This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Archives

Archive 1- Discussion on whether "Syracuse" should redirect to "Syracuse, Italy", including straw poll. Archive 2- more of Archive 1 with discussion as to the name of "Syracuse, Italy"

Why are Syracuse, Kansas, Syracuse, Missouri, Syracuse, Nebraska, and Syracuse, Utah defined in the current disambiguation article as specifically not cities. They are all chartered as cities, and thus have the same legal standing as the city in New York. They are obviously small, but there is no definition I'm aware of that says something has to be big to be a city. john k 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... Now how should be address this...? -newkai | talk | contribs 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring this from Achive 2, as it was never addressed. Any further thoughts on this? I agree with John that the headings are misleading. older ≠ wiser 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Powers 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now and makes sense! -newkai t-c 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Syracuse needs to find it's way onto this page. This is the greater area around Syracuse, Italy. Thanks in advance for trying to get this on the page --T-rex 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about right after the mention of Syracuse, Italy... "Syracuse, Italy, capital of the Province of Syracuse" -newkai t-c 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding no evidence that such a place exists ... google hasn't heard of it, and I've removed it from the list. If someone learns otherwise, please add it back, hopefully with references. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

funny, I found it with a google map search here. I think it's probably one of those town that if you sneeze while driving through... you'll miss it. re-added. Naufana : talk 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any special reason why there are pictures in the disambig page? Off the top of my head, I'm not aware of any other such page that contains pictures. I'm removing them for now. Naufana : talk 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I discovered it's policy to, generally, not include images in disambig pages per MOS:DAB#Images. Naufana : talk 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here after reading the archive drama that I moved Syracuse, NY above Syracuse, Sicily on the disambiguation page so that the two are in correct alphabetical order as the items in the minor towns/communities listed are... Just jotting this down here so that a cat fight doesn't stir up again about this page since NY's Syracuse is now listed "first". Nothing to do with preference, just correct alphabetical classification. Thanks. MartinDuffy 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animagentile, please avoid patriotism here. Syracuse, NY comes first in alphabetical order and is a larger city, so it has to come first. --Twilight 04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse, the Sicilian one was once a city state like Athens, Sparta, etc. This is the most notable one and as thus should be first. Nobody outside of the eastern part of the USA has even heard of the USA one. Revelance is the most important measuring, in fact Syracuse should go straight to the Sicilian city. Absoutely nothing notable about the New York one (which stole its name from the Sicilian) on the world stage or the history books. - Animagentile (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that is notable about Syracuse, New York is that it gets over 20,000 more hits per month then Syracuse, Sicily: Syracuse, Sicily was viewed 4,985 times in February 2008 and 5,471 times in March 2008, while Syracuse, New York was viewed 25,658 times in February 2008 and 28,060 times in March 2008. So "Syracuse" should absolutely not redirect to the Italian city; there is a much larger number of readers looking for the one in New York. It is level readership that is by far the most important measuring. -- Rai•me 03:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gennarous - I fought the good fight on this subject, it's now over and done with. We ended up with a situation where no one should have priority over the name "Syracuse". As long as the original and almost 3,000 year old Syracuse retains it's current position on the disambig page, we should not have any further complaint. If the NY Syracuse still exists in 3,000 years time, we might all choose to revisit the subject (in terms of rearranging the order of the listing). πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think that Syracuse, Sicily should be listed first; a much larger portion of readers are seeking Syracuse, New York, so why should their search not be facilitated? If age or the city being first to be named as such had anything to with our naming conventions, then "Syracuse" would be located at the city in Italy. But, they don't. The only thing that matters here is readership, and the city in New York has more readers. -- Rai•me 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to use your criterion as the main one, there would be 10,000s of entries that need to be recast. How many names in popular culture have been pillaged directly from history, or place names, or the like? Lots. Just because a stack of college students want to look up their campus on wikipedia doens't actually make it more significant in encyclopaedic terms. Imagine their surprise when they come to the page and see that a little place in Sicily stole their name!! That these same students know little of the outside world is not a basis for ordering an encyclopaedia, that is, if one is truly serious of creating a fair dinkum one. If we're not, than it's a pointless argument either way! πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to discuss only Syracuse. Please discuss the "10,000s of entries that need to be recast" elsewhere. Wikipedia should not direct readers to an article they are not seeking. The fact that Syracuse, New York gets fice times as many hits as Syracuse, Sicily clearly shows that Syracuse, Sicily is not the primary topic. Our purpose is not to discern whether readers are "educated enough" about the outside world; it is to aid them, college students who want to look at their campus city or not, in their search for the target article. A disambiguation page is clearly the optimal solution here. -- Rai•me 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to just pretend this situation/insult to civilisation didn't exist and just pretended "Syracuse" was the location of the Sicilian city's article. But now I will speak on it, because this is literally a battle between the noble history of human civilization against ignorance. The only reason this situation is where it is, because User:Newkai, hadn't "heard" of the historic city. How people like Newkai and Raime thinks this is "correct" is entirely absurd to my eyes. The level of this insult, would be akin to having "Rome" go to a disambiguation for the sake of some obscure city like Rome, Georgia.

Below I will present, why the Sicilian city is THE Syracuse and why it should be located at that heading.

• It is listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, one of the most important cultural recognition achievements possible. UNESCO say "monuments and archeological sites situated in Syracuse are the finest example of outstanding architectural creation spanning several cultural aspects; Greek, Roman and Baroque", following on that real Syracuse was "directly linked to events, ideas and literary works of outstanding universal significance".

• Noted historically as one of the major powers of the ancient world, surpassed in power in the Mediterranean only by Rome, Athens and Carthage.[1] We're talking about a city which exorted influence over the entire Magna Grecia region, the reason why Grecian cities such as Naples were able to grow and secure a future.

• It was mentioned in the Bible itself in Acts 28:12 as Paul one of the Apostles of Christ stayed there. We're talking about one of the 12 apostles of GOD MADE FLESH, defining it as notable. Its notability is literally BIBLICAL. 2 billion people on this earth are Christians and the book which their religion is defined in has a part on Syracuse, how is that for "hits"???

• The birth place and lifeplace of Archimedes one of the most famous humans to ever live. Also the birth place of Saint Lucy whos day Saint Lucy's Day is celebrated around the globe. The birth place of comedy, thanks to Epicharmus. Had its own line of Tyrants of Syracuse, akin in some ways to kings.

What is so notable about Syracuse, New York that this situation should be allowed to exist? Absoutely nothing. In fact 1/4th of the text in that article's intro, is riding on the legacy of the Sicilian city and the fact that the Sicilian city is mentioned in the bible. Seriously, Wikipedia is a great place for information, but when things like this exist, then one can only feel huge embarassment. - Gennarous (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an "insult to civilization" to not direct the majority readers to an article they are not searching for? Then why do we even have disambiguation pages? Editors can simply decide which article is culturally superior, and set it as the main article regardless of readership statistics, leaving readers who are looking for a different article to fend for themselves. What I believe is "correct" is for readers to be directed to the article they wish to read. In this case, the majority of readers are not looking for Syracuse, Sicily, so that should not be located at Syracuse. Here are my replies to your above points:

• Whether a city is a UNESCO World Heritage Site has nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions. The fact that a place is one of the "most important cultural recognition achievements possible" does not necessarily mean that it will receive more readers than another place of the same name, which is clearly the situation here.
• Historical influence has nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions.
• The fact that a place is mentioned in the Bible has nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions.
• The fact that a place was the birth place and lifeplace of Archimedes, one of the most famous humans to ever live, has nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions.

