Talk:Córdoba
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Cordoba is Cordoba, Spain. This should be a disambiguation page. Isn't that the sensible way? Wetman 02:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is talk of moving Córdoba, Spain to this title; see Talk:Córdoba, Spain. -- Infrogmation 19:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Importance[edit]
Córdoba, Argentina is more than 4 times bigger than Córdoba, Spain, it's touristic and have a lot of industries. Are you sure that Córdoba, Spain is the most usual meaning?--Pertile 15:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Córdoba without augmentation means Córdoba, Spain for many hundreds of years. It is not the population, but the history. Bejnar 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Having visited both cities (Spain and Argentina) and spent equal times in both countries I'd have to say that the Argentinian city stands out more and could claim to be 'more important'. It has a much bigger population, is the second city (or 3rd if Rosario is considered bigger) in Argentina, a major historical city and one of Argentina's tourist areas. However I think a disambiguation is necessary and anyone who's aware of the importance of both places would likely search for the city as 'Cordoba, Spain' or 'Cordoba, Argentina' anyway which is how I found the page I wanted.--Xania
talk 00:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Spanish city is more important in world history, as the center of Islamic power in Spain, whereas the Argentine city is a provincial town in a somewhat peripheral country. Size alone isn't the only factor. I do think there's enough meanings to warrant a disambiguation page, but the current page is pretty badly organized - the city in Spain doesn't even appear on the first screen, which is ridiculous. john k (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- John K, I am Argentinian and live in Argentina, therefore from my point of view Argentina is a central country and Spain is peripheral. Of course, from your POV, Argentina is a peripheral country because you live in the Northern Hemisphere. The condition of peripheral depends on the POV, and since Wikipedia must express NPOV, we should use neutral criteria instead of the conditions of peripheral/nonperipheral.Sebasbronzini (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Spanish city is more important in world history, as the center of Islamic power in Spain, whereas the Argentine city is a provincial town in a somewhat peripheral country. Size alone isn't the only factor. I do think there's enough meanings to warrant a disambiguation page, but the current page is pretty badly organized - the city in Spain doesn't even appear on the first screen, which is ridiculous. john k (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Having visited both cities (Spain and Argentina) and spent equal times in both countries I'd have to say that the Argentinian city stands out more and could claim to be 'more important'. It has a much bigger population, is the second city (or 3rd if Rosario is considered bigger) in Argentina, a major historical city and one of Argentina's tourist areas. However I think a disambiguation is necessary and anyone who's aware of the importance of both places would likely search for the city as 'Cordoba, Spain' or 'Cordoba, Argentina' anyway which is how I found the page I wanted.--Xania
- Move Córdoba, Spain here and this page to Córdoba (disambiguation). It does not matter how "big" the provincial town in the Argentina is. It was named after Córdoba so it cannot claim primary rights to the name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that Cordoba means the Spanish city. It is like Alexandria, it doesn't matter how big other Alexandrias might become, Alexandria refers to the Egyptian city primarily, and the same can be said about Manchester.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
primary meanings[edit]
I just edited to add the primary meanings at the top. It doesn't make sense that people should have to scroll through two or three pages of Córdobas (many of them minor) just to find a link to the original city of that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.253.64.191 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- That may be true, but Wikipedia does things according to policies, and decisions are rarely made to suite the personal preference of one editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which Wikipedia policy do you feel would oppose this? There's well established precedent for featuring the primary meanings first. See, for example, Lincoln. If you feel any other meanings are primary feel free to add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.83.204 (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)