Jump to content

Talk:South Tyrol/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Meran's climate area

I think Meran should be included among the cities in the Adige's Valley climate area. User:Skafa/Sign 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV title?

Recently I had the opportunity to do some research at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, which is one of the most comprehensive libraries in the world. Remembering of our long discussions on the best title for this article, I took a look at several geographical atlases to see what expression was most used in the Anglo-Saxon world. I was surprised to understand that no atlas used "Bozen", as they all used either "Province of Bolzano", "Bolzano" or "Alto Adige", when dealing with our dear province. In particular, everyone can look at The Times Atlas of the World and find out that in Plate 76 (Tenth Comprehensive Edition, 1999), the province is named "Bolzano".

It is not my desire to open now a new infinte discussion on the issue, but only to observe that the most neutral title for this article is "Province of Bolzano". I have a lot of respect for German-speaking South Tyroleans and I even support their final desire of independence (if they desire it), but, as we are trying to make an enclycopedia and not politics, I cannot keep from saying again what is true and what is not. As I said I do not want to start again an infinite discussion, but I hope that one day we will find the consensus to change this title. It seemed neutral even to me at one point, but, as we are writing an encyclopedia in English and not in German or in Italian, we should use the expression most used in that language and in the Anglo-Saxon world, that is definitely not "Bozen". --Checco (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, as you know. I already "knew" that in English the Italian names for places in this province are used, without even checking, because that's just common sense.--Supparluca 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to start a new infinite discussion, then what is this message about? You already wrote about your visit to the library of congress in december, when we where debating if the term "South Tyrol" should be included in the title of this article. Now suddenly you remember that the term "Bozen" wasn't in the atlases either? Excuse me, but you are not very credible. What I see here is an attempt at removing the german names from the title of this article one step at a time, and I find it hard to believe that this is because of a NPOV issue. I think most users will agree that the current title is a good compromise, neutral, and conforming both to the official naming of the province and the common use in the english language. Pcassitti (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I repeated exactly what I told you before, but, as I like to be precise, I wanted to let you know at least a source that I consulted. You can think everything you want, but the problem is that "Bozen" is not NPOV and against the praxis of using the most commonly used term. Moreover "Bozen" is not used at all in English, as I had understood doing that research. I'm very happy that you support the current compromiseas the most neutral solution, because when Icsunonove and I proposed it, we were accused of being Italo-centric (a big accusation for me!). I like to express my opinion and my opinion now is that this title, although being a good compromise if compared with the previous title of the article, does not follw the "common use" rule. Last but not the least, I just remind you that this is English Wikipedia not German Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that we don't deal this way with other similar situations, not even in this same country (where there are places with Slovenian/French/Sardinian/... groups). This could be considered a NPOV issue.--Supparluca 11:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As you said, for many users the taking away of the "South Tyrol" in the title was already perceived to be italo-centric and POV. Nonetheless the current compromise has been reached. Suggesting at this time, just over a month after the last debate, that we change name yet again will inevitably fuel the controversy and cause another debate, and I can tell from the way the last one went that at the end of it the current title would still be the one most people could agree upon. So I ask you, what would the purpose be? The name is NPOV, it is official, and it is widely used in english, no matter what you found in the atlases of the library of congress. I find it intriguing that while visiting a library where you could have read any interesting book of your choice you actually chose to spend time looking for the name "Bozen" in old atlases. Did you at least look at every one of them? Have you made a statistic, properly referencing the data? If not, then I would not take your findings as an objective argument, and besides, they would be against the no original research rule. So if you want do discuss a change in the title of the article I suggest you reread the pages of past debates and see if any of your arguments have been addressed before, and since they have, maybe you should check if you have any new inputs to give. If not, the discussion following your attempt at name-change would be really pointless and just a repeating of old arguments. Pcassitti (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the current title was a good compromise and I continue to think the same thing, but I can't keep from observing that it is not the most NPOV title, because truly "Bozen" is not used in English. The users who live in the United States, for instance, confirm this. My message now is no infinite discussion, but hope for a new consensus (one day) on a more NPOV solution. I can't understand what is your argument, but for attacking me. --Checco (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not attacking you. But it is not good practice to keep pushing for a certain solution again and again in the hope that it will eventually get through. A consensus has been reached, and it should be accepted. As for your statement that "Bozen" is not used in english, if you cared to read the past discussions you would find plenty of arguments which show the opposite, arguments that I am not going to repeat since it would be absolutely pointless to reopnen a debate which has already been settled. Pcassitti (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pcassitti, good to hear from you. Actually what Checco said is 100% true though. In English (at least in the USA), we use Trentino-Alto Adige and Bolzano. In general the names used are simply what is used in the national language of Italy (or whatever other country). Just as in Trentino (or most any other region in Italy), the local-language names aren't used in maps, encyclopedias, etc. We have made a certain special agreement in the case of BZ, for better or for worse. Note that Checco and I were among the editors who pushed for the current shared-naming convention, which has significantly reduced the bickering on here (FINALLY). The original names were literally English translations of the German-POV, full stop. :-) Relax, we got everything covered very well now in the T-AA/ST page and BZ page, or is it not the case? Icsunonove (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is wrong. for english language the administration has decided to use the german name as its stated on the official home page of administration www.provincia.bz.it - Luca - 02 July 2008

The same page where they also state Province of Bolzano/Bozen and Province of Bolzano in English? Also, this is English wikipedia, so we don't need to follow a vague decision to use the "german name". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.19.195 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please translate the Geography > Climate section!

While this section is very well appreciated, there are many terms not terribly intelligible to a native English speaker. It seems to be a quick translation job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.230.180 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

South Tyrolean parties

There is a lot of work about South Tyrolean parties in en.Wiki... who wants to give a hand?

It would be very useful to translate into en.Wiki articles:

Morever, there are other parties without an article both in de.Wiki and en.Wiki (Partei der Unabhängigen, Freiheitliche Partei Südtirols, Soziale Fortschrittspartei Südtirols, Wahlverband des Heimatbundes and Tiroler Heimatpartei), while Social Democratic Party of South Tyrol and Democratic Party of South Tyrol need expansion. Can anyone write at least a line or two on these parties: having an article with the name of the party translated would be incredibly useful.

