Talk:Livorno

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who's the genius?[edit]

Who's the genius who stated that Livorno is the second largest port in the western coast of Italy (Genova and La Spezia to the north, and Civitavecchia and Napoli to the south are either larger or equal)? But, MORE IMPORTANTLY, who wrote that from Livorno "cruise ships depart to Florence and to Umbria"? Florence is 30 miles inland and the region of Umbria is totally landlocked by at least 100 miles! Come on guys, look at the map. I deleted both because they were risible.

Friendly fire...[edit]

  • I just read in the article that Livorno "received moderate damage" during WWII. I don't think it is correct. I'd like to note that over 800 civilians died under the 116 bombings (the first on may 28th 1943) by the allied forces and 70% of the buildings were severly damaged (over 20% totally destroyed). Greetings, from Livorno Shezarainbow 16:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly fire...2[edit]

I completely agree with the above post. Livorno has been one of the most damaged cities during the WWII bombings. I thinks there should be a clear paragraph or phrase about this.(Madmats (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Leghorn as former English name[edit]

(or, more correctly)

Leghorn as English name[edit]

Leghorn is shown as the archaic English name for Livorno in this article. Roughly when did speakers of English move away from using Leghorn? Thanks! LewPotT 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should continue to use Leghorn, and move back from Livorno. Iain 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses whatever is the WP:COMMONNAME in WP:ENGLISH - which these days would be Livorno IME. Incidentally, my Shorter OED dates the derivation of Leghorn from Legorno (Genoese name?) to the 16-17th century. It certainly "feels" more archaic than say using Peking for Beijing, I suspect WWII saw a change? FlagSteward (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The US military still uses Leghorn, as far as I can tell. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary of the World, OUP, 1995, uses Leghorn, and in my experience this remains the normal English name. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leghorn is now considered antiquated. As a port it is internatiopnally referred to as Livorno. I think you will have problems booking a sea passage to Leghorn in this day and age.  Giacomo  12:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't like the google test, but it's interesting to note that "sail to Leghorn" gets 62,000 results (which at a glance appear to be historical) while "sail to Livorno" gets 131,000 results mostly modern. As I say that doesn't prove anything, but Leghorn really is old fashioned.  Giacomo  12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Comune di Livorno calls it Leghorn in its English-language webpages, eg [1] DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There maybe a US/UK difference here; I have never heard it described in a modern context as "Leghorn", which I am not even sure how to pronounce. Someone has now come along & moved it without discussion, which I will try to get reversed. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OttomanJackson made a bold move, but in his edit he provided a rationale for it which to me is fair enough for now. I am English, and Italian was one of the languages I learnt at school, when no distinction was made between the use of Rome, Milan, Florence, etc. and Leghorn. I have always heard the city called "Leghorn" among more educated English people, while "Livorno" is used by (erm) general travel agents and so forth. My personal view probably does not cut much mustard, but I think we should have a presumption in favour of "Leghorn" until the anti-exonym brigade has made its case in terms of policy & so forth. Moonraker (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English settlement[edit]

There should be something here about the English speaking population - I believe there is an english cemetery. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are 2 english cemetery. "Cimitero Inglese" in "Via Verdi" is the oldest; the one in "Via Pera" is the other. Some famous people (but not too much) are buried in these cemetery. 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

leghorn is not in Tyrrhenian Sea[edit]

Leghorn is not in Tyrrhenian Sea as many of leghorn and italy people think but in ligurian sea. You can easyly can find confirm of this fact in some official italian site of geography. Sorry if my english isn't perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.206.59 (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to establish this for a translation I am doing. In fact, if you check the International Hydrographic Organization document referred to on the Ligurian Sea page in Wikepedia, it does confirm that Livorno/Leghorn is on the Tyrrhenian sea and not the Ligurian. However, things may have changed since the fifties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.13.59.197 (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Both are righteous,, as the Ligurian sea is a section of the larger Tyrrhenian sea, which goes from the border with France, all the way down to Sicily, and back up around the east coasts of Sardinia and Corsica. Not an entity on its own.

Pronunciation of Leghorn[edit]

The IPA pronunciation given for Leghorn looked very wrong to me, and I have corrected it according to the entry for Leghorn in the Oxford Dictionary of the World, OUP, 1995. DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Leghorns[edit]

I note that "Leghorn" redirects here, but also has a link to the breed of chicken, probably best known as the model for cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn. Leghorn is also, however, a term for fine plaited straw and (by extension) hats made of such; I'm wondering if: (a) that doesn't deserve some kind of reference; (b) it's best to let it fade away into the mists of textiles/millinery; or (c) it should be left to Wiktionary if resurrected at all. What say others? —PaperTruths (Talk) 01:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found where that would go in "Culture", alongside the chicken bit. —PaperTruths (Talk) 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I seem to recall that Cobbett had a plan for English countrywomen to manufacture the bonnets. I don’t know where our article is though. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a pictue of Venice in this article[edit]

Venice is not even in the same region as Livorno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.214.102 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a picture of the distretto di Venezia of Livorno. 86.28.121.200 (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. It has been convincingly argued that the most commonly used form in modern English is Livorno. With all due respect to the Shelleys (and the chicken for that matter), this is what matters the most. Favonian (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Livorno → Leghorn (city) – A move to the archaic English name was made without discussion. I've moved it back, and make this request (which I do not support) so that it can be discussed and consensus reached. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Oppose. The old English name has fallen from common use. For what it is worth, Google Books gives 40 hits for "city of leghorn" -chicken -hen -layer -livorno in the 21st century, and 110 for "city of livorno" -chicken -hen -layer -leghorn. Broadening the search to "Everything" gives an estimated 6120 hits for the former and an estimated 110,000 for the latter. Of course, this is from Google, so your mileage may vary. As for the solitary National Geographic example: my Times Concise Atlas of the World is not recent (1979 printing of the 1972 edition), but shows the city name as Livorno, with Leghorn in small type and parentheses below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments in the section above (and thanks for moving it back). Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per my comments when I moved it and these comments by other users:
On 19:51, December 22, 2011 (UTC), Moonraker (talk) said"*OttomanJackson made a bold move, but in his edit he provided a rationale for it which to me is fair enough for now. I am English, and Italian was one of the languages I learnt at school, when no distinction was made between the use of Rome, Milan, Florence, etc. and Leghorn. I have always heard the city called "Leghorn" among more educated English people, while "Livorno" is used by (erm) general travel agents and so forth. My personal view probably does not cut much mustard, but I think we should have a presumption in favour of "Leghorn" until the anti-exonym brigade has made its case in terms of policy & so forth."
On 12:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC) DuncanHill (talk) said, "The Oxford Dictionary of the World, OUP, 1995, uses Leghorn, and in my experience this remains the normal English name."
On 04:34, July 20, 2008 (UTC), jpgordon (talk), said "The US military still uses Leghorn, as far as I can tell."
On 21:08, May 29, 2007 (UTC),Iain (talk) said, "I believe we should continue to use Leghorn, and move back from Livorno."

These comments show that many Wikipedia Users are in favor of Leghorn. Also, the cartoon character is named Foghorn Leghorn, not Foghorn Livorno. The chicken is still called a Leghorn, not a Livorno. I also hear (I live in the US) Leghorn a lot more than Livorno. OttomanJackson (talk)

Note you did not quote the several comments above arguing the other way. Are you serious about the chicken? Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone is disputing the name of the chicken breed. I hope no-one is suggesting on the other hand that we should use for cities the names of things that derive from the real names of those cities? Damask for the capital of Syria, Jeans instead of Genoa? I think not. By the way, what someone hears people say, either in the US or by English people, is just that, hearsay; Wikipedia doesn't make use of hearsay, preferring reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Livorno" is the most acceptable modern English name, in these days of free international and intercultural exchange. Selected sources might be adduced that favour "Leghorn", but they are against the trend. That trend also has us using "Beijing" rather than "Peking"; and while there some hold-outs, they are typically only names of really well-known cities like Moscow, Athens, Jerusalem, Naples, Munich, etc. These retain anglicised names; but more obscure cities and towns do not. NoeticaTea? 04:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noetica I think we should rename Beijing Peking. Peking is still the English name for the city. I always call it Peking, never Beijing. We should use English names.

Anglophones (English-speakers) say " I went on vacation in Germany" instead of "I went on Urlaub in Deutschland". We should use English names on English Wikipedia (Peking, Leghorn, Nanking), not foreign names (Běijīng, Livorno, Nánjīng). OttomanJackson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

But would an anglophone speaker say they are going to Peking over going to Beijing? There is no question that Germany is better know to English speakers than Deutschland but that does not prove that Leghorn is better know than Livorno.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only when they are still current, as many historic English names are not, including some in England itself (Sarum). Do you still use Constantinople, Smyrna, Adrianople etc? And that's before you get into different pronunciations (Lyons as "Lions", Milan as "Millan" etc) Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument by parallel to other names might be appropriate if we were working in a language that was orderly and consistent, with standardised rules for dealing with such issues. But English is not such a language (cf mouse/mice vs house/houses, rough/cough/through/though, and countless other special cases that cause grief to ESLers and some EFLers). As for Peking/Beijing, both are anglicisations of the same Chinese name. Both have seen use in the English language; once upon a time "Peking" was common and now "Beijing" dominates as a place name. There's nothing about "Peking" that makes it more English than "Beijing"; it's just an older usage, and we have no policy that favours older usages. Oppose. --GenericBob (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per modern practice in English-language reference works. While Webster's Collegiate still prefers "Leghorn", American Heritage, Britannica, Collins, Columbia, Encarta, Random House and Webster's Geographical use "Livorno". Prolog (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose -- I think we should use the local spelling of names, except perhaps in the most notable cases where there is an English version of the name: Rome, Venice, Florence, Naples, Brussels, Lisbon, Moscow, Warsaw are still in common English usage, but Leghorn is no longer important to English-speakers as a port in hte way that it was a few hundred years ago. However a redirect should be retained, or a hatnote to the poultry article, which seems to bew the primary usage today. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It was good enough for the Shelleys, and I have never been convinced that their usage has died out, or become a minority one. (But I don’t mind that much.) Ian Spackman (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Mary Shelly has been dead for 160 years that source will likely be considered highly outdated. Do you have some more modern sources calling the city Leghorn?--70.24.207.225 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well Denis Mack Smith is still with us, I think. Expert on Italy. Writes decent English. Tends to prefer Leghorn. Ian Spackman (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A well-regarded historian, I believe. Has he written much about the 21st century? May I try to clarify: no-one here has suggested that Leghorn was not the common usage in Shelley's time; no-one has suggested that the chicken breed is called anything but Leghorn in English; no-one has suggested that the Battle of Leghorn is not so called; and no-one has produced anything resembling evidence that Leghorn is the common usage in English today. A quick look at the Google books search for Leghorn that I linked above shows that a good number of the hits are in fact for books that deal with or cite older texts. I personally do not dispute the existence of the archaism, but oppose its continuance here. Oh, I would expect a competent historian to avoid anachronism where possible, to avoid referring to Octavian as Augustus before 27 BC and so on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeIn the 21st century it is known as Livorno - Wikipedia has no reason to act differently. Giacomo Returned 13:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) , Leghorn is the correct English exonym like Milan, Genoa, Turin, Rome, Naples, Florence, Venice etc. instead the Italian endonym!!! ...and in order to be clear, Beijing is the pinyin transliteration without diacritics (Běijīng) from 北京 so it is Chinese not English, e.g. Москва́, tr. Moskva -> in English is Moscow; Peking is the correct English exonym not the previous romanization as wrongly reported on article's overture [2] wich, in Wade-Giles is Pei-ching! --Nickel Chromo (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) does not say "use English exonyms regardless of their currency", but rather "use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources" and "[w]here there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title". The searches I have cited above use Google, which I think we can all agree is a gravely flawed instrument. If you can show that they are wrong and, by that or some other means, that Leghorn is in fact the common usage in modern English, please do so. But merely stating it will not make it so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Google is not a source. --Nickel Chromo (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Its too late--70.24.207.225 (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leghorn (again)[edit]

I know the result of the move debate was not to move the article to Leghorn, but according to Google Ngrams, Leghorn is still more common.


http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Leghorn%2CLivorno&year_start=1776&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=2


OttomanJackson (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you can prove anything with faulty statistics. Looks like you forgot to exclude the chicken breed, the cartoon character, the battle etc. Try something like this instead. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Culture[edit]

I MEAN!!: Culture: the left political party, and chickens!!! Is there anything else cultural in Livorno?!?! Who the devil wrote this section?!? I mean!!! --Simoneschiaffino (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

I came here to find out the origin of the name Leghorn/Livorno. Didn't find it.  :-( Correctrix (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Livorno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Livorno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-hambra laws[edit]

Surely the article should say that Jews started arriving in the late 15th century, not 16th, as this law was passed in 1492, no? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the building of a Jewish presence in Livorno is connected not to the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492, which is what I believe you are referring to, but to the explicit commerce rights that were granted to them by the Medici Duke in power at the end of the 16th century, I will get his name/link directly in a little while. warshy (¥¥) 19:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That would make sense, given the time period provided. Looking forward to the resolution. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was referring to Ferdinando I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, who granted special rights to Jewish merchants in 1593. However, the article is referring to the Alhambra Decree of expulsion from Spain in 1492, and so the sentence as it is is indeed too simple and misleading in true historical terms. It would have to be rewritten to say that Jewish immigration to Livorno may have started after 1492, but it really gained historical and economic momentum with Ferdinando de Medici's decree... I am at the moment, just marking this as a "to do" task in Wikipedia, whenever I can get to it... Thank you for pointing out this problem. warshy (¥¥) 20:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Livorno&oldid=1212104005"