If cultural importance, famous residents, etc. had anything to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions, then your above points would be legitimate. But they do not. The one and only legitimate consideration here is the likelihood that someone searching for "Syracuse" seeks a particular article. The thing that is obviously notable about Syracuse, New York, all historical, population, cultural, etc. aspects aside, is that it receives over 20,000 readers more per month than Syracuse, Sicily. Should Syracuse, Sicily be moved to Syracuse, 20,000 readers would be redirected to the wrong article. That is unacceptable. -- Rai•me 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Syracure, New York must be disambiguated, it hardly makes a difference whether you have to through a dab page or a dabnote at the top of a Syracuse article. Wikipedia is not decided by what a majority of users are looking for. After all, a majority of users probably care more about Troy the recent film than Troy the ancient city. Or how many are looking for the USA when they type "America"?

• UNESCO testifies to Syracuse' importance, whether people know how important it is or not.
• Mention in the Bible is a sign of notability, which is related to naming.

The likelihood that someone is searching for a term has no bearing on anything. See America exampel above. 20,000 more readers already have a dab page to go through, let them go through a dab notice at the top of this page. Should we be constantly checking to make sure article titles correspond to hits? How more people looking for George Bush mean the current president and not his father? Srnec (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes a huge difference. By your logic, it would also hardly make a difference whether "Syracuse" redirects to Syracuse, New York, with a dab link to Syracuse, Sicily (For the record, I am also very against that solution). 25,000 readers should not be redirected to the wrong article for the facilitation of 5,000 other readers' searches. Wikipedia is decided by what a majority of users are looking for. The reason "America" doesn't redirect to United States is because there is a majority of users who feel that "America" refers to the continents just as much as the country. And perhaps "Troy" should be moved, but if so that will be decided at the Troy talk page.

• What people are looking for is all that matters:

  Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

  25,000 readers look for Syracuse, New York. 5,000 readers look for Syracuse, Sicily. The Sicilian city, while historically and culturally "superior" (I am happy to admit that), is simply not the primary topic here. "Importance" is not noted at WP:NC all. "Whether people know it is important or not" and decide to look at the article accordingly is, in fact, all that matters.
• The naming conventions have nothing to do with notability. Again, the only thing that matters is what readers are looking for.

I am surprised that editors would consider having "Syracuse" located at an article which is clearly not the primary topic among readers, and would thus be a clear violation of official Wikipedia policy. A dab notice would be a poor solution - perhaps we should then consider placing a dab notice at the top of Syracuse, New York to Syracuse, Sicily? That would be an equally poor solution, as Syracuse, New York is not the primary topic either. Feel free to bring up any discussion about "George Bush" at Talk:George Bush; perhaps that situation should be changed, although I doubt it. But given that the naming conventions are related only to what the majority of readers are looking for, checking article hits is a very appropriate thing to do. -- Rai•me 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you seem to have overlooked in this dillusional "nothing existed before the USA" stuff is, the statistics for hits to this disambiguation page itself is actually lower than the number for "Syracuse, New York".[2] Which means the majority of USA uni students in the state of New York who wish to look up the obscure USA city, are getting there without going through "Syracuse" first, according to the statistics. That shoots down your whole argument in a major way. So the wild claim that people would be directed towards the "wrong" article holds no water.

How many of the people who think "oh Wikipedia, this seems to be a serious tool for education... lets see what they have on the ancient power Syracuse, where Archimedes was born"... and type in Syracuse, only to come to this insult of disambiguation, then proceed no further because they think it must be a total joke and not a serious education tool at all?

As the situation is, "Syracuse, Sicily" does not follow the correct naming convention. Because "Syracuse" predates the idea of "Sicily" as a unified entity, it was a CITY STATE, understand? Independent with tyrants of its own. It wasn't called "Syracuse, Sicily" or "Syracuse, Italy", just Syracuse. The equivelent would be having the French article at "France, European Union". The correct title for the obscure NY city is "Syracuse, New York", as it is in every language. because it has never been a notable independent power or anything like that. So Syracuse belongs at the former powerful city state which is featured in the Bible. - Gennarous (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gennarous' last argument is the one I gave a year ago: the American city is "Syracuse, New York" always. The Sicilian city is just "Syracuse" historically. Since nobody believes in moving Syracuse, New York to Syracuse (which is what Raime's argument amounts to, since that is what he believs most people to be looking for when they type "Syracuse"), I suggest moving Syracuse, Sicily here. Then we place a note at the top of page that looks like this: {{for|the New York city|Syracuse, New York}}{{otheruses}}. This is no more work for anybody unless they'r looking for one of the minor Syracuses. Srnec (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Syracuse" can mean a great number of things. Cities are supposed to have a common way of being titled as page names (see here). Because more than one city is named Syracuse, it is simpler and theoretically noncontroversial (though obviously not true in practice) to make a disambiguation page be the first/main page. That way, no one is redirected away from what they want, then have to click the disambig page, and then the page they want. Yes, everyone has to make one more click, but no one has to click more than once. —ScouterSig 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One has to click twice to get to Paris, Ontario. Though you may think this odd, to a person well-versed in ancient (or even medieval) history, the case is pretty much similar. It sounds as redundant to speak of "Syracuse, X" as it is to speak of "Paris, France". In fact, it sounds worse, since Paris is (and was) undoubtedly part of France, but Syracuse was not alway spart of something bigger. I am suggesting a special dabnote at the top of the Syracuse page to get you directly to the NY city since I recognise its large size and important university today. Srnec (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple clicks to any Paris that isn't Paris is considered appropriate because the "overwhelming" number of people want Paris, France. I don't know what that percentage is for Paris, or what the threshold for Syracuse should be, but I doubt that Syracuse, New York meets that. I know that you are not arguing here for the page to be changed, but I suspect that no one Syracuse listed here is "overwhelmingly" the one that is either most searched for, most desired, or most important; a special DAB notice on the top is not necessary. —ScouterSig 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple clicks for Syracuse, New York is currently required anyway. My solution adds no more clicking for the reader looking for the city in NY. The problem with the currenty solution, to be clear, is forcing writers to pipe "Syracuse, Sicily" when they would never write that (they'd just say "Syracuse"). And forcing readers to see such a title is equally bad, since they may start using that! "Syracuse, New York" is alwasy appropriate, so the situations are different. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse has always been located on the island of Sicily, and that it why it is located at Syracuse, Sicily and not Syracuse, Italy. So the present situation makes plenty of sense. Syracuse and Paris are not at all the same situation; Syracuse, Sicily doesn't have the amount of global significance as Paris, France, and Paris, Ontario is not nearly as significant as Syracuse, New York.

Gennarous, how is my argument "delusional"? I have never argued anything at all similar to "nothing existed before the USA", and only pointed out that readers should not be redirected to what is clearly not the primary topic. I will gladly admit that Syracuse, Sicily is "culturally superior", but again, that has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions. And yes, I will not refute that fact that the dab page has lower statistics than the Syracuse, New York page, but that proves absolutely nothing. It is your interpretation which "holds no water", as it still offers no evidence to show that the majority of people who type in "Syracuse" are seeking the Sicilian city. Similarly, the dab page has over 2,000 more readers than Syracuse, Sicily, and thus not all readers who type in "Syracuse" are expecting the Sicilian city. It is more plausible that it is closer to 50/50; given that the Sicilian city has been located at Syracuse, Sicily for quite awhile now, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that readers actually looking for the page have added the ", Sicily" to avoid a dab page, just as readers looking for the New York city have grown accustomed to adding ", New York" to avoid the dab page. Your argument does not "shoot down" my argument at all.

Was not "Sicily" always an island? Was not Syracuse settled on that island? The scurrent situation is not based on the autonomous region of Sicily, but rather the island. So it is far from incorrect. It is not a "total joke" to attempt to facilitate the searches of all 7,000 readers brought to a dab page. Again, there is no chance that all of those readers are looking for Syracuse, Sicily. A disambiguation page is the optimal solution here. As for your theory about the "correct" titles of pages, WP:NC:CITY outlines that "X, Y", where "Y is a higher level entity, e.g. a province or the country" is the correct disambiguation title for city names requiring disambiguation. Nothing is stated about exceptions for "former notable independent powers" with "obscure" US cities that use the same name. If you disagree with this, feel free to bring up a discussion there. But at the moment, this is policy, and it should not be ignored. Disambiguation is obviously needed here, all ideas of culture superiority aside. The fact is, readers thinking "oh Wikipedia, this seems to be a serious tool for education... lets see what they have on the ancient power Syracuse, where Archimedes was born" do not make up the absolute majority of Syracuse seekers.

Srnec, the American is not always Syracuse, New York. As a resident of the northern United States, I can state with confidence that the majority of people from the northern U.S. and eastern Canada would associate "Syracuse" with the New York city, without even giving a thought to the one in Sicily. My argument does not at all amount to "Syracuse" redirecting to "Syracuse, New York"; I have stated again and again that this would be a very poor solution, so clearly you misunderstood. A dab notice on either page would be a poor solution, as there is no one primary topic for "Syracuse". A disambiguation page, the status quo, is the optimal situation by far. -- Rai•me 01:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse has always been located on the island of Sicily. Yes, but "Sicily" is just a geographic term for much of its history. We wouldn't say "Jakarta, Java" or "Tokyo, Honshu".

Syracuse and Paris are not at all the same situation. Syracuse arguably has as much historical significance as Paris. It's been around longer, for one, and Paris was not always a very important place. It has only been the "capital" of France since the eleventh century. Your perspective is "recentist".

readers looking for the New York city have grown accustomed to adding ", New York" to avoid the dab page. As they should, since it must be disambiguated in most contexts. Not so with the Sicilian city.

...for city names requiring disambiguation. And to anybody passingly familiar with ancient or medieval (Western) history (or English historiography) and not living in the USA does not think "Syracuse" ambiguous, I bet. I am Canadian and I would never have thought of the American city as infringing on the unambiguousness of "Syracuse" in reference to a city in Sicily.

...the absolute majority of Syracuse seekers. I think you conveniently brushed aside my mention of America. I do not believe that most (English-speaking) people searching for America mean anything other than the USA. Call me crazy...

My argument does not at all amount to "Syracuse" redirecting to "Syracuse, New York". I know. I have never thought that it did, rather you have ignored my argument to place a dabnote for the NY city on the Syracuse[, Sicily] page so as to avoid any more clicking for its searchers.

there is no one primary topic for "Syracuse". Depends on "primary" and on "context". I think the fact that the Sicilian Syracuse is the primary meaning in far more contexts is important, even if those contexts don't get as much attention today as the ones that favour Syracuse, NY. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "Sicily" is just a geographic term for much of its history. True, perhaps I misunderstood the last debate; "Sicily" could refer to the autonomous region of Sicily and not the island, which would be the correct method (you're correct; we wouldn't say "Bandung, Java", but we would say "Bandung, West Java", as "West Java" is a higher level entity). WP:NC:CITY specifically states that "X, Y" should be used, where "Y is a higher level entity, e.g. a province or the country." Whether or not the city of Syracuse predates the higher entity, the autonomous region of Sicily, does not matter. So, basically, the "for much of its history" does not matter here; what matters is the present situation.

Syracuse arguably has as much historical significance as Paris. The cities are incomparable in terms of overall significance. Perhaps in historical significance they are comparable (I would definitely not agree that Syracuse has more historical significance, it just as a longer history; longer history does not automatically equate to more or even equal significance), but this doesn't take in cultural, global, political, etc. significance at all. If they truly were comparable in comparable in overall terms of significance, then perhaps Syracuse, Sicily would get the same amount of readers Paris gets, 265,000 per month.

Not so with the Sicilian city. Really? readers seem to disagree, or else all 7,000+ readers who go to the dab page "Syracuse" would be heading directly for the Sicilian city, which is not the case.

And to anybody passingly familiar with ancient or medieval (Western) history (or English historiography) and not living in the USA does not think "Syracuse" ambiguous, I bet. Again, statistics disagree. All that matters here is what readers are looking for, and it is not Syracuse, Sicily the absolute majority of the time. Perhaps the majority of Syracuse seekers are not familiar with passingly familiar with ancient or medieval (Western) history, or are living in the United States.

I think you conveniently brushed aside my mention of America. No, I answered it fully, and you seem to be passing it off as me "brushing it aside" because you are dissatisfied with my answer. First of all, the situation of "America" has absolutely nothing to do with the situation of "Syracuse". I do not believe that most (English-speaking) people searching for America mean anything other than the USA. That is great that you believe that; I would agree. But many editors disagree, and we are certainly not in the absolute majority. If you feel strongly on this issue, I invite you to bring up discussion at Talk:America.

rather you have ignored my argument to place a dabnote for the NY city on the Syracuse[, Sicily] page so as to avoid any more clicking for its searchers. If by "ignore" you mean "reject", then yes, I have rejected it; it is against Wikipedia policy. There is no clear primary topic here, so to do so would be to violate naming convention policy. The majority of Syracuse seekers are simply not looking for Syracuse, Sicily, so their search should not be facilitated at the expense of Syracuse, New York seekers.

Depends on "primary" and on "context". No, it does not depend on anything except Wikipedia's meaning of "primary". "Primary" here refers only to what the absolute majority of ("Syracuse", in this case) readers are looking for, and that is not Syracuse, Sicily. -- Rai•me 00:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say things like "If you feel strongly on this issue, I invite you to bring up discussion at Talk:America", I can't help but wonder if you've completely missed the point. I do not oppose forcing a whole bunch of readers to do some extra clicking if I think it's wisest, so why would I care if America doesn't redirect to USA? It's you who are being inconsistent by arguing that even though America probably gets most of its traffic from people searching for the USA, that's not relevant, but the fact that most searches for Syracuse intend the NY city is relevant. If "all that matters here is what readers are looking for", it is you who ought to be making an argument at Talk:America. Two final things: "it is against Wikipedia policy" is never a sound argument here, since we are allowed to ignore policy and even encouraged to do so when we think it fails to yield the best results. Lastly, "statistics" say nothing without interpretation and it is quite possible for Syracuse to be incomparably more influential without anybody alive today being aware of it. Not that it is, but you have the bizarre notion that the number of hits actually tells us something about the article's subject. It does not. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have I completely missed the point? No. I was being sarcastic, perhaps in poor taste, as you are continually bringing "America" up. I have never argued "that even though America probably gets most of its traffic from people searching for the USA"; I simply stated that I agreed that the USA would be the primary topic. However, I have no "evidence" or statistics to support this, it is only an opinion, and there is not a majority of editors who agree with me. Just because I choose to not bring up a discussion that has been brought up countless times and always ends without change does not mean I am being "inconsistent". The thing you do not seem to understand, which is evident by you continually bring this up, is that the argument of "Article X" has no bearing here; per WP:ALLORNOTHING (grant it, this is from a page discussing deletion arguments, but it applies here): The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. Here, "on similar topics" could easily be replaced with "in similar situations". Whether "America" stays as a dab page or becomes a redirect has absolutely nothing to do with the status of the Syracuse page.

As for your IAR argument, per Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means: "Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. In this case, your argument amounts to "we should ignore the rule to satisfy 5,000 readers and point an ambiguous term to a page that is not the primary topic among readers, beacuse the majority of these readers just are not aware of this page's topic's great importance." That is not a "good reason" at all. You say that "do not oppose forcing a whole bunch of readers to do some extra clicking if I think it's wisest", but your idea about what is "wise" amounts to your opinion on what Syracuse is "better" and not on what readers most often recognize. A situation which redirects the majority of readers to an incorrect article should never be considered the "best result". And, by your logic of "it is against Wikipedia policy" is never a sound argument here", should readers never quote rules when arguing against other editors, as rules can always be broken anyway if one reader has a POV that something will "yield the best results"?

