. Andrewa (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alife, Campania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423043622/http://alife.asmenet.it/ to http://alife.asmenet.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]