Talk:Lacrima (grape)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Synonyms are "equal" in consideration for primary topic of a title, and usage does not indicate a predominance for either red or white here. Dabbing the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Lacrima (grape) → Lacrima – This grape variety, with Lacrima as its primary name, should have "first pick" when it comes to the name Lacrima, currently a redirect to Asprinio Bianco. Overlapping synonyms for (less common) grape varieties are unfortunately common, and a hatnote to Asprinio Bianco has already been inserted here.relisted -- Mike Cline (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Tomas e (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - seems obvious. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems obvious, perhaps. But is it? Would it really help anyone, searching on Google (which favours Wikipedia articles above almost anything else), or searching Wikipedia internally? "Lacrima" (Latin for "tear") is a culturally laden word, with many implications and kindred forms: see the DAB page Lacrimosa; see the DAB page Lacrimal; see Lacrimae rerum (of great importance in the European literary heritage).
  Informing the readers by simple and elegant means, such as inclusion of "(grape)", is not something to resist at all costs. It is obviously a benefit, even if it is not our primary aim. Noetica^Tea? 02:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC) ♫♪

I did not find any other Lacrima articles in this language version; then I would have made the current redirect Lacrima into a disambiguation page. So I didn't find any other current "competitor" for the name. Tomas e (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

O sure. But the basic question is surely this: which arrangement serves the needs of readers best? (Please tell me if you disagree, and why you disagree.) On a narrow understanding of selected principles in policy and guidelines, you are absolutely right to make that a consideration. But such principles are vigorously contested, and often work against good sense. Now explain, please, how the loss of precision and immediate information that comes from dropping "(grape)" is balanced by material benefits – for any readers, anywhere, in any way. ♥ Noetica^Tea? 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Clearly an article with a common and primary usage of the name should prevail over a redirect. Just Google the term Lacrima, and you'll see that several of the most prominent references are to the grape, and that none of the others have a Wikipedia article. Steven Walling • talk 04:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did Google the word "lacrima". On the results pages there was not one retrieval of the word "asprinio" or "bianco" reported in the first 100 hits, which is of some interest for the present redirect. "Morro" (identifying the topic of this article) did turn up, but not a lot. I did a Googlebook search on "lacrima", with a similar outcome. Only one occurrence of "morro" in the first 100 hits (about the 90th); and some results applying the term promiscuously to Italian wines (not grapes). One showed this text: "Lacrima f. 'nome di diversi vini dell'area meridionale, di colore bianco e rosso, originario della zona napolitana; vitigno di uva rossa, raramente anche bianca dell'area centro- meridionale' ..." [Lacrima f. 'name of various wines of the Meridional region, of white of red colour; variety of red grape, rarely also white, of the Central Meridional region' ...]. (That result confines the term to Meridional varieties of grapes, and so excludes the topic of the present article.) Other results report the famous wine called "Lacrima Cristi" ("Tear of Christ"), which even I knew about. Obviously the topic of this article is not especially prominent out there, and "lacrima" refers more to wines than to grapes; when it does refer to grapes, it refers to several different varieties. Why remove the precision, when so few readers are likely to have the vaguest clue that the article is about a grape at all? Still, the article is badly named at present also. Too imprecise, as Google evidence shows. Noetica^Tea? 06:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC) ♫♪?

• Disambiguate the simple name. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.