This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Italian Americans article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
"...compulsory relocation of more than 10,000 Italian Americans living on the West Coast..."
The term "Italian American" implies US citizens to me. Of the 10,000+ relocated during the were all or most Italian nationals residing in the USA as opposed to Italian-American citizens?
Seki1949 (
talk)
18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why this is controversial, but according to
WP:DAB, disambiguation is done by a hatnote, not by adding a link to the See also section. The latter is for linking "related or comparable" articles, not articles which merely have a similar name. The hatnote is appropriate to link to articles which may be confused with this one because of a similar name. In this case
Italianamerican obviously has a similar name to
Italian Americans, so should be linked with a hatnote.
CodeTalker (
talk)
17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Specifically, the tag
Template:Redirect should be used. If
Italian American did not redirect here (say, if it were a disambiguation page), then there'd be no need for the link at the top. It's the redirect that makes it necessary, and that's exactly what the Redirect tag is for.
Korny O'Near (
talk)
18:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply
It appears that a major disagreement exists concerning implementing the Wikipedia disambiguity feature, with two methods being proposed. If the stated purpose (as expressed by
Korny O’Near) is to “make it easy to find” the Scorsese film, then the two methods are functionally equivalent and produce exactly the same benefit. The first method uses the cryptic verbiage: “Italian American redirects here”, which probably very few readers would even understand, and provides a link to the Scorsese article. The second method confirms to the reader, via a brief statement which can be inserted that, indeed, he has accessed the searched-for article on Italian Americans while, at the same time, making the reader aware of the existence of the Scorsese article via the same link. The first approach appears to be the only approach acceptable to
Korny O’Near , while the second approach appears to be acceptable to both
CodeTalker and
Philantonia . For a time, the second approach also appeared to be acceptable to
Korny O’Near , but this was short lived and
Korny O’Near soon reverted my rather simple edit of the second approach based on it being “overly verbose” and, the next day, the second approach was reverted in its entirety and replaced by the first approach. I would say that, based on the edits that have already occurred concerning this issue, a consensus exists. I am therefore reverting the most recent edit made by
Korny O’Near. A rationale needs to be put forth that one and only one approach is acceptable to achieving the desired objective because it has some inherent and identifiable advantages. Other editors may also wish to contribute their opinions on this this issue.
Philantonia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.41.1.219 (
talk)
18:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If you have a problem with the wording, or existence, of the "Redirect" tag, you should take it up at
Template talk:Redirect. As it is, the "Redirect" template is widely used on Wikipedia for disambiguation in cases like this one, and for the record, I've never heard of anyone being confused by it. Regardless of the previous history of edits, the fact remains that this is precisely the right tag to use.
Korny O'Near (
talk)
21:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)reply
You have totally failed to answer the basic question of what, if any, functional difference exists between the two approaches. In both cases, the reader is made aware of the Scorsese article and can click on that link if desired. The verbiage that precedes this does enable or disable the desired functionality. I used the template identified by
Code Talker and only inserted what I thought was relevant and appropriate in the field designated "about". Have you not achieved the desired disambiguation, and made the Scorsese article more visible and accessible? At this point, it would appear that you have the minority opinion on this subject - but I am still open to a basic logical argument about why one and only one approach can guarantee the desired functionality.
Philantonia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Philantonia (
talk •
contribs)
23:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I feel like I already answered it, but let me try again: templates like
For and
Other uses exist when there are one or more articles whose names match the current article, while
Redirect is used when there are one or more articles whose names match a redirect to the current article. (That's a rough explanation, anyway.) This current case is in somewhat of a gray area, since "Italian Americans" is not so different from "Italian American" (or from "Italianamerican", for that matter); nonetheless, if that redirect were not there, this disambiguation link would not be needed, and thus "Redirect" seems to be the correct tag to use. Does that make sense?
Korny O'Near (
talk)
00:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I admire your dedication for precise detail. However, you expressed the concern: "for anyone who thinks the documentary is spelled "Italian American" (with a space), this disambiguation link is essential - otherwise there's no easy way to find it". So, by highlighting the Scorsese article in the Italian Americans article, with many more page views, more people will become aware of it. Therefore, in my view, the desired functionality (and your wish) has been realized. If, in the inner workings of Wikipedia, some other important function is not realized please let me know about this (in simple language), and also why the burden of disambiguation should be on the Italian American article.
Philantonia (
talk)
15:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to be rude, but it appears that you don't really grasp the importance of disambiguation - maybe because your editing on Wikipedia has so far been seemingly restricted to just a few articles. A concept like "the burden of disambiguation" doesn't really make any sense - either a disambiguation link is needed or it's not, and the whole idea of cluttering an article with a link at the top (if that's the issue) is just irrelevant.
Korny O'Near (
talk)
13:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The one thing I understand very well is the concept of "functionality", which you appear to continually evade. The function of disambiguation appears to have been fully realized. The means by which it is realized appears to be a major issue for you. I believe you have the minority opinion on this issue.
Philantonia (
talk)
15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)reply
At over 22k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
16:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In my opinion the article is not too long. The topic is really very complex and multifaceted, and a detailed article is needed to have a complete treatment. --
LukeWiller (
talk)
17:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC).reply
I propose we split the article at 1880. Readers interested in the modern Italian American population will have a more compact article, and everyone will have access to the early adventurers and arrivals.
Rjensen (
talk)
03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I am somewhat new to posting on here so my apologies if I am in the wrong place or if I am out of line. I am looking for a study that was used to write this article called: "Comparative Study of Fifteen Ethnic Groups," University of Chicago Study, 1994 Does anyone know how to find this study? Or how to figure out who wrote that section of the Wikipedia article to ask that person. I am working on a book on Italian Americans. Thank you.
Mjcaponiti (
talk)
19:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply