Talk:Napoca

Napoca disambig

Hi. I saw the changes around Napoca and I have a few notes:

1. Where there are only two articles, links should be used instead of disambiguation pages. Please review WP:TWODABS
2. The primary topic is obviously the ancient city of Napoca. The spider, as well as some butterflies were named after Dacian and Roman cities in the last 100-200 years, and are virtually unknown. Please review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As a simple example of the preeminence of the importance of the city versus a spider, there were plenty of existing links to Napoca, with the intention to link to the ancient city and not the spider.
3. I plan to expand History of Cluj-Napoca, ancient history section into Napoca. There is a lot of content that can be added there and it deserves the primary topic.
4. I didn't know the convention to use genus instead of insect, but that looks fine to me.

Based on this, please let me know if you have any objection to keep the primary topic pointed to History of Cluj-Napoca, until it gets expanded. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review this List of Dacian cities. Some collide with butterflies as someone took this list in the recent centuries and named insects after them. But as articles get created for Dacian and Roman cities, archaeology etc, the collision will be imminent and there is no question who is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For that I suggest the renaming of Drobeta and others to the (genus) form now. I can do that if you wish. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can understand how you would consider the settlement to be the primary topic when it doesn't even have an article. The genus is a currently valid genus within a group that is undergoing active research (the Harmochireae). I think using a disambiguation page is a good compromise in this situation as I would personally consider the genus to be the primary topic (rather than an obscure settlement that was disbanded 1800 years ago). Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, spiders are not insects, which is why I renamed the genus article. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake calling a spider an insect. Sorry about that. I'll take the heat for that. But to call obscure, a city that was a municipium in the Roman Empire and is depicted as a major city on Tabula Peutingeriana section of Roman Dacia, on equal footing with Apula, Axiopolis, Ratiaria, Serdica and to say it is NOT the primary topic, is extreme and dubious. The fact that was disbanded (which is a very controversial, potentially fringe theory, loaded with politics, I won't even go there), would not be relevant even if the city disappeared forever as there is enough ancient history about it to push further the arachnid stub into obscurity and at the border of lack of WP:NOTABILITY. The medieval Cluj was built exactly top of Napoca, and thus we now have a major city named Cluj-Napoca which you want to put on par with an arachnid? I take the criticism that there is no content yet about the ancient city. It is in the works. But please do not miss the most important aspect: The insects and arachnids were named after the Dacian and Roman cities and not the other way around. If this alone is not logical enough to establish the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, what is? Maybe out Entomologists friends can bring some light as who was the researcher with the idea to use those names and when he did it. It would be interesting trivia. I never thought I would see the day when Entomologists and Historians/Archaeologists collide! :-)) I've seen them all! --Codrin.B (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous genera named after extremely obscure characters from Greek and Roman literature (or even the children of entomologists). That doesn't mean that those characters (or children) are notable. If the settlement Napoca is actually notable, it should be able to have an article of its own with references. As it is, I have no way to judge if it is truly notable or not as I know nothing about Roman history. It seems strange to me that if Napoca is so important in Roman history, why is the Napoca article at the Italian Wikipedia an article about the spider? (It looks like no Napoca article exists at all on the Romanian Wikipedia.) I certainly respect that Cluj-Napoca is notable and much more important than the spider genus, but I remain unconvinced regarding the ancient settlement. If there are enough sources to create a non-stub article about it, I would probably be convinced. Currently, however, it seems to only be notable within the history of Cluj-Napoca. Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. The article about Napoca has to be created first and be well documented. I agree. I will reopen the conversation when that happens. Regards!--Codrin.B (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)