Help, help! --Checco (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate section

There is no reference, and, as far as I know, no data for some of the places in the text. True data can be found at: http://www.provinz.bz.it/hydro/wetterdaten/index_i.htm http://erg7118.casaccia.enea.it/Pagine/Index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveH 87 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mountains

as required by naming convention I googled the mountains:

Based on the above data I have edited the table on the page; --noclador (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I'm most familiar with the Ortler in English, so you got that one right. ^_- Icsunonove (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Adesc Aut

The claim that the term Adesc Aut is used in the Ladin language is not correct:

lets sum up: Adesc Aut 3, Südtirol 1309, Alto Adige 1695, Sudtirol 153 - in total Adesc Aut gets 565 hits; and if one removes the regions name Trentin-Adesc Aut from th google search we get 69 hits - in short: fringe theory. Adesc Aut is almost only used to name the region, but even that very seldom (338 hits) - the province of Bozen doesn't even use the term once on its homepage [1], neither does the region of Trentino Alto Adige [2], or the province of Trento [3] nor the province of Belluno [4]... also Adesc Aut is unknown by google books [5]. I therefore changed the line in the introduction. --noclador (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, adesc aut returns almost 20,000 hits for me. There must be some kind of regional variation. --Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
And differently from what is reported in the current versions, they do use the umlauts in südtirol.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you google "Adesc Aut" you get indeed over 20,000 hits; but always control what the results are: Adesc Aut returns 20,000 hits and the first hit is "ADESA, North America's premier vehicle auction operator." Google is assuming that Adesc Aut is a misspelled ADESA Auto. now if you realize this google error search anew with "Adesc Aut" -Adesa and voila 717 hits refining that search further to exclude wiki related results (our articles and the many copies thereof) add -wiki and now you get 565 hits - and this is the true figure. So, whenever doing a google search look at the first 20-30 results to avoid wrong positives. As a result you will see that no official institution and no Ladin association uses Adesc Aut.
also the two sources given are useless: both do not refer to the province but the region and the padaniacity.org article is copied from the www.noeles.net: so one source is a copy of the other! that's a big no-no! also noeles.net uses Adesc Aut 71, Alto Adige 251 and Sudtirol and its variations (Südtirol, Sudtirolo) 1360 times... Adesc Aut is but a fringe theory - looking at the minimal use and the sources I dare say Adesc Aut was added through original research by an editor. --noclador (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Fringe theory and original research. LOL. Noclador, Adesc Aut was added because it was shown in the context of an Ladin website concerning official affairs. Icsunonove (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop trying to destroy culture Noclador, it is getting very old. There was a link to an official institution using Adesc Aut, that now happens to be broken. That does not mean that we then delete the information. It is a valid term, and there is no benefit to erasing a word... UNLESS you have an agenda. I noticed Hochetsch was also deleted. I guess that is also not fitting with the agena. Icsunonove (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It was not a official institution as you claim - official institutions do NOT use Adesc Aut! Also Adesc Aut is a translation of Alto Adige and is not used in Ladin to describe the province of Bolzano - there is no Ladin name for the province and Ladins use therefore Alto Adige or Südtirol! Adesc Aut is not Ladin culture - if wikipedia administrators ask for it I can ask the head of Istitut Ladin "Micurà de Rü" and the president of the Union Generela di Ladins dla Dolomites to write a email to ORTS that states that Adesc Aut is "un nome storpiato italiano" (a deformed Italian name) and that it is a falsification to claim that Adesc Aut is used by the Ladins. Hochetsch was deleted by your friend Suppaluca [6]. So go report me - you who have no clue about Ladin! The Ladin scholars are waiting. --noclador (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I know and speak a dialect of Ladin, a language of my ancestors before your's came here, that much I'm certain. :) You definitely do not say "Upper" before "Adige", it is the other way around in Ladin grammar. You don't believe this? I have now shown four links that mention Adesc Aut, and indeed there exist official translations in Ladin that use Trentin-Adesc Aut or Trentino-Adesc Aut. I agree that typically it is not used to describe the province, but saying adesc aut is indeed a phrase in Ladin. The point is listing what is used by Ladin speakers. There is usage demonstrated as shown by those references, you can't simply erase what those Ladin speakers said. Having a president of the Union of Ladins say they are wrong, does not make it become unused. Geez. Furthermore, in Ladin the word is simply NOT Adige. It is a word that sounds like Adesc, Ades, or Adis. It is definitely not Adige. Also, there are MANY variations of Ladin my dear Noclador, and the Union of the Ladins does not speak for everyone.. by a long shot. Icsunonove (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
of these valid references of yours 3 are exactly the same! your incompetence is staggering - don't you even read your sources? Maybe than you would discover that they are 3x times the same stuff on 3x different pages. --noclador (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just posting articles, EXCUSE ME if I posted multiple ones. Incompetence, eh? Is that the best insult you can make my angry friend? I have a sense that I've done so much more in my professional and technical career than you would find difficult to manage in many lives Noclador. It would be entertaining to know your true credentials. Icsunonove (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope, you were WRONG Noclador!  :) I note that one of the four references was a duplicate article. Excuse me; it has been deleted. That you have to run around ranting and saying something like "your incompetence is staggering" over a simple post of one write-up twice shows your utter desperation. You completely can not discuss anything in a calm and rational manner. I don't know what the heck is going on within your life, but I've rarely seen anyone that needs to be told so emphatically to CHILL OUT. Icsunonove (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess this official trilingual document from the commune of Ortisei is also not good enough either? [7] Whatever you believe of the origins are Noclador, this term is used here as recently as 2008 in official documents from Ortisei. That signifies clear usage of this term, so you have to deal with it. You can get a scholar to say those Ladin speakers are wrong, it does not matter.. they use that term. ...and as I've said multiple times, Adige is not even the Ladin word. Adesc/Ades/Adis and Tirol are the words for Adige and Tirolo, respectively... Icsunonove (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Even official documents may contains errors. This is one of those errors. In fact "all" other documents issued by the same commune do not use this false term. Obviously the commune of Ortisei will not edit this document to correct the error, as they are not in the history revisionist business... So please delete Adesc Aut from Wikipedia. I am from this commune, and I swear, that no one ever uses "Adesc Aut". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajoch (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment

May I remind both of you that you are fighting over a wording? Take a look at the bigger picture: WP:BACKLOG. In regards to the actual dispute, there is a strong sense of WP:COI here and it's best avoided if all of you just quit the article completely.
Another piece of advice: If at any time you find yourself too deeply involved in an argument/discussion, just leave. Just leave and run away because no doubt one of you will end up having a heart attack and I don't want to find out about a Wikipedian dying because of something so small.
We write material on Wikipedia for the betterment of the readers, not for ourselves. Can you seriously ask yourselves: Is the reader going to care? Will the reader benefit from this small change in wording? The answer to that question can be summed up in one little word: No.
I don't want to block anyone over something so tiny and miniscule, so here's the deal... If both of you continue to fight over this (i.e. edit war et al), then I will 1) Lock the article completely 2) Forward this to WP:MEDIATION, okay? It's as simple as that.
If any of you have any questions, please reply here to keep this all in one place. Thanks in advance. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be moved to Province of Bozen / Bolzano since the majority is german speaking, and the region is historically german speaking as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadran91 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The naming dispute

I know this will be controversial, but I came to think that the whole "toponyms" section needs to be moved to the background, out of mainspace. This is easily the article about an Italian province with the most pageviews and probably the highest edit count as well, but 99% of these edits were changes or reverts of the province names, which aren't much of an academic concern. I firmly believe now that this whole section below was created uniquely to prove someone's point or, accordingly, to disprove somebody else's, giving undue weight to a question that to most of the people outside of Tyrol is of little or no interest. While it might be useful to form some kind of consensus, (and hopefully, someday, a naming convention) it should be restricted to the talk page, and I moved it accordingly.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Supparluca 14:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is certainly a bone of contention, but in the long run we need to find a place for this. Not sure where, here in the article, or elsewhere. But the topic as such is valid and interesting for the reader. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Toponyms

The name "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" used throughout this article is the naming convention adopted by other English-language sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica.[1][2]

The name listed in the 1972 Statute of Autonomy (constitutional law of the State) and in the subsequent state laws is Provincia di Bolzano or Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, accompanied by the official translation into German (Provinz Bozen or Autonome Provinz Bozen).

The provincial authorities often use the dual designation Provincia autonoma di Bolzano – Alto Adige or in German Autonome Provinz Bozen – Südtirol. The Ladin name is not listed in the Statute of Autonomy or other laws of the State, but is often translated by the provincial government as Provinzia autonòma de Balsan – Südtirol, with the German name appended. Typically in Ladin however, simply the term Provinzia autonoma de Bulsan is used (Bulsan is interchangeable with Balsan).[3] Ladin occasionally uses the two names independently, respectively Adesc Aut [4][5] and Sudtirol (without an umlaut).[6] The provincial website also offers the French translation of Province Autonome du Bozen – Tyrol du Sud, although typically the denominations Province autonome de Bolzano and Haut-Adige are used in this language (the French Haut-Adige was the first use of the term Alto Adige to describe a political entity). The provincial website also uses Province of Bozen – South Tyrol as an English translation, although within the English main page Province of Bolzano/Bozen is used.

In English, both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are regularly used. The provincial administration uses both terms on its website,[7][8] while the official tourist website consistently prefers the latter.[9] Both terms may be considered as culturally and politically charged, possibly because the term Alto Adige stresses the geographical location of the area within the Mediterranean drainage basin, while the term South Tyrol emphasizes the historical and cultural links with Austria's federal state of Tyrol. There are some who insist the term Sudtirolo should replace the term Alto Adige entirely (even though proper Italian would be Tirolo del Sud).[10] It is important to note that prior to 1919 "South" or "Southern" Tyrol would have simply referred to the southern portion of the county of Tyrol (south of the Alpine water divide down to the northern tip of Lake Garda), and today what encompasses most of the region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.

  1. ^ "Italian Republic" (PDF). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2007-07-06.
  2. ^ "Trentino-Alto Adige". Encyclopedia Britannica concise. Retrieved 2007-07-06.
  3. ^ "Cunsëi dla Provinzia Autonoma de Bulsan". Provincial Council Homepage. Retrieved 2007-11-27. {{cite web}}: Text "Home" ignored (help)
  4. ^ "Les unions ladines da souramont: enviede via l referendum!". Retrieved 2007-11-15.
  5. ^ "Les raijes retiches di Ladins". Retrieved 2007-11-15.
  6. ^ "Les unions ladines da souramont: enviede via l referendum!". Retrieved 2007-11-15.
  7. ^ "Special Statute for Trentino-Alto Adige" (PDF). Official homepage of the province. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
  8. ^ "Welcome to South Tyrol". Official homepage of the province. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
  9. ^ "The official entry page for South Tyrol". Official touristic website. Retrieved 2007-11-15.
  10. ^ "Union präsentiert Toponomastikgesetzentwurf". Retrieved 2007-11-28.