Lastly, statistics do offer a strong argument. I gave you my interpretation: Syracuse, New York has more readers, but more importantly the dab page gets more searches than the Syracise, Sicily article, so there is really no way to argue that Syracuse, Sicily is the absolute primary topic among readers. You seem to be conveniently refuting the statistics, as they are the most prominent obstacle in declaring that Syracuse, Sicily is the unambiguous primary topic for "Syracuse". Yes, it is "possible for Syracuse to be incomparably more influential without anybody alive today being aware of it"; even if it were so, those "unaware people" are our readers, and we seek to accomodate them. A city being more influential than another has nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions. I do not in any way have the bizarre notion that "the number of hits actually tells us something about the article's subject". I do have the notion that statistics point us to which article readers are looking for, and they do. Time and time again I repeat, this is what matters here: what readers are looking for. If the majority are not searching for an article, then the term in question should not redirect to that term, regardless of the article's subject or anything else. -- Rai•me 05:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Syracuse → Syracuse (disambiguation)
• Syracuse, Sicily → Syracuse

– The ancient Sicilian city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per long-term significance, with its 2,700 years of history compared to 200 years of Syracuse, New York. It has a very rich history and it is listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. The Italian city has a slight lead in page views ([3]), and it gets most of the clicks from the disambiguation page, almost double that of the American city ([4]). Vpab15 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as primary topic. Furius (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to oppose: the points made below about page views and about the historical significances of both communities have convinced me that neither of these is the "primary topic". While Syracuse in Sicily is, for my money, more important, the situation seems analogous to Charles I of England (clearly more important than any other "Charles I" but not primary topic). Lots of people want both pages; there's probably not much overlap between these audiences, so delivering them to aa disambig page makes most sense. Nothing concrete is gained by shifting the page. Furius (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and determination. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support because of historical importance. Of the two, the ancient city is certainly the primary topic. Spartathenian (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support East one.★Trekker (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is actually a bit tricky, because a longer-term view of page views between the two cities shows a recent change in favor of the Italian city, and three big recent spikes. In logarithmic view we can see that an increase in views of just "Syracuse" mostly matched those spikes, which is a positive sign for the proposal. Still, even with these increases, the general readership is still fairly equal.

Likewise, WikiNav shows (for January) 1.8k incoming views, but it's actually 2,404 in page views with redirects: Syracus, Syracusans, SYRACUSE and the internal Syracuse (disambiguation). This is how these look in page views. The internal link has way more traffic than I'd expect. It's linked from these three places: two are hatnotes from these two popular articles, and the third is Siracusa. This sounds like either some incoming redirects over there are actually ambiguous (US, IT), or there's some other reason over 500 readers a month are consistenly having to use these.

Maybe some of that is because of the redirect Syracusan? Its traffic [5] significantly increased in February last year...?

Clickstreams show 1.23k identifiable to the first city (1,225), out of 2.1k total identifiable (2,068), and nothing filtered. That's actually just ~59% of identifiable outgoing, because the long tail doesn't just include the American city, and also it's just ~51% of the total incoming traffic. This means about half the people who visit the name may have to click the hatnote if we continue this move, which is not good navigation.

The long-term significance argument would have to be bullet-proof to override such a glaring lack of primary topic by usage.

Do we know if something changed in the last few years that would explain this change in pattern and confirm it's permanent? --Joy (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I note below, search engines don't bring you to Syracuse, but try to predict as to whether you want Syracuse, New York, USA or Syracuse, Italy based on your current location. Most of the people visiting the disambiguation page are actually coming from within Wikipedia as opposed to outside of it, so the search engines aren't pointing at the disambiguation page. My theory is people are clicking the Wiki-link and navigating within Wikipedia. Certainly when you search Syracuse from a US-based VPN, Syracuse, Utah comes up before Siracusa. SportingFlyer T·C 02:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean support, as the original Syracuse is primary by long-term significance. They're about even in page views over the last 90 days, but people encountering the name in places other than the northeast U.S. or for reasons other than college sports are likely looking for Syracuse in Sicily. It's not open-and-shut, but since there will still be hatnotes and a disambiguation page, there's not much risk to navigation. P Aculeius (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clear primary topic by both pageviews and long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose - The Italian city has not consistently had a lead in pageviews, only in about June 2023 did it consistently lead until October 2024 when the NY city retook the lead. Last month, there was a difference of just a few hundred out of 35,000 in favor of the Italian city. [6] Searches for a primary topic should be more likely than all the other topics combined, which is clearly not the case here. Long-term significance does obviously favor the Italian city, though. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Surprised support. Did you know that this Sicilian city is a major city even today? It's nearly as big as the American city. When you consider the vastly different amount of historical significance, it's a no-brainer. Red Slash 02:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One is primarily known as "Syracuse, New York" (except locally) and the other is known as "Syracuse" (rarely "Syracuse, Sicily" except on WP). So with no title conflict, primary topic is not an issue. As long as there is a hatnote on Syracuse pointing directly to the New York city as well as to the dab page, this shouldn't be a problem for readers. Station1 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Syracuse, New York" is an excellent point. That is precisely how the American city is generally known, and we should reflect it. I concede there is an element of European bias here, though. Spartathenian (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:USPLACE states very clearly that

  When weighing a US city against other possible primary topics, the US city should never be considered a partial title match if the base name of the city is the same as the term being considered.

  These arguments should be discarded. Red Slash 21:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I say that as a supporter of the move. Red Slash 21:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are common sense exceptions to every rule. If Syracuse, New York were the primary topic, then yes, "Syracuse" should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. But if Syracuse, New York is not the primary topic, then readers seeking Syracuse, New York will benefit from a dab page no more than they will from a direct hatnote. The title "Syracuse, New York" is not the reason to support this move, but it is a factor that can be considered in this particular case. Station1 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a common-sense exception, that's going directly against the rule, a rule that was created for literally situations exactly such as this. If you think it's a common-sense exception, I'd love to know what you think the rule was actually created to do. (Hint: you won't be able to, because the rule was created explicitly for situations like this.) Red Slash 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The rule (actually, I should have said "guideline") was created for ordinary situations, not exceptional situations where reasonable people may disagree about what's best for readers. It was created for cases like Albuquerque, New Mexico and Boise, Idaho and Spokane, Washington, where the city is the primary topic and would be at the single name if not for the USPLACE guideline. In this particular case, there is no obvious primary topic, so we need to see what's best for readers. Since one topic is best known as "Syracuse, New York" but sometimes just "Syracuse", and the other topic is usually just "Syracuse" and rarely anything else, it helps readers searching for the Italian city to get directly to the article they want, while not disadvantaging in the slightest those looking for the New York city, as long as a direct hatnote is in place. Frankly, most readers get to the article they want not matter what we title them, so it doesn't make a great deal of difference, but it's still usually best to avoid making readers go through dab pages unnecessarily. Station1 (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it pretty clearly applies in all situations where the city's name could be a PRIMARYTOPIC, but we still add the state on. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But could Syracuse, New York be the primary topic for "Syracuse"? I think not, but it's a matter of opinion. Station1 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's difficult to argue Syracuse, New York should be primary for Syracuse in the same way it's difficult to argue Siracusa should be primary for Syracuse - if either of them didn't exist, the other would clearly be primary. As to whether Syracuse, New York would be if we had to pick one, well, it's the larger city, larger metropolitan area, and generally has more page views, so you could make a very reasonable argument. That's obviously not what we're doing here, as the requirement for a single primary topic is that it is simply of substantially greater interest, but what we have here is two topics of roughly equal importance. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course it could; for cities where it's already obvious (like Spokane), that rule is unnecessary, anyway. The rule was brought about exactly for situations like this. I should know--I wrote it. And again, I say this as a supporter of the move. Red Slash 01:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Spokane and Syracuse are very different cases. The guideline is necessary for Spokane so that someone doesn't argue Spokane (film) is the primary topic for "Spokane" because Spokane, Washington is just a partial title match (to be clear, it's not). The US city is the primary topic for both the term "Spokane, Washington" and for "Spokane". On the other hand, the NY city is unquestionably the primary topic for the term "Syracuse, New York" but might not be for the term "Syracuse". If it's not primary for the term "Syracuse", Syracuse will not redirect there. Then the only question is what's best for readers, Syracuse as a dab page or Syracuse as the city most readers are looking for, with a hatnote to the second most sought city? Guidelines are great for everyday guidance but they can't and shouldn't cover every possible case. Station1 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and firmly so. The Italian city is not clearly the primary topic. The New York city has been by far the more viewed page over the course of the last five years looking purely at pageview numbers, was viewed more last year in several different months, and the New York one is actually the larger city. I know Wikipedia is biased towards the US and English places in general and understand the history of the Italian city, but it really looks to me like there are two primary topics here, that disambiguation is the correct thing to do, and that people looking for the city in New York would be surprised if the Italian city came up first. SportingFlyer T·C 07:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  people looking for the city in New York would be surprised if the Italian city came up first. That's true, but people looking for the Italian city would be surprised to be taken to a disambiguation page. Per wikinav data, that second group of people is twice as big as the first one. So moving the article would result in fewer people being surprised. Currently, readers looking for the NY city and taken to the dab page are already surprised, so no change there. Vpab15 (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but Wikinav data isn't the singular basis for determining a primary topic. In fact, I just did a search via a VPN: in the USA, Syracuse, New York comes up first in search engines - in Europe, Syracuse, Sicily comes up first, so it actually looks like people are searching Syracuse, the search engine is plopping them into the city they don't want, then they use the disambiguation page to get to the city they do want. So I really do not think there is a primary topic here at all. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with this is that it's not the whole picture of how readers navigate. Most navigation is done outside of our statistics, with the external search engines. We observe little such traffic at Syracuse right now, which is odd. This reminds me of New York or maybe Amazon. At the same time, there are examples of toponyms with a lot of incoming traffic like Waterloo, Macedonia, Congo, ...

