Talk:Sanremo

Italy Mid‑importance

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

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Name

The official name of this city in Italian is not San Remo, but Sanremo. Since I don't know about the official name (if any) in English I didn't change the title of this page. San Remo will nevertheless be the mostly used spelling outside Italy (well, even in Italy it's a common mistake).

San Remo is a mistake

San Remo is a mistake — even in Italian. This article has to be redirected to SANREMO. Thanks. --Enzino 21:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree and now I moved it to Sanremo. Bogdan | Talk 21:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"San Remo" may well be a mistake in Italian, just as "Florence" would be a mistake in Italian. That doesn't make it incorrect in English – in fact, if you Google English language pages for "San Remo" and Sanremo, the spelling with the space gets 2.3 million hits compared to only about 0.7 million without. I'm necessarily not proposing to move it back – I'm generally in favor of using the local usage and spelling when there is no compelling reason not to – but to say that "San Remo" is wrong in English is, well, wrong. I've edited the page to reflect this. –Joke 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the English pages mostly use the word San Remo does not necessarily reflect the fact that this is correct. It's true that there is always a big argument about the name of the city even in Italian, however: - frequency of spelling should not be taken into account: people make mistake. - This is clearly not a case in which in a different language the city has a different spelling. This would apply for example to London, which is Londra in Italian, Londres in French etc. It is not, in fact, one of those cases in which the letters change to "sound better" in the corresponding language or simply to follow some fonetic transcription of the name. - I guess even the English speaking people know that "san" stands for "saint", like in Spanish (San Juan, San Francisco...) and most of them would recognize it as so. The reason why it is spelled San Remo 9incorrectly) is precisely due to this, even in Italian: they think the name is the name of a saint. Since Remo is not a saint, that's the end of the question. I realize that we can of course argue forever about this, but doesn't it sound, after all, much more simple to keep the Italian spelling Sanremo even in the foreign versions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.113.31.208 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, I think it does. All my comment was about was that the previous version said that "San Remo" was wrong in English. Well, that is an opinion. However persuasive that opinion is, it doesn't obviate the fact that it is the most common spelling in English. –Joke 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Remo is the correct spelling in French, Ligurian... and English!! It's a shame that some towns and cities don't use the correct spelling in the different languagues. Clio64B 08:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Remo is not the correct spelling in Ligurian… and Clio64 tells a lot of incorrect things, even in the WP fr: (his orthography is not the best).-Enzino 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the name "San Remo" was introduced in 1924, but it is quite a bit older in English at least. For example it appears in the Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London in 1859. Also the sentence "San Remo is actually a nonsense word ..." is original research and should be deleted unless a reliable source stating this opinion is given. (The argument given is invalid anyway, since names change over time.) --Zero^talk 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Remo is certainly wrong my Grandfather Sappia,of an old "famiglia sanremasca" dating back to the late 1600 always spelt it Sanremo. He should have known.erasldobuffa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.108.151 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Motorway instead of Freeway

Autostrada S.p.A mostly uses the english word Motorway (and sometimes highway) but never the American term Freeway. I'll clean that up. Also I'll add some stuff about the Aurelis Bis link to Taggia. The Taggia page also needs some filling out too as its got lots of new shopping developments between Taggia and Arma Di Taggia (which has no Wikipage yet at all). It's also Transport not Transports (like Parkings and Shoppings one of those weird English words) so I'll reword to "Transport Links". Ttiotsw 02:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanremo is not all tarmac rally

(This is copy from rally d'Italia discussion.) Sanremo was not all tarmac rally. Historically, there were gravel stages as well, and the rally was well known by its great combination of the surfaces. As I remember, the drivers started the first day on gravel, and continued the second day on tarmac. If these memories are correct the portion of gravel was at least one whole day, which I whink is too much to call the rally all-tarmac or asphalt. Al 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

name

Whether or not the form "San Remo" originates from a mistake, it is the way this city is virtually always referred in English (and, seemingly, frequently in Italian as well). That there is no Saint Remus seems irrelevant to this. Is it "incorrect" that Cairo, Illinois is pronounced "Kay-ro", because it is named after the Egyptian city and that city's name is pronounced "Kye-ro"? Of course not. This ought to be moved to San Remo, as the universally used form in English. I will add on the other side, though, that the "name" section is poorly written and sourced, amateurish, and seems to be a brief for the spelling "San Remo," rather than a neutral examination of the issue. john k (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move it as I like the way it is i.e. "Sanremo" article is about "Sanremo" Italy and the "San remo" page being a disambig page for all the other "San remo" pages. I use Sanremo (one word) on forms but even the commune does odd things e.g. the school meal tickets (Servizio Mensa Scolastica, buoni pasto) have a front cover which says "COMUNE DI SANREMO" and then below where you would write a date it has "San Remo,....".

You are right about the description - it doesn't read right. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be renamed

In English, it is San Remo, pure and simple. The Italian name or spelling is irrelevant, just as it is for Roma, Milano, Torino, Firenze, Venezia, Napoli, Mantova, Padova, and so on, unless you are driving around in Italy and asking for directions in Italian.