Euroregion Tyrol-South Tyrol/Alto Adige-Trentino

A new article about the Euroregion, Euroregion Tyrol-South Tyrol/Alto Adige-Trentino, was created just hours ago, but it was already renamed once. Now, aside from the inherent lameness, the current title is wholly made up, I couldn't find it anywhere in the official site of the Europaregion. I say the choice is down to these two: the official English name, Tirol - South Tirol - Trentino (notice that it's actually spelt that way, without th "y"), or the equally official bilingual name, Tirol - Südtirol/Alto Adige - Trentino. Of the two, which one?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as we have Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, the tile should be Tirol-Südtirol/Alto Adige-Trentino, but I actually like and support also the current title (Euroregion Tyrol-South Tyrol/Alto Adige-Trentino). --Checco (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you like it isn't much of an argument.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the namning convention on the Euroregion pages is, let us say, a bit inconsistent. However, the entries of map on the English version clearly have "Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino". Also, the small text below has similarly "Euregio Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino". Since the common name, though, for these administrative units in English is "Euroregion" I used instead "Euroregion Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino". The invariable title above ("Europaregion Tirol-Südtirol/Alto Adige-Trentino") remains in all language versions curiously the same. However, it is clearly not English, hence irrelevant here anyway. I send an email out requesting further clarification on the official English title. Until a reply arrives, I strongly suggest to keep the article stable. Enjoy a stroll, kiss your wife, do useful things instead of moving pages. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I dont know what is so objectionable against the language part of the table, but I will replace it as a sign of good faith with a single line in the continuous text. Certainly the overall language composition of the Euroregion is a matter of interest for the reader. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the name "Alto Adige" is more commonly used in English than "South Tyrol", and "Tyrol" is more commonly used than "Tirol", it definitely doesn't make much sense to use a name like "Tirol-South Tyrol-Trentino" in the English wikipedia. By the way, I thought that the official name was "Tirol-Südtirol/Alto Adige-Trentino", but I don't remember where I read it.--Supparluca 16:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Even I think that this is the official name. It is also consistent with Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. --Checco (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From the main page of the official English website:

"Welcome - These pages will introduce you to the Europaregion Tirol - South Tirol - Trentino web site. You will find information abo…

In the case someone still has any doubts, we'll just have to wait for the reply to Ma's letter.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but it's also true that the big invariable title above in any page of the website is "Europaregion Tirol-Südtirol/Alto Adige-Trentino". That's the best title for the article. --Checco (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That not English. English would be Euroregion or European region. It is not unusual for South Tyrol that sites, texts, maps, even official documents show a variety of names which defy simple categorization. I sent the email today, explicitly asking for the OFFICIAL NAME IN ENGLISH. Lets wait and hope someone answers soon. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have sent a second email. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Province of Bolzano/Bozen