  There's also the aspect of the Wikipedia search box showing a dropdown menu - people who type in "syracuse" in there and then click something other than the exact match are not accounted for. That dropdown menu right now shows me first New York, then University, and only then Sicily. Does that lead to higher usage of hatnotes? Hard to tell when clickstreams show 550 incoming clicks from the US town hatnote, and 325 from IT town hatnote. If this was more strongly tilted in favor of the former, it would be much easier to say that the latter is the primary topic, but it isn't... --Joy (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, Wikinav shows more people actually get to the disambiguation page internally than they do externally, so people are coming to one or the other city and then navigating to the other. Because of the external factor there's not enough information to figure out why the USA>Italy gets more clicks than Italy>USA. The other thing is that clicks thru to places like Syracuse, Utah are small but not insignificant - we can't tell if people are landing on New York and then going there. SportingFlyer T·C 21:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, other moves use incoming wikilinks as one determiner for the primary topic, and New York beats Sicily here 9,000 to 2,400 (plus or minus a few.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for reasons listed by User:SportingFlyer above. They're quite evenly matched in terms of pageviews — it genuinely seems like there's two primary topics: the safest bet is to have a disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per WP:DPT, "historical age is not determinative". 162 etc. (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But (and this goes toward the point made by SportingFlyer as well) there are two different criteria typically used to determine a primary topic (not that other considerations are excluded): page views and long-term significance (not the same thing as "historical age"). Page views don't favour one or the other in this case, contrary to what SportingFlyer says; Paintspot Infez correctly notes that they're rather evenly matched (in order to minimize the influence of spikes from things like talk page arguments, it's usually better to check the last 90 days, rather than a shorter period). But long-term significance clearly does favour Syracuse in Sicily, because it's been an important location historically, unlike say, Syracuse, New York, which is known outside its immediate vicinity primarily for being a college town with a very successful sporting program.

  The original Syracuse was the largest city of Magna Graecia, the vast diaspora of Greek colonies that spread out from the Aegean centuries before Rome and Carthage fought for dominance of the Mediterranean; at its height it was the largest city in the Greek world, surpassing even Athens. Its allegiance and possession were the major cause of the First Punic War, and its king, Hiero, one of the pivotal figures (Machiavelli compared him to Moses and Romulus), and again the subject of a major campaign during the Second Punic War, in which one of the most celebrated Roman generals, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, took the city despite Archimedes, who was slain by a Roman soldier during the capture of the city, developing several clever devices to fight the Roman siege, including improved, swiveling catapults, cranes that were used to tip over Roman ships, and even (apocryphally) a heat ray! After its capture, Syracuse became one of the major ports of the Roman Empire. It was later fought over by Vandals, Byzantines, Arabs, Byzantines again, Normans, Genoese, Normans again, and Spaniards; in World War II it was a key target of the Allied invasion of Sicily, subsequently becoming a staging ground for the invasion of Italy.

  Syracuse, New York, is known for being the fifth-largest city in New York, the brine industry, being a manufacturing hub for much of the 20th century, and Syracuse University, which receives nearly as many daily views as the city itself (and its combined athletic programs receive about as many more).

  So by page views, you're as likely to conclude that Syracuse, New York is as important a topic as the city it was named after. But unless you live in New York, you're not likely to learn about it in school or read about it in history books. If you don't live in New York, you probably know about that Syracuse because of college sports. Which is why by long-term significance, Syracuse in Sicily is clearly the primary topic. P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment here literally restates WP:DPT - that the Italian city was more important because of its history. I also specifically stated that page views don't favour either topic. This is not some subjective determination of which city is more important overall, either - both pages get about equal amounts of pageviews. SportingFlyer T·C 21:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comments, including this one, seem to suggest that page views alone are determinative in showing that there's no primary topic, even though by long-term significance there plainly is. Long-term significance is not a minor detail subordinate to page views. You can have a consensus that a topic is primary because of long-term significance, even though page views doesn't show a primary topic. You can also do the opposite, and argue that page views should determine primary topic status while long-term significance doesn't indicate one. But in this case, we do have a definite primary topic by one of the two most frequently cited measures, and we don't have one using the other. So it's perfectly legitimate to argue that we should use long-term significance and not page views in this case. You don't have to agree with that conclusion, but it's still a valid argument. P Aculeius (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true - as we know, WP:PRITOP says "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." and notes that historical age is not determinative. It's easy to argue that two cities of relatively similar size and current importance both have similar long-term significance. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say that page views were determinative; I said that's what your arguments suggest, because you keep citing page views as the reason for opposing the nomination, ignoring long-term significance. "Historical age is not determinative" does not mean "long-term significance is irrelevant unless a topic is also primary by page views." It is absurd to argue that Syracuse, New York has a similar degree of long-term significance; nobody outside of New York learns about it in school or reads about it in history, unless as a passing mention as one of the waypoints on the Erie Canal. It's the fifth-largest city in New York State and the 189th-largest in the United States—and the only reason anybody outside the region knows of it is due to college sports. It's not a pivotal location for any major events in history; no events important outside the history of New York State happened there. As important as it may be for its inhabitants or those of nearby communities, it has nowhere near the long-term significance of Syracuse in Sicily. P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Historical significance is specifically exempted by WP:DPT. The New York city is currently the larger of the two cities, and your argument that nothing important happened in the New York city is simply dismissive and easily disproved by looking at the city's history section. I've been known to push back against American bias elsewhere, but it's very simple to state that neither of these cities is primary right now. SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In terms of usage, there is clearly no primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If age and namesake were determinative, we might have Portland, Maine exist at simply Portland (aside from WP:USPLACE). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case wouldn't Isle of Portland be the primary topic? Vpab15 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that "age and namesake" are determinative; Syracuse is important in world history and likely to be read about; Syracuse, New York is not—except perhaps in the history of New York—and likely known to most Americans only because of athletic teams from Syracuse University. Is your argument that in order for there to be a primary topic, the topic must be primary by both usage and long-term significance, or that long-term significance is not as important as usage? P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Syracuse, the one in Sicily, is of long-term significance with substantially greater enduring notability and educational value. Ifly6 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If it was just the one in New York and the one in Sicily, this would be much more clear cut, but the university exists, and irrespective of the tie between its name and its location, it is a highly notable entity in and of itself. BD2412 T 01:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not even the universities of Oxford or Cambridge, among the most famous in the world, claim the primary topic for the location they take their name from. Syracuse University is not that well known outside of the US. It cannot claim even to be the first place in the state of New York. Vpab15 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that you mention it, it is a bit odd that nobody ever proposed Oxford to be moved away. Clickstreams there show the link to the university - the first link in the hatnote - is by far the most commonly clicked link in that article, with over 4k identified clicks last month. If we look at which words appear in books next to Oxford, the university is far and away the most common use case. Page views consistently show a large amount of reader interest in the topics other than the place.

