Talk:Nocciolini di Canzo

Requested move 31 July 2015

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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Nocciolini di Canzo → Nocciolini – looking at the sources, specifically the decision to make it a PAT and the Atlas of Lombardy typical and traditional products, they call it simply Nocciolini Doug Weller (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC). --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. I think that image searches on Nocciolini and Nisciolitt are reasonably conclusive of there being no major rival topic. GregKaye 17:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Absurd! Mind that there are also the Nocciolini di Chivasso (not Lombard). The list of PATs uses the simplified diction "Nocciolini" only because it is already in the "Lombardy" list and thus it's impossibile to confuse them with those of Chivasso. But the PAT protection refer only to the Lombard ones, who are said in the complete form "Nocciolini di Canzo". See: [1] (an OFFICIAl site of Lombardy). In the category "Fruit and Desserts" ([2]) there are no traces about an undetermined "Nocciolini", but they are called with the complete name "Nocciolini di Canzo". The image research argumentation is invalid, because, if you pay attention, the first five images searching "Nocciolini" are not the Lombard ones, but the Piedmontese ones, that are a different product!! They are similar (but not equal) only in the appearance. In fact, the shape and the texture is different, and different is also the way of preparation! They have two independent origins: the name "Nocciolini" applies to those of Chivasso for a decision of Fascism as an Italianization of "Noisettes", while the Canzese ones in 1922 already had the name "Nocciolini" (the productor Fabbrica dei Nocciolini, Citterio produces them since 1922 already with the name "Nocciolini"), along with the Lombard corresponding, "Nisciolitt". They are two products!! The precisation "di Canzo" is necessary. In the Atlas, it is precised that the text is talking about those of Canzo: See (<<Nocciolini: Territorio: Canzo (Como).>>).

See also: On a site of Regione Lombardia ("Nocciolini di Canzo"...)

And remember that the PATs are approved on base of the proposal of Regions. Look here (The official List made by the Region) (page 6): it is said in the relative table "NOCCIOLINI | Comune di Canzo (CO) |CO", so it is only not to make a repeat that they wrote "Nocciolini", while in the transcription of the Ministry they copied only the first column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codice1000.en (talk • contribs) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Obviously my vote is Oppose. In addiction, remember that in Italian the word "nocciolini" is a common noun XD! It is the plural of "nocciolino", who have three meanings on the dictionary (http://dizionario.internazionale.it/parola/nocciolino) (none of them is the Lombard pastry)!!! XD! If alone, this word means something else for Italian speakers!!! XD! You must precise! If you see, two of these three meanings on the dictionary, are gastronomic!! So, if you don't precise "Nocciolini di Canzo", you are suggesting other foods, and two of the meanings are fishes! XD!! Please think better before doing this comic action! (As you can imagine, I am native Italian speaker) (post scriptum by me Codice1000.en (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC))

Codice1000.en (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Another silly nomination by non-Italian speaking users. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that both of you find it necessary to insult other editors - and very surprising from an experienced editor. Nevertheless, what I see in the "official list made by the region is plain "Nocciolini" but "Panettone Di Milano" - not just "Panettone", but a place name. Those are the names given in the list, and thus the name we should use. That "Nocciolini" can mean something as a common noun is irrelevant, we have the same issues in English. Context is how you determine the meaning. If we had other uses of "Nocciolini" we'd call it "Nocciolini (cookie)". Coidce1000.en, you are trying to tell me what the source "really means", which is your interpretation. I'll also note that a Google search on "Nocciolini cookie|biscuit" gives about 18,300 hits, if I search taking "Canzo" out I only lose about 700 of those. "Nocciolini cookie|biscuit Canzo" gives me only 1700. This is all rough but still indicative. Doug Weller (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry but nonsense. There is only one source who says "Nocciolini", all the other institutional sources say "Nocciolini di Canzo" or "Nocciolini (Canzo)", "Nocciolini - Canzo" or similar (look also - in addiction to the already said - (Official touristic site of Comunità Montana)). And also the only source who says "Nocciolini" without Canzo has an OFFICIAL correspondant in the decree of Region Lombardy who says "Nocciolini - Canzo". That's not an interpretation, but only the comparison between two official documents. The Google search experiment goes as you say precisely because "nocciolini" is a term used for many things. Please look at the first result of the search "Nocciolini cookie"! You can see the picture, they are a cookie, but totally different from the cookies we are talking about!. If you obtain "only" 1700 with "Nocciolini cookie|biscuit Canzo" you don't surprise me, because "Nocciolini di Canzo" are unknown out of western Lombardy! All the other results you had excluding the word "Canzo" refer to other topics, and that's a confirmation that the complete nomination "Nocciolini di Canzo" is absolutely necessary. Wikipedia Article title policy says to observe the criteria of recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, consistency. The omission of "di Canzo" is against recognizability (as I said, but I see that you didn't pay attention to it, there are also Nocciolini di Chivasso in Italy, in the region of Piedmont, another cookie), naturalness (all in western Lombardy say "Nocciolini di Canzo", and when they say "Nocciolini" it's only because we are already talking about the town of Canzo), precision (you aren't precise if you use a vague term of Italian language, whose meaning is "little hazelnuts", to define ONE of the at least three pastries I saw on Google made with hazelnuts; we, native consumers and "caller" of the Nocciolini di Canzo, perceive the matter in this way: Nocciolini is a common noun, but with the precisation "di Canzo", it refer to a specific product; different case with Panettone, because on Italian dictionaries "Panettone" means one thing, the one of Milan: that's not a common noun). Evidently you can't use the criterium of conciseness in this case, because first of all comprehensibility is required!

Regarding your accusation of insult, I didn't have intention to make insults. I was only laughing because the effect of the action you propose would be very funny for an Italian speaker. And I was explaining - as I see also FoCuSandLeArN recognized - that it would be a big error from the point of view of recognizability and precision. I synthetize that the title of this article must precise not only that we are talking about a cookie, but also that we are talking about "this" cookie. Codice1000.en (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Leaning to oppose it:Nocciolini di Chivasso, we now have an English article Nocciolini di Chivasso, Nocciolini then should be a dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Doug Weller, have converted the target into a dab, if these biscuits are proven that can easily be moved out of the way. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That's ok User:In ictu oculi but there seems to be some 'regionalism' here, as I noticed that the English version of Nocciolini di Chivasso says they are different from the Canzo ones, but the Italian article on the subject says they are similar. On the basis that the Italian article is probably more accurate, I've changed the English article to say 'similar'. They are both made from hazelnuts, egg white and sugar. Doug Weller (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller one could suspect it's a local brand/pride thing rather than substance :) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Agreed, and noted that the article's creator comes from Canzo (stated on their userpage). So instead of being a dab page, we should merge the two into Nocciolini. Doug Weller (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclined to hold off until it's established what EU food and packaging regs have to say on a distinction. If this is as cheeses and wines need to be careful. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Are you thinking of the Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union? This is the list, and doesn't include Nocciolini of any description. Here is the list of Italian baked goods. I don't think this is a problem. Here's cheese. Doug Weller (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Nocciolini " is a common word in Italian language, instead "Nocciolini di Canzo" provides you the correct indication of the name of this cookie, it is like to rename Amaretti di Saronno as Amaretti. Obviuosly if it happens to buy this cookie in Canzo you can just to ask for "nocciolini".--Bramfab (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I would add that in the site of "it:Comunità montana del Triangolo Lariano", the local pubblic authority about tradition, the dedicated page http://www.triangololariano.it/it/nocciolini-di-canzo.aspx clearly indicates Nocciolini di Canzo as the name.--Bramfab (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We'd call it "Nocciolini (cookie)" (or biscuit?) if this turns out to be a problem in English, which of course is the language of enWiki. Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

But you cannot change a name of something just inventing a traslation, do you have a source for your personal invention of this traslation? That should be "Nocciolini (cookie) of Canzo"? and obvious instead of Nocciolini di Chivasso rename as "Nocciolini (cookie) of Chivasso"? --Bramfab (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that. I'm suggesting that we merge these two into an article called "Nocciolini (cookie)" with a section on each, if just plain Nocciolini doesn't work (although at the moment it does, we don't have another article with "Nocciolini" in the title. Doug Weller (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't have another article with "Nocciolini" in the title just because this word alone does not indicate any cookie, it just means "small Hazelnuts" in italian language and nothing else.--Bramfab (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, so titles, etc would depend on the most common use in English reliable sources. However, as I've said more than once, we can just call it "Nocciolini (cookie)" - you chose to respond to my comment about not having another article rather than my suggestion. Doug Weller (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I respond supposing that you are coherent, but you aren't: you are willing to propose an english word or a common use traslation that does not exist (it is your invention) and, as english work, you propose "Nocciolini (cookie)", i.e. a mix between an italian word "nocciolini" (actually having a quite different meaning in italian language: small hazelnuts, attention to your teeth, LOL) plus a generic (cookie).

You wrote "We can just call it "Nocciolini (cookie)", according this logic we can just call it "small eatible brown stuff", "Canzo's nocciolini", "small hazelnuts of Canzo" or simply and more precise literal traslation "small hazelnuts (cookie of Canzo).

The name of some traditional food cannot be traslated, ortherwise would you also traslate: macaron, Spaghetti alla puttanesca, Pizza capricciosa, Pasta filata , Pandoro, colomba di Pasqua ...? Why there is no traslation: simply because people are used to call those with their original names, the same happens for this less famous cookie.

As my last engagement in this very high linguist level discussion I should share the above comment: Another silly nomination by non-Italian speaking users. Best, --Bramfab (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm the one being incoherent. Can I please suggest you read WP:AGF] and WP:NPA. The other problem is that I'm arguing on the basis of enWiki's policies and guidelines, you aren't. Not surprising as you've less than 200 edits here. And given that the creation of a new related article has occurred during this move request, it's probably going to be sensible to close this and start a new request merging the two. Doug Weller (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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.