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 no consensus Aervanath (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Coherently with Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (using "/" for alternate names of the identical place), I propose to move this article to Province of Bolzano/Bozen as "Bolzano" and "Bozen" are translations of the same term. --Checco (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support --noclador (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support, I believe this wasn't done earlier because of technical reasons. See also Biel/Bienne.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support, quoting PML. --Checco (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support "Bolzano-Bozen" makes it look as if the official name of this city is a mixture of the Italian and German variants, which is not the case. "Bolzano/Bozen" and "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" are used all the time to indicate two different languages for these same concepts, we should follow suit I believe. Furthermore, I'm not really buying the slash argument, as I'm still yet to see what technical nightmare would a slash in the title represent. Húsönd 12:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support Gryffindor (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support for the reasons given, if the discussion below doesn't come to anything.HeartofaDog (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Oh noes!! Why? Why??? The use of the slash is discouraged in article titles - see this and this. Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol has the slash just because it already has a hiphen.--Supparluca 16:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I feel that your argument is a little bit inconsistent. Hyphen and slash have different usages. Slash is generally used for alternate names. This is the case. --Checco (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    The policies you provided refer to a very different situation: they use the example of "Transportation in Azerbaijan" and "Azerbaijan/Transportation", but this obviously doesn't include a formal designation, we couldn't name the page "province of Bolzano or Bozen", that would be stupid.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    See also the name of the album "Live/Dead" from the Grateful Dead!--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    That's another sort of thing actually, an exception! But I obviously agree with the other things PML said above. --Checco (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    Anyway, we should try to avoid the slash if we can. And we can in this case (of course we should also avoid double names, but unfortunately...)--Supparluca 15:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Supparluca Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Pick one name, please; one that's used in English. If both variants are equally used in English (are they?), work on creating a guideline that gives preference to one of the variants and use it consistently throughout the articles about the provinces of Italy. No matter whether it's a slash or a hypen, using double names in article titles is just ridiculous.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:29, February 24, 2009 (UTC)
    Well, it's obviously more common than you think: I found Celerina/Schlarigna and Biel/Bienne and there's no doubt there are others like this around. And, it's not relevant to this proposal. If you want to remove one of the names you should create a new discussion.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    OK, you've found two more (I am not going to emphasize the fact that those two are actually official names, which is not the case with "Provincia autonoma di Bolzano"), and maybe if you look hard enough you'll find what... a dozen or so more? Compare that to the thousands and thousands of titles which use only one variant, even though they can, technically, use two (or even more!). Just because there are other articles which were unfortunate to be double-titled does not mean this silly practice needs to proliferate. While you are right that the double title is not relevant to this particular proposal, I am in no position to start a new discussion, as, not being too informed about Italian provinces, I cannot suggest a workable alternative. I am, however, fairly well-informed about the Wikipedia naming conventions, and having a double title flies right in the face of WP:UE, among other things, not to mention the confusion this situation creates for our readers. We have redirects available just for the cases when multiple titles are possible; all that needs to be done is to come to terms as to which naming scheme should be used as primary, is all. The bottom line—I am going to oppose any move proposal of this, or any other double-titled article, unless that proposal resolves the double-titling situation. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, February 25, 2009 (UTC)
    Italians oppose "Bozen", German-speaking South Tyroleans oppose "Bolzano". Both say that "their term" is most used in English (I'm not an Italian, but I also believe that "Bolzano" is most used in English, after some research at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC). The only possible compromise is a title including both "Bolzano" and "Bozen". As the hyphen is not correct, we should use the slash. That's the issue and that is why your vote is not relevant to our discussion, although I agree in principle with your comments about double names. --Checco (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    OT: Checco you're not Italian? Your user page says you're from Padua…?--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    I'm Venetian and that's it. Ask to South Tyroleans and you'll have the same answer, even if they are Italian citizens and they hold an Italian passport. --Checco (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    I guess I cannot understand why this is a problem. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that "Bozen" and "Bolzano" are equally used in English (i.e., 50/50 exactly). Since the former is German and the latter is Italian, and we are talking about an Italian province (albeit with a significant German-speaking population), is it not trivial to conclude that Italian name should take priority? If this were a German subdivision with the same situation, then the German name would have been used. Why is that so difficult to agree upon? What if there were three names involved? Would the compromise be "Province of XXX/YYY/ZZZ"? Am I the only one who sees this as ridiculous?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, February 25, 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with you, but I'm sure that others don't. --Checco (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    No, it's not ridiculous and trivial. Otherwise, you can try to move Lleida to Lerida, bringing forward the argument that we're dealing with a city located in Spain. I predict that you will fail :-) --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with Ezhiki, but I also like and support the current compromise, let alone the hyphen which is definitely incorrect as "Bolzano" and "Bozen" are alternative names for the same place. --Checco (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Is "Lleida" the name most commonly used in English in reference to the city? If so, it should stay where it is. If there is no clearly defined English name, is the current one in line with the naming conventions/practices agreed upon for Spain in general or Catalonia in particular? If so, the article should stay where it is. Only if "Lleida" fails both of these conditions, I would advocate moving it to "Lerida" (on the grounds that it is located in Spain) or developing a naming guideline that would allow for dealing with such situations. Any other reasoning is mere stubborness and ILIKEITism and yes, it would fall under "ridiculous and trivial" in my book.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:50, February 26, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose and comment. Bolzano is probably more common for the city (which is why it is there), but the Province is much less widely discussed. Both names are official under the Italian Republic, which is civilized of them, but leaves us with a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    A comment, if I may. I work extensively on the administrative divisions of Russia, and similar situations are not at all uncommon there. In almost every republic of Russia, there is an official language in addition to Russian, which means that every place gets two or more official names, each of which is romanized in a different manner. A guideline accepted within WP:RUSSIA is to always romanize from Russian (unless there is already an unquestionable English equivalent, like "Moscow"), because Russian is the only language official on the whole territory of the country. I don't see any reasons why this same approach would not work for Italy—if a place has an established name in English, use it, otherwise use whatever the place is called in Italian. Not only this approach solves the problem with double titles, but it also prevents quite a bit of bickering and moving stuff around in the future.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:47, February 25, 2009 (UTC)
    "Province of Bolzano" would be fine for me, but here we are not talking about this, but simply about using the hyphen or the slash... As long as the title includes both "Bolzano" and "Bozen", the slash is more correct as the two are alternative names for the same place. --Checco (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    The problem being that several of the places are (still) normally called in English under their German names (Brixen is probably the clearest example) and for many of these hamlets, English usage is not clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Attention please! Very important note! We are talking exclusively about a hyphen and a slash here on this talk page. Thank you! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, and I oppose the use of slashes in article titles unless absolutely necessary, and I would prefer to pick one of the two names of this Province rather than mixing them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)"
  5. Oppose per various objections to parallel naming patterns as noted at length at Talk:Shatt al-Arab#Requested move. I understand that there are objections to this argument to the effect of "choose between a hyphen and a slash", but if there is no consensus in favor of the proposed title, I don't think it would be appropriate to move the page, and I object to the proposed title. Dekimasuよ! 14:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per WP:SLASH. Use of slashes is discouraged and no compelling reason to use a slash over a hyphen. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. We are not Italian speakers, we are not German speakers, this is the English WP. Here is a website that calls it "Autonomous Province of Bolzano" in English, and then states that it is also "Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano/Autonome Provinz Bozen".[8] I would recommend renaming to Province of Bolzano, as that appears to be what it is called in English. The UN clearly uses Province of Bolzano,[9] more commonly followed by (Bozen) than /Bozen.[10] 199.125.109.102 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    I would support both "Province of Bolzano" and "Province of Bolzano (Bozen)". --Checco (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    @ 199.125.109.102 as you say: there is a website that calls it "Autonomous Province of Bolzano"... a site completely unrelated to the province... maybe you want to look a bit closer at the provincial governments site and see what name the province itself uses in English: South Tyrol everywhere and at the bottom "Official site of the Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano - South Tyrol". also Checco you know well enough that "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" was a compromise and "Province of Bolzano" was rejected. There is no reason to open the entire debate anew, unless you want to spend another year to come to the same conclusion as the one reached last time... --noclador (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Click on any of the provinz.bz.it links and you will see that they are available in Italian versions and German versions, each using either "Autonome Provinz Bozen" (German) or "Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano" (Italian), and a graphic at the top using both translations. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

South Tyrol

@Septentrionalis: "pick one of the two names of this Province" - if you want to open Pandoras Box - fine with me. "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" was a compromise to satisfy both the Italian and the German speakers, if you want to terminate said compromise then I am all in favor of using the by far most commonly used English name for the area: "South Tyrol". --noclador (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, what should be in South Tyrol? This province only, or the region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol? I could deal with either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
if we should do this then definitely only the province: The region is more then only South Tyrol and I find the name Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol fitting, as the region is a political, not a historical entity, there is no English name for it and therefore in my view Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is the only name we can/should use; I would also prefer to see the Province of Trento under Trentino, but that is a completely other topic and needs to be discussed over there -> Talk:Province of Trento. So for me it is either the compromise Province of Bolzano/Bozen or if there is a majority for it I definitely prefer South Tyrol. I'm interested to know what others think. --noclador (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I oppose this solution because it is not consistent with the titles of all other 109 articles about Italian provinces (same argument for Trentino). For the same reason I oppose also a title including both "South Tyrol" and "Alto Adige". --Checco (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The solution to which would be to leave an article here solely on the Provincial Government, which can go in all the categories, and write an article on South Tyrol. I encourage all our local experts to do this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Septentrionalis I fully support this idea. Should we have a vote on this or just proceed to split the article in 2 parts?? --noclador (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there objection to this proposal? If none shows up in 24 hours or so, I see no reason Noclador can't draft an article about South Tyrol, including everything but the present Provincial government, which should link here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right, making hasty unilateral decisions is always the best way to create consensus on a controversial topic. Like putting out a fire with gasoline.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why one asks if there is objection; this objection (I presume it is one) would be better off explaining what's wrong with having an article on the historic region of South Tyrol, which was - at least at one point - the customary English name for the area. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
On South Tyrol, you don't ask for objections. They come by themselves.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
as of now: only from you. and I'm wondering: For what reason do you object? --noclador (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I never said I was against this did I? But before I can take a position, you should let the rest of us know exactly how much you would intend to move to a new page, what you would do with the categories, and if there is another article that currently does what you have in mind, so we can use it as an example. And even if I were to agree you'd still have to open a public poll for some time before doing something that far-reaching.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need of a South Tyrol article separated from this mainly beacause almost every article about countries/subdivisions include all the information about them: geography, history, culture, politics, economy, etc. There is already History of South Tyrol for history and that's enough. --Checco (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be a pity not to take the opportunity of moving forward on the prospect of having - at last - an article on the place under its common Eng lang name.HeartofaDog (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Survey (South Tyrol)