Varlaam (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Economy' excision

The first paragraph of the Economy section was an uncourced piece of PR fluff--and unsourced. I shortened it dramatically, stating the bare (ostensible). The claim about the evenness of the climate in the excised portion was baloney. The monthly high varies by 30 degrees. That inspired the excision. Tapered (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanremo → San Remo – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Even this article itself has stated for years that "it [San Remo] has been the most widely used form of the name in English at least since the 19th century". Arguments for current title above are invalid or relate to usage of this name in Italian, not English. Relisted -- Calidum 14:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 193.40.10.181 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the few 21st Century results for San Remo in English Google Books are simply mistakes following the multitude of Australian and American San Remos on the dab page. And of course this is malformed request, the dab would have to move to San Remo (disambiguation), except that the Italian town is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the Australian/American spelling so the move proposal would have to be changed to propose RM to San Remo, Liguria which is pretty daft for a town actually called Sanremo, Liguria. So leave as modern sources. 193.40.10.181 I have reverted your edit to the article here as the article content about use of San Remo in the Fascist period appears to be substantially correct from the it.wp article. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "San Remo" in English language sources has got nothing to do with Wikipedia's disambiguation page. Even Italian Wikipedia tells that both name variants have been used for a long time. It's just that nowadays "Sanremo" is officially preferred in Italian.

As for reverting, I didn't remove the fact that "San Remo" was (also) used during fascist period. I only removed the claim that it was "introduced" then (by the way, if that was true, then this name variant would still date back to pre-Wikipedia and its dab pages era :) as this conflicts with next senstences (see above comment from 2007, that I also refered in my edit comment).

Ok, I now realize that San Remo is currently a dab page. So indeed, maybe it should be San Remo, Italy. But the Italian town could be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC too as it is an old town, reflected in English language sources frequently enough and has much bigger population than these newer places in US/Australia. 90.190.58.44 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted that back to stable state of article. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you forget to explain in what way this clarification does the article unstable. Currently the sentences in this note really do conflict as it was explained years ago. 193.40.10.180 (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained above, please do not add the edit a third time. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then it was explained where you misunderstood or misread what was actually changed. I rahter ask you not to revert for a third time without looking what you revert. 88.196.241.249 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. IIO has it exactly right. Andrewa (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you also deny the fact that name variant "San Remo" has been used already on old English language maps and that both name variants have been in use even in Italian for a long time as told at Italian Wikipedia and that we are not talking about just some 21st century mistakes (see sources above)? 193.40.10.181 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm certainly not denying (or affirming) that name variant "San Remo" has been used already on old English language maps and that both name variants have been in use even in Italian for a long time as told at Italian Wikipedia, there's no point in doing so (or in affirming it) as it is irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IIO's argument ("San Remo" is just a mistake from modern sources), that you approve, conflicts with this. 193.40.10.181 (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that "San Remo" is simply a mistake from modern sources and at the same time you don't deny/affirm that it could have been a common name already in much older English language sources. Ok, good luck with beeig a professional logician :) Usage in English language sources, both old and new, by the way isn't irrelevant as for judging on common name. 193.40.10.181 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please, but thanks for reading my user page. I'm afraid your paraphrases of what I say (and earlier of IIO) are consistently inaccurate in important ways, which puts me in a difficult position as to how to respond constructively. Easiest example to pin down... So you also deny... that both name variants have been in use even in Italian... (my emphasis). I denied nothing about occurrences in Italian, and neither as far as I can see did IIO. What we have both said is that they are irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are quoting me out of context. Argument was not about name usage only in Italian. There are also English language sources using name variant "San Remo", books and maps, old and new, some referred above years ago and some by IIO himself. I admit that there's little research on usage shares of these two name variants in contemporary English yet. It's just known that "San Remo" is common. Everyone opposing this name variant here in this talk on the other rely on a logical fallacy that it's simply a mistake. 193.40.10.181 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misquoting me. I did not say that the argument was only about name usage only in Italian, nor that your argument depends on these. But you do mention them, and they're not relevant. That's all. I gave it as the Easiest example to pin down (my new emphasis).

Disagree that Everyone opposing this name variant here in this talk on the other rely on a logical fallacy that it's simply a mistake, but it depends on exactly what you mean, which is not clear to me. Do you include me and IIO among those who rely on a logical fallacy that it's simply a mistake? How? I don't think either of us do.

And please note that word rely. It's not enough to say that we mention it. Do our arguments rely on it? It's an important distinction. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone out of hands. It has been shown that IIO can't be right by saying that "San Remo" in English is simply a mistake. My idea was that you ignore it by agreeing with IIO.

To be clear, earlier I referred to usage in Italian language to show that "San Remo" is from Italian as is "Sanremo" and thereof it has got nothing to do with Australian/American San Remos.

Also, I ask you to see this here as a practical question, other than a chance to trick with words. 193.40.10.181 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: information about the income of the residents of this city, including average annual income. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]