  I wouldn't dismiss the idea that we need to account for Syracuse University here. Making readers looking for that click several times would not be good for navigation, even if we'd never redirect the term there. --Joy (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vpab15: I am not proposing that Syracuse University can "claim the primary topic"; I'm proposing that it is notable enough in combination with other topics by this name to prevent there from being a primary topic at all. BD2412 T 03:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per long-term significance and educational value. It's a close call, but Vpab15's point about Oxford and Cambridge helps put me over the edge. That and the fact "Syracuse, Sicily" just seems silly, as would "Syracuse, Italy", whereas "Syracuse, New York" is perfectly natural. Srnec (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. After reading most of the above discussion, the long-term significance argument and the WikiNav data both heavily favor the Sicilian city. The only reasonable argument against, that Syracuse NY has higher pageviews, isn't very strong when there hasn't been a clear "winner" in pageviews for around two years now [7]. Toadspike [Talk] 12:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and Vpab's point about the unis succinctly illustrates that the university isn't in contention for primary topic here. Toadspike [Talk] 13:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because some topic is not in contention to be the primary topic itself, that doesn't have to mean its part in the overall reader interest shouldn't be considered at all in the evaluation of whether there is a primary topic. --Joy (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It shouldn't be considered at all. Syracuse University is titled "Syracuse University" and not "Syracuse". This is natural disambiguation and no-one is suggesting that we move it to "Syracuse", so it is not really relevant to deciding the primary topic of "Syracuse". Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is, but not all references to it are as unambiguous as that. Readers might plausibly encounter many ambiguous references in the real world that they need our help to resolve. For example, a sentence saying someone "... studied at Syracuse, ...", or one saying "... Syracuse won the game ...". If the volume of these is comparable to the volume of references to the Italian city, we can't just ignore that, it has to be weighed. You can weigh it low, but it still needs a clear rationale. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most people would know to search under "Syracuse University" rather than just "Syracuse", but anyone who searches "Syracuse" in the search window should also see "Syracuse University" among the top targets, along with both cities, the disambiguation page, and several sports teams (some of them belonging to the university). It's only a partial title match, and while it may have a similar number of page views—at least when combined with its athletic program—it similarly has little long-term significance relative to the original Syracuse, which is significant in world history and has been for a very long time. P Aculeius (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The use of just Syracuse in reference to the university is not a partial title match per WP:PTM if people actually use the sole term Syracuse in reference to it. Making the search box output so wildly different from the navigation page content requires a consensus finding of primary topic. --Joy (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The title "Syracuse University" is a partial title match, since it's not named just "Syracuse", and there's no possibility of the article moving there. It's highly improbable that most, or even many readers will fail to distinguish between Syracuse University and Syracuse. There's already a rough consensus that Syracuse in Sicily is the primary topic; but designating it as such won't significantly affect the search window results, since none of the other entries will change, including Syracuse, New York, Syracuse University, Syracuse Orangemen, etc., none of which has been proposed for any change of title. P Aculeius (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving Syracuse University is not what is under consideration. The relevant question is what are readers looking for when they search for "Syracuse" and in that case, the University absolutely is often known as simply "Syracuse" and must be considered when evaluating page traffic stats. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Readers are not going to confuse the university with the city, so this argument is a red herring. P Aculeius (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, this is the essence of how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  nobody's gonna confuse a planet with a liquid metal but mercury is still a disambiguation page Red Slash 01:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd rather we leave the determination of consensus to a neutral observer - I for one only see a clear advantage for the proposal on significance, not on usage. Reconciling these two seems non-trivial. --Joy (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Toadspike: The contention that the subject is titled Syracuse University and not Syracuse is, as a practical matter, easily debunked. BD2412 T 03:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is titled Syracuse University. I have not been debunked. Even if the university were commonly called "Syracuse", we would retain the current title for natural disambiguation.

  From everything I've seen, "Syracuse" alone is mostly used in sources as a nickname for the university's sports teams. The source you linked shows that the University of Oregon's teams are called "Oregon", but it would be ridiculous to use that as evidence for a primary topic grab – same goes, imo, for "Syracuse". Toadspike [Talk] 06:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I don't actually care much about how this ends up, this specific point is simply wrong with regards to how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. Many, many articles have fully disambiguated titles and they still require disambiguation in those cases where USAGE is such that the entity is commonly known by the ambiguous term. Also, no one is claiming that U of Oregon is primary topic. However, it is sometimes known as simply "Oregon" and it is therefore included in the disambiguation. There is no actual contention for primary topic for Oregon and it is not directly comparable to Syracuse because there is contention and the University should be considered when evaluating whether any one of the topics gets significantly more traffic than all of the others. older ≠ wiser 12:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But as has been stated multiple times in this discussion, "usage" does not automatically trump "long-term significance" to the extent that if page views are similar, there can be no primary topic. The contention Toadspike was rebutting was that calling Syracuse University "Syracuse" was another reason not to regard Syracuse in Sicily as the primary topic. But since few readers, even those who simply say "Syracuse" when casually referring to the university, would fail to distinguish it from either city, that is not a strong argument against the proposed moves. P Aculeius (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying anything "automatically" trumps anything. But you cannot dismiss usage simply because an existing topic is at a fully disambiguated title. In this case, usage pretty clearly supports retaining the disambiguation page at the base name. Whether long-term significance trumps usage is what needs to be determined here. older ≠ wiser 13:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With love, he said "subject" and you responded with "article". The subject's name is (most commonly) Syracuse, regardless of what its title is. Red Slash 15:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I responded with "article" because my original point was about the article: Syracuse University is titled "Syracuse University" and not "Syracuse" (the link here is key). You'll have to scroll up quite a bit to see that, though. Toadspike [Talk] 09:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, both the name of the university and the title of the article are clearly both "Syracuse University", and there is no likelihood of that changing, so there is no debunking here. Even if people typically refer to it as just "Syracuse", there is no significant risk of confusion with either city. Readers will not fail to distinguish between the university and its host city, particularly when "Syracuse University" is one of the options shown in the search window when people begin typing "Syracuse". P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you can turn that logic on it's head since Syracuse, Sicily eliminates any risk of confusion between the topic. So saying that one of the other topics has an easily recognizable title is not an argument for moving another topic to a less easily recognizable title. older ≠ wiser 12:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Long-term significance favors the Italian city. Readers looking for the one in New York will have to click a link regardless of whether a DAB page is at the base name or if the Italian city is. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is not the PT by the usage criteria. I don’t think there should be an explicit historical significance criteria because how historically significant a topic really is is reflected in its usage, and having two often-conflicting criteria (as in this case) is, frankly, stupid. It just fills the RM queue with dumb proposals like this one whose outcome is mostly subject to the whims of whoever happens to be participating. So, we should ignore explicit historical significance consideration per WP:IAR; it does nothing to improve WP. Nor would this move. —--В²C ☎ 07:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So basically ignore long-standing policy because you don't like it. You should go to apple and suggest a change, there should be no primary topic per long-term significance for that term either according to your logic. Or maybe try to think and give some proper arguments before calling other people's carefully expressed arguments stupid. Vpab15 (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the fruit at the Apple base name sets a terrible precedent (for cases like this one), and should be a dab page, if not a primary redirect to Apple Inc. per usage.