Province of Bolzano

Province of Bolzano appears to be the name most often used in English. See, for example the UN[11], which only rarely uses Bolzano/Bozen or (more commonly) Bolzano (Bozen).[12] 199.125.109.102 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey (Province of Bolzano)
  1. Support. Appears to be the most commonly used name in English for the province. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
not even worth to debate:
Province of Bolzano is the least commonly used name in English for the province! --noclador (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You show us 2 (!) webpages and claim that Province of Bolzano appears to be the most commonly used name in English for the province? Okay, no more comments. Actually, I'd prefer the only name I've ever heard from native English speakers so far (and I know quite a few), but you may be right calling this original research and most of them were probably "victims" of the official tourism campaign :-) Province of Bolzano-Bozen is probably not the perfect solution, but at least one that finds broad acceptance. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Want to see how many times the UN uses Province of Bozen?[13] 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot, how could I? The UN are obviously the highest authority for English usage... And where did you read that I support Province of Bozen? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would expect the UN to make a good faith effort to use the correct English name for the province. Which is what we are also attempting. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I do think that we should now move the article. The consensus is clear (4 v 2, as Ezhiki's vote is not relevant to our discussion) and it's evident that the new name would me more correct (in line with similar cases, as PML pointed out). Can someone ask an administrator to do the move? --Checco (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not discard my vote so easily; I have exactly the same rights to participate in this as anyone else. The closing admin is hereby granted the right to interpret my oppose as one based on the opposition to needlessly using slashes in the article titles (here, it's relevant now). At any rate, even 4:2 is hardly a consensus (67% support is well below any consensus rate I've seen, not to mention that the total number of votes cast so far is laughable).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:01, February 25, 2009 (UTC)
This is a techical issue: a discussion over an hyphen or a slash... --Checco (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Am I understanding this correctly, it is called the Province of Bolzano from the Italian, and the Province of Bozen from the German, but it is never called Bolzano/Bozen? Is there an English translation of Bolzano from Italian or an English translation of Bozen from German? Google translates Bozen from German into Bolzano in English. How about using Province of Bolzano? Why does this argument occur for the province but not for Bolzano, which is also known as Bozen in German? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe this request for change of replacing a - with a / is harmless and purely technical, Checco's request seems logical. Gryffindor (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So why don't you vote in favor of it? --Checco (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For everyone not familiar with South Tyrol: the question arises because, while the province has been part of Italy for 90 years and Bolzano itself is ~80% Italophone, the rest of the province is not, and by far. According to the last official stats the percentage of German-speakers in the whole province is around two thirds of the total, with the Italian-speakers making up one fourth.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who say "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" is not official

It is official, and is the preferred term for refering to the political entity (the province). In any other case South Tyrol is widespread, but when dealing with the province itself that's the right title, according to the Civic Network of South Tyrol[14], and Britannica (can't link it because Britannica is blacklisted).--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

PML got it right. Yes, that's the official name. Official name includes a slash. --Checco (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Just because they use Bolzano/Bozen in a couple of places does not indicate whether it is official or not. In fact most of the website, such as this page[15] uses both "Autonome Provinz Bozen" and "Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano" at the top, and depending on which language you are viewing, only one of the two at the bottom, and for the title of the page (at the top of the browser window). 199.125.109.102 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (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.

Pre-Tolomei Italian name?

