Talk:Corfiot Maltese

Article title

“Corfiot Maltese” doesn’t sound natural in English. I know it follows on from Corfiot Italians but per the ‘naturalness’ requirement of WP:CRITERIA I think “Maltese Corfiots” would be better. Views? DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "sounding natural" can be an objective criteria. It depends whether you consider them as Maltese living in Corfu (Corfiot Maltese) or as Corfiots from Malta (Maltese Corfiots). What do the sources say? --Dans (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s not relevant whether it can be objective criteria - objective or not, ‘naturalness’ is a requirement of Wikipedia article name policy per WP:CRITERIA: “Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.” While Maltese on it’s own is correct, it’s rare in this format “X Maltese” - probably because it emphasises that it sounds like an adjective lacking a noun. Hence we have articles called Maltese Australians, Maltese Canadians, and Maltese Americans. The other formulations in Wikipedia are Maltese people in the United Kingdom, Maltese in Egypt, Maltese in Belgium. Consistency is another requirement of WP:CRITERIA and that is probably best satisfied by Maltese Corfiots or Maltese in Corfu. Looking at the external links that you included in the article “Maltese Corfiots” certainly predominates with the Times of Malta using “Corfiot-Maltese” once, followed in the same article by “Maltese-Corfiot”. That’s the only example of “Corfiot Maltese” I’ve seen. DeCausa (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa. I am not per se against changing to "Maltese Corfiots". As I plan to develop articles also on the other historical communities of Corfu, I would like to keep some consistency among them too, though - or we might end up having Corfiot Italians, Maltese Corfiots, Corfu Jews and Armenians in Corfu - although I reckon that absolute consistency is likely impossible to maintain. --Dans (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Page curation

Hi @FULBERT:, you added two alerts to the page as regards 1. the need for additional citations and 2. that "This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic." I would like to understand better the reason for these warnings. I have included in the article most sources available online (or offline) on the subject, which is quite specialised. Likewise, I do not think that the style of the article is that of "a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay": rather, it is a historical description. I would be grateful for your feedback on these points. Thanks, grazzi, efkharistò, --Dans (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to say, I think the tagging is unnecessary, particularly as this is a new article. There are some places which would benefit from additional inline citations but overall the extent of referencing is reasonable, IMO. However, what is now citation no. 8 appears to be WP:SELFPUB and shouldn’t be used. As far as the essay-style tag is concerned I don’t agree with that, although there are some places it could be tweaked. IMO, the article shouldn’t be tagged in this way. DeCausa (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)