  But at least in that case the historically significant usage for “apple” is widely known (by over 99.9% of English speakers]. Syracuse? Not even close. WP is better without stupid moves like this. Which is why IAR applies here. —В²C ☎ 15:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:DAB is a long standing editing guideline. If you disagree with it, you should try to change it at the appropriate venue, not here. We are not going to ignore a guideline just because you don't like it. Vpab15 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IAR is policy that has been around much longer than the distorting and unnecessary historical significance criteria at PT that forms the thin cracking ice your disruptive proposal rests upon. I’ve invoked IAR here on solid grounds. It may not persuade you, but by your reasoning IAR can never be used. —В²C ☎ 19:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Vpab's proposal is obviously not "disruptive", and in fact seems to have persuaded about 2/3 of the participants in this discussion, which has garnered more participation than most suggestions of its type. Labeling it as such is not a valid argument—any more than calling it "stupid"—and your suggestion that "ignore all rules" compels us to disregard long-term significance in determining whether one subject or the other is the primary topic for this title is equally absurd.

  IAR says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." But nobody is prevented from improving or maintaining Wikipedia simply by following the guidance provided for determining whether there is a primary topic, or for opining what that topic is. That's literally an argument against improving or maintaining Wikipedia; it's invoking chaos to confuse the discussion, suggesting that no resolution is possible as long as people hold different opinions.

  The primary topic guidelines are fairly clear: there are two main ways of determining a primary topic: usage and long-term significance. Usage is a wash, to the extent that it's represented by page views alone; long-term significance however is inarguable. Nowhere does the policy say that a topic must be primary by both usage and long-term significance; in fact it says the opposite, when it says that sometimes only one of them will be determinative, and that other times the two criteria would lead to different results—in which case the result is determined by consensus.

  That's what this discussion is for; IAR isn't a pretext for short-circuiting the normal process of debating a primary topic claim or disregarding a policy simply because you disagree with the results. P Aculeius (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Following the historical significance criteria here prevents us from improving Wikipedia because it results in more users being sent to a topic they’re not seeking. A proposal that disimproves the user experience is both stupid and disruptive, even if 2/3rds of the tiny fraction of all editors who happen to be participating are persuaded to support it. —В²C ☎ 08:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By that logic, disputes shouldn't be resolved by consensus, but by an absolute right and wrong of which you are the sole arbiter. Why is your opinion better than everyone else's? Because you're right and they're wrong! That's a great way to win any argument. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. First, consensus isn’t about counting !votes. The closer is supposed to weigh arguments based on their basis in policy. Here the relevant policy is PT, which, because of the historical significance criteria, gives conflicting guidance. So arguments on both sides can cite basis in PT. What kind of guidance is that? Useless and pointless. If people would just recognize that historical significance is adequately accounted for implicitly by usage, we wouldn’t have ridiculous, stupid and pointless proposals like this one. I mean, if a topic is truly historically significant, then it should be sought after accordingly. We don’t have to explicitly account for historical significance to recognize the primary topic status of Paris, Rome, Athens or London, because their historical significance contributes to how often users are looking for those articles. They are genuine primary topics; Syracuse, Sicily is not. That’s not my opinion. That’s the opinion of our users, reflected in how often they seek that article relative to other topics named Syracuse. —В²C ☎ 21:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If Taylor Swift changed her name to just "Sofia" and released a bunch of blockbuster hits under that name, and ended up getting way more views than the capital of Bulgaria, after a year or so would we consider making her the primary topic?

  If so, your position, while wild in my opinion, is ideologically consistent and I respect the grind.

  If not, uhh, maybe long-term significance is there for a reason. Red Slash 15:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose no clear PRIMARYTOPIC. Sure, Italian city is more historic, but it's not more relevant in present times, which means that right now it's not clear that one should be at basename over other.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• support meets wp:pt1 by page views and wp:pt2 by age, historic and cultural significance—blindlynx 14:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The move as proposed does not meet criteria for WP:PT1: much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined. It has a slight edge in direct comparison to Syracuse, New York (not much more) and is far from being more likely than all the other topics combined. older ≠ wiser 14:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For PT1, you forgot to add to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. As has been shown above, per wikinav ([8]), 59% of users searching for "Syracuse" on wikipedia then go on to click on the Sicilian city, compared to less than 28% who click on Syracyse, New York. Thus, the Italian city clearly satisfies the criteria of being much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined. Vpab15 (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that part is a given. Unfortunately, Wikinav only displays one month's worth of data. The current move discussion has undoubtedly caused some distortions in the data for Feb. Joy has more experience than most spelunking into the archival clickstream data and has provided their opinion above that the data does not support the Italian city as primary topic based on clickstream data. That and raw raw page views also do not support the claim of primary topic based on PT1. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, there's no long term significance here. Historical significance is specifically excluded by our policies. The cities have gone back and forth on which one gets more page views over the years, and search engines already disambiguate between the New York city and the European city based on where you are searching from, which is another clear showing what is PRIMARY will vary by where your current location. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, this has NOT been advertised on the Syracuse, New York page, which makes sense, but might colour the discussion a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 00:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added it to the New York talk page. Finally, some people have claimed the Italian city clearly leads in page views, but the last 30 days (using the Page Information on the sidebar) I am showing New York has 36,372, Italy has 30,294, and the disambiguation page has 1,275. SportingFlyer T·C 00:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? Your argument is that long-term significance cannot be considered in determining whether a primary topic exists? Then please, go edit the policy that says the exact opposite of that. P Aculeius (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course long-term significance is considered, but the New York city is not insignificant over the long term either. I may have been imprecise, but my meaning was clear from my next sentence: the historical age of the Italian city does not mean it is of greater significance as that is specifically excluded. Plus the New York place is ahead in usage. SportingFlyer T·C 03:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, your post at Talk:Syracuse, New York is both irrelevant and misleading. It's irrelevant because there is no proposal to move that page, that has never been discussed in this topic, and there's no probability of it happening. It's misleading because it claims there's a discussion about "disambiguating Syracuse". That's not what this proposal is about; "Syracuse" is already a disambiguation page. The only change that would occur if the original Syracuse were deemed the primary topic is that the disambiguation page would be retitled "Syracuse (disambiguation)", which would be consistent with other disambiguation pages, and potentially more helpful to readers who aren't sure which Syracuse they're looking for, or how many topics there are under that name. P Aculeius (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right now this move is only being advertised to people who go to the Italian city, which currently gets less page views than the New York city, and the disambiguation page, which gets far less page views than either. I don't think it's irrelevant or misleading at all. SportingFlyer T·C 03:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is proposing to move "Syracuse, New York" to another title—or any other place or thing called "Syracuse", besides the original Syracuse and this disambiguation page. So this discussion shouldn't be pulling in editors from Syracuse, New York, who might object to not being primary, or to any topic being considered primary. Just as you wouldn't notify editors at "Alexandria, Louisiana" or "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" if we were debating whether Alexandria in Egypt should be primary over Alexandria, Virginia.