What was the official/unofficial designation of Südtirol in the Italian language before Tolomei came up with "Alto Adige"? It seems likely it did have one when there's even an Italian name for Kärnten and Bayern.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Province of Bolzano/Bozen with its current borders is a product of the First World War + Italian legislation of the 20ies and late 40ies. So you will hardly find an Italian name for a political entity that didn't exist before. It was just a part of Tirolo. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
until 1918 it was one political entity called Tirol: Nordtirol, Südtirol, Osttirol and Welschtirol were not political entities, but names given to the parts of Tirol: north of the Brenner, south of the Brenner, east of Toblach and the Italian part of Tyrol respectively.
In the Treaty of London (1915) the Entente and Italy called the areas to be annexed by Italy: Trentino and Cisalpine Tyrol. From March 1st, 1921 the area was officially named: Venezia Tridentina (South Tyrol and Trentino together) and the name Alto Trentino was used unofficially for the area of South Tyrol. On January 1st, 1927 the province of Bolzano was created, but the name Alto Adige was used for the area in all publications in Italy since August 23rd, 1923, as Tolomei forbade on that day the use of the word Tirol, Südtirol, Südtiroler and Deutschtirol and all variations thereof. On January 1st, 1948 the name Trentino-Alto Adige was introduced by article 116 of the Italian constitution - the first time Alto Adige was officially used to describe the area.
As for the name before 1918: Südtirol, südliches Tirol, Süd Tyrol, and variations were the names in use to describe the area south of the Brenner in all languages: German [16], English [17], French [18], Russian [19] and also in Italian [20]. As for the political name: all was Tyrol and below that there were only the Bezirke (compressori); namely: Ampezzo, Borgo, Bozen, Brixen, Bruneck, Cavalese, Cles, Imst, Innsbruck, Kitzbühl, Kufstein, Landeck, Lienz, Meran, Mezolombardo, Primiero, Reutte, Riva, Rovereto, Schwaz, Tione, Trient (names taken 1:1 from the 1910 Austrian Local names dictionary). I hope that answers your question. --noclador (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, but I still have a couple of questions. I can't examine the Russian results, but the only widely accepted terms (that is, returning a sizable amount of contextualized results) among those you reported were "Südtirol" for German (as I expected) and "South Tyrol" in English. "Südtirol", with or without the umlauts, returns results in French, English and Italian only in German language excerpts from books in the relative language. For English you already provided a valid translation. For French it was easy, I just had to search for "Sud du Tyrol" in the same timespan. A more specific "Tyrol du Sud" also worked. The problem was, you guessed it, with Italian. I tried "Sud Tirolo", "Sudtirolo", "Tirolo del Sud", "Sud del Tirolo"; actually, anything I could think of apart from the anachronistic "Alto Adige", but none of them returned a definitive answer, they all seem to be relatively unknown to the search engine. This could be just because the system has more English/German/French books indexed, it would be quite normal after all. If that's indeed the case, is there any trustable historical source, which would necessarily need to be neutral (that is, pre-war and non-fascist) that could be used as a authoritative reference? Again, thank you very much for your time.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"tirolo tedesco" brings 589 results and "tirolo meridionale" 655 results; some examples: [21] or [22] and [23]. --noclador (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
"tirolo italiano" 664 results, --noclador (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Almost, but not quite: "tirolo italiano" is Welschtirol, "tirolo meridionale" referred to the then-official denomination of the southernmost part of the County of Tyrol (the same goes, historically, for Südtirol). "Tirolo tedesco" is the closest of the three, but includes all of what was later known as German Tyrol, including the modern Land Tirol.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did Wilhelm Dilthey die?

Take a look here please for an interesting puzzle. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You won't need to mull over it that much. He died in Seis am Schlern in Austria-Hungary, just like Sergei Eisenstein was born in Riga in the Russian Empire, and Ségolène Royal was born in Dakar, in the French West Africa.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I see. They even got Hitler right. Perhaps I find some more examples. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Archaic names

IPs have added to most commune articles archaic names in 2007... I tried to reference them today and they were all BOGUS!! checking the edit history I found them to be inserted by IPs from the 71.10 range and the 192.45 and Icsunonove (i.e [24], [25], [26], [27]) - none of this "archaic" "names" is referenced, none of them can be found in other sources - they are a bunch of bad faith additions - we need to delete them all! I began, but we need to go through all commune and location articles and throw out all names, which are not properly referenced!! and we need to do this asap, as it is unacceptable that for almost two years now invented names have been spread by wikipedia! --noclador (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You really are a jerk Noclador. Ranting and accusing me of bad faith edits? They were most certainly not. The (referenced) terms are on Italian wikipedia, and I merely brought them over to English wikipedia, because I found them quite interesting. IT Wiki references AA.VV., Nomi d'Italia. Novara, Istituto Geografico De Agostini, 2004. Perhaps now you can rant awhile on this reference too, remove it from Italian wikipedia, and clean all the names from there too. It certainly shows once again your absolute obsession to remove anything non-Germanic. But, please, go ahead, "cleanse" everything you can. Icsunonove (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of appearing ignorant. What exactly were the archaic names? All I noticed was the usual change of order between adW and ssdv, what did I miss?--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
He wants any record of the original Latin and Ladin names erased; that is what you missed. :) Icsunonove (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Our investigations showed that most of these data were factually wrong. Please don't insert data you found on other Wikipedias citing books that you have never read. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

South Tyrol (disambiguation)

This discussion is about the question whether "South Tyrol" merits a disambiguation page or not:

No, this isn't at all what the discussion is about. The question is whether "South Tyrol" should point to the disambiguation page or to "Province of…". I was the one who added the dab link to the main page, so if you think this is the issue you're obviously mistaken. The argument you presented for pointing the redirect to the dab are erroneous: Tibet extends well beyond China, and Taiwan (state) is not formed only by Taiwan (island). South Tyrol and Province of… on the other hand, describe in their current usage exactly the same entity down to the millimetre. A disambiguation is needed because the historic usage was very different, as highlighted by the current version. For the South Tyrolean culture, there's not even a stub about it yet, so what is there to disambiguate?
In my view the South Tyrol should point to the disambiguation page. Nobody is looking for the "Province of Bolzano-Bozen"; people are looking either for South Tyrol or Alto Adige. The most common term people are looking for is South Tyrol (or Südtirol); so I think that there must be a disambiguation page. As it is now we have this not very enjoyable compromise of using a name which a) nobody knows and b) is absolutely not the most commonly used; i.e. Province of Bolzano: 5,780, Province of Bozen: 407, Province of Bolzano-Bozen: 859; whereas Alto Adige 150,000, South Tyrol 206,000 (yep, every correct google search (meaning “–Trentino” to avoid false duplicates which refer to the region of T/AA-ST) will always show, that South Tyrol is much more commonly used than Alto Adige) – on a side note: this is also because the tourism authority always advertises with “South Tyrol” in English speaking countries (the only organization that goes for “Alto Adige” is the wine consortia), and most English publications also use South Tyrol The Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, International Association of Athletics Federations, New York Magazine, Nature, New York Times. In short I think we need the disambiguation page to explain to people, why they are being redirected to an article titled "Province of Bolzano-Bozen". Also: I think we need an article about South Tyrolean culture (I will write it myself, when I find the time), as the culture here has developed into a culture still very close to the Bavarian/Austrian culture, but with many and strong influences by the Italian culture. --noclador (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Noclador, should I remind you that currently we don't have any article named South Tyrol or Alto Adige? If you meant that as part of the wider naming dispute, it's out of the scope of this thread: the question is: should we have "South Tyrol" redirect to the dab page? In this case, from what should it be disambiguated?--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, if your only concern about this is clarifying, I reworded the main page dab link, styling it after the Taiwanese page.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia :Naming conventions