  And as others have pointed out repeatedly here, page views gets us nowhere here: both cities have similar page views over the ninety days prior to this discussion beginning. That's why long-term significance is being discussed: the original Syracuse has been a key city in world history over the course of more than two thousand years. Syracuse, New York is moderately important to the history of New York State and college athletics. It makes no sense to keep going back to page views when it's already been established that page views don't provide a meaningful distinction when they're about the same. P Aculeius (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Policy explicitly excludes the point you just made about long-term significance. It is also entirely subjective. Page views are indeed one of the metrics we have to look at when determining whether a topic is primary, and the only reason Syracuse, Italy isn't primary is because Syracuse, New York exists. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it explicitly doesn't. If you keep contradicting policy, please go argue for changing the policy. P Aculeius (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. That seems to be the driving factor for most of these votes! Plus, you can easily make an argument the New York city should be primary - over the past 175 years, Syracuse, New York has become a major regional city in one of the most important states in the United States, with multiple universities and major advances in industry including semiconductors, furniture, and medicine, and playing an important early role in the American salt industry. Meanwhile the Italian city is only the fourth-largest city in a smaller region and has had a much smaller role in modern historical events, with only a WWII bombing and hosting a smaller UNESCO forum really occurring over that same time frame. So perhaps we're arguing over the wrong Syracuse! SportingFlyer T·C 02:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Brilliant point. You've certainly established that the New York Syracuse has a claim to being most historically significant at least as strong as the Italian Syracuse. In other words, it shows that historical significance is no more a clear indicator of primary topic than usage is in this case. The closer should discount support arguments accordingly, for basis in historical significance is not nearly as strong for their position as they appear to believe it is, and they've got nothing else.. --В²C ☎ 06:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And you both have turned Wikipedia policy on its head, arguing that because "historical age is not determinative", it therefore is irrelevant and may not be considered at all, and along with it you must further disregard all of the events that occurred in its history. What a nonsensical interpretation! Syracuse, New York may be a fine city, but it has virtually no importance to world history. No major events have ever occurred there, it's never been fought over by anyone except appliance manufacturers, the local chamber of commerce, and college sports, and without ESPN most people outside of the region would never have heard of it. So stop telling everyone who disagrees with you that their arguments don't count, and stop trying to influence the closure of this discussion by bludgeoning Wikipedia policy to death. P Aculeius (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not the interpretation! The problem here is that people are !voting on the grounds that it is determinative, that's explicitly disallowed, and Siracusa has been virtually irrelevant for as long as Syracuse has existed. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I do believe historical significance should not be considered explicitly (because it's sufficiently considered implicitly by looking at page views), but that's not what I'm arguing in this thread. Here I'm agreeing with @SportingFlyer: even if you do consider historical significance, in this case, both uses have comparatively strong claims. Pointing out that "historical age is not determinative" does not mean historical significance "is irrelevant and may not be considered at all", it just means the Italian city being older does not mean it's historically more significant. Paris, France is historically older than Paris, Texas, but that's not why it's more historically significant and the primary topic. --В²C ☎ 16:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The Syracuse in Italy has more long-term significance then the New York city. This is not American Wikipedia, it is English Wikipedia. cookie monster 755 17:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. but if this was American Wikipedia Syracuse would be a primary redirect to Syracuse, New York. It’s because it’s English Wikipedia, and not European Wikipedia, that Syracuse is a dab page. —В²C ☎ 19:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The oldest person alive was born in 1908 CE, long after both Syracuses were founded in 734 BCE and 1825 CE. So literally every potential Wikipedia reader has had both during their entire lifetime; this isn't about an ephemeral TikTok dance named "Syracuse" that came out last week. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is arguing the Italian city should be the primary topic just because it is 10 times older. It is because of all the already mentioned crucial events that took part there over its long and rich history. Like all the discoveries and inventions of Archimedes, including the original Eureka moment to mention just one. Vpab15 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ... 2,700 years of history compared to 200 years ...
  

  Per your wording in the nomination at the top of this discussion, one city being much older than the other seems to me to be at least part of the reason for some editors. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both cities are historically significant. To claim one is more historically significant than the other is highly subjective, depending on perspective, focus area, priorities, etc., etc. Neither Syracuse is at the primary topic level like Paris, London, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Moscow, Istanbul, Sydney, Beijing, or Tokyo. There's a very good reason Syracuse has been a dab page for over 20 years, and no good policy-based argument has been presented here to change that. --В²C ☎ 06:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not subjective, only one of the cities is a World Heritage site. From that article: World Heritage Sites are landmarks and areas with legal protection under an international treaty administered by UNESCO for having cultural, historical, or scientific significance. The sites are judged to contain "cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity". Vpab15 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a World Heritage site is not the sole determination of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which requires substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic with the same name, especially when on usage grounds it currently has 20% fewer page views over the last 30 days than the "secondary" topic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah but Archimedes never won the NCAA tournament. Probably never even met Carmelo Anthony. /s Red Slash 15:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we need to stop trying to explain the obvious when we're pretty clearly being trolled by the same three or four people over and over again. P Aculeius (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any trolling here. What's obvious to one person may not be obvious to the next, and may be obviously wrong to a third. Station1 (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @P Aculeius Counting this reply, I have commented 3 times in this discussion all of which were under my original !vote. As of this timestamp, you have commented 18 times. (All of my posts have been sincere, and I assume all of yours are too!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My reply wasn't necessarily addressing your comments, although I strongly disagree with your suggestion that the "long-term significance" of the two Syracuses is comparable because both have existed longer than anyone currently living. One has been significant in world history over the course of many centuries; nothing particularly important has ever happened at the other one. I note however that "SportingFlyer" has commented 19 times, mostly arguing that pageviews are determinative and that long-term significance may not be considered at all; 7 of those were replies to things I posted, while multiple others were replies to Vpab15, to whom my reply was addressed.

  Meanwhile Born2Cycle's posts have been arguing that this discussion should be resolved by "ignoring all rules" and that the original Syracuse shouldn't be the primary topic because this is "not European Wikipedia", along the way calling the proposal itself "stupid" and "disruptive", and arguing that long-term significance is A) comparable and B) irrelevant because of pageviews... since these are the same invalid points being raised again and again, I was suggesting to Vpab15 that we stop replying to them. But again, while I disagree with your interpretation of "long-term significance", I was not commenting specifically on your posts, but instead replying to Vpab15. P Aculeius (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You've mis-characterised my arguments there and you've also commented 19 times in this thread. But if you really have a problem with us, take it to ANI. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You’ve misrepresented my arguments too. For example, I’ve not argued to “ignore all rules”, I’ve invoked the pillar policy with that name (don’t shoot the messenger) to ignore one criterion in one guideline for the betterment of Wikipedia, as per that pillar policy. I could go on… —В²C ☎ 20:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, while I did say Syracuse should remain as a dab page because this is not a "European Wikipedia", characterizing that as me simply arguing it "shouldn't be the primary topic because this is 'not European Wikipedia'" is a misrepresentation because it leaves out the context. I was responding to an argument saying Syracuse should be the primary topic because this is not the "American Wikipedia".

  And yes, I did argue that long-term significance is both "A) comparable and B) irrelevant because of pageviews...", but, again, context matters. Essentially, I'm saying long-term significance is irrelevant because of page views, BUT, even if it were considered relevant [that's the part you left out], then it's a wash anyway, per SportingFlyer's arguments favoring the U.S. Syracuse as PT.

  Finally, yes, I said the proposal is stupid and disruptive. Maybe not the best choice of words. But my point is this dab page has been stable for very good policy reasons for 20 years. Making either city the primary topic doesn't make sense and is disruptive. If it is moved, it will be subject to repetitive challenge, again for very good policy reasons, until it's moved back to a dab page. Mark. My. Words. That's not a good proposal. --В²C ☎ 05:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There is no primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I don't think navigation within Wikipedia here shows that the Italian city is primarily the one desired, per User:Joy's comments, and the historical significance argument does not convince me enough. If pageviews shift more towards the Italian city, I would reconsider. It is worth noting that Syracuse University is 100% a consideration here; it is often referred to as just "Syracuse". Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The Italian (formerly Greek) city is far more important historically and in modern times too as it is a UNESCO site. Horsers (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]