On June I suggested on the talkpage of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) to amend the naming convention section about the Province of Bolzano-Bozen; namely to drop the google searches for a “most common English name” as i.e. a search for Meran/Merano yields tens of thousands of erroneous results and therefore I suggested that articles about villages/cities should placed according to the language of the linguistic majority, without exception and debate and not subject to arbitrary google searches every other year…
As there was little discussion about my suggestion and no opposition I wanted to amend the section today, but only then saw that before amending this section a note should be left here. Therefore I refrained from amending the section and would like to invite anyone, who wants to give his opinion about my suggestion to go to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen and express his opinions about the suggested changes. --noclador (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation policy

There has recently been a move to change the rules on disambiguation tags, and some input would be appreciated on how to tag names of places in the region. The main thrust is that it abolishes the (BZ) suffix, and there seems to be clear support for this. It has been suggested that given the issues surrounding Bol?z[ae]no?, the unwieldy region name, and the region only having two provinces to begin with, it would be better to use province names rather than region names for BZ and TN. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Language

The region is not exactely historically German speaking and all the words must be used in the Italian way as warded by the Italian Costitution. Besides how can Ötztal Alps be an English term?Is Ö an english alphabet letter?ALL the words concerning the Region Trentino Aledto Adige must be corrected as indicated by The Italian Costitution, here an xample: "ARTICOLO 116 DELLA COSTITUZIONE ITALIANA": L'articolo 116 della Costituzione della Repubblica italiana recita: "La Regione Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol è costituita dalle Province autonome di Trento e di Bolzano". L'Ente pertanto utilizza in tutti i suoi atti la doppia denominazione "Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano - Alto Adige" (ufficialmente tradotto in tedesco nella forma "Autonome Provinz Bozen - Südtirol") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyempire09 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oke i won't try to correct any more, every time i try you, the admins, bring back to the previous wrong versions. I'm aware that wikipedia is an unreliable encyclopaedia, incomplete, erroneous and tendentious and the admins are stupid and arrogant, mostly when provided supports. I think it's because this is the Wikipedia's business. Here some the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_further_tunnels_by_length Milano is not the english term for Milano, indeed it's Milan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortler Ortler is not the english term for Ortles, indeed it's Ortles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen Is Ötztal Alps english?And Weißkugel? I don't see Vetta d'Italia (in german Klockerkarkopf or Glockenkarkopf). I'm sure there won't be any answer for these questions, as for all the previous questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyempire09 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please follow this link: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As argumentative as Kellyempire09 can be, I'm glad to see that this user is finally using the consensus process and addressing concerns on the appropriate talk pages rather than blindly and single-handedly changing things. Now that the matter has been brought to discussion, can anyone who reads German or Italian find anything useful at the link given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy. Apparently this document provides a survey of the local language statistics; in the absence of a preferred English name, most places should be named in the prevalent language of their inhabitants. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
And that's the actual practice. Regards, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Kellyempire09 is just a stupid italian nationalist that ignores history. South Tyrol is a german region since 1200 years. I think he should open more some history books rathern than modifying wikipedia pages. By the way in english the german names are official. And by the way here in South Tyrol no none says Ortles. everyone says ORTLER. From now on I will begin to monitoring this page so that Mr. Kellyempire09 will stop modifying the page!!! Soth Tyrol is not italian speaking region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.107.71 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Mai-Sachme is the real nationalist and he is likely an austrian fascist, too: Mr. Mai-Sachme wants to justify the austrian occupation. A quick look in a trustworthy history book will show how the now-days region of Alto-Adige was homeland of the romansh-venetian people who has always been living there. The process of germanization rised during the '700 and was forced after the 1866 in consequence of the defeat and the loss of most the invaded territories in Italy. This region was not a German region, and it was not occupied for 1200 years, isn't just reliable but historically unfair. Dear Mr. Mai-Sachme, you should know that History must not be rewrite, mostly just for political campain ;D Besides the mountain Ortles is between two Italian regions, Lombardy and Trentino-Alto-Adige, as well known. In Lombardy the common term used by the local population is Ortles, the equivalent term in english used by official institution is Ortles. In Trentino-Alto-Adige the common term used by the italian speaking local population is Ortles, Ortler by the austrian speaking local population, and the equivalent term in english used by official institution is Ortles, as i proved. How can consider realiable "Ortler" as a correct english word? How can consider realiable "Soth Tyrol is not italian speaking region"? I think wikipedia shouldn't be a blog for debating and abusing by racists users but a free encyclopedia open to everyone who wants to know.

What you wrote is not true. Just open a history book: what you are writing is a non-sense! This region never wanted to be italian. If you are a frustrated, italian nationalist is your problem. Ortler is the correct name, as Ortler is a south tyrolean mountain. Call things with their name!!! --Sp4rr0W (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know how common the Italian use of the term "sudtirolo" is? I think perhaps its also a common alt. to the italian alto-adige. There is also very little mention of the role language and mutli-lingualism plays in the Ladin community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.148.55 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. SudTirolo is also common as it is more "politically correct". It is currently used in newspapers, from politicians and also from people. --Sp4rr0W (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In the rest of Italy the inhabitants of our province are usually called "sudtirolesi". Sudtirolesi is a lot more frequent than altoatesini. Often the inhabitants of the whole region are also wrongly identified as "trentini". The region is split into two provinces (Bolzano and Trento), and only the latter should be identified as trentini while the former are sudtirolesi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajoch (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do they refer to the provinces in Quebec by their English names only? Why is the German name of Bozen not used with Bolzano. It should be as it is in Italy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.23.111 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of this page is still wrong

Why do you continue to use this wrong name? As stated on the english version of the local administratior, our land is called: "Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano - South Tyrol" This is the correct name in english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.104.136 (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I can confirm it. I just sent an email and got replies from local administration offices. The official english name is Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano - South Tyrol For cities and places, the german version is used in english

Ortler is the English translation of the German. English is a Germanic language. End of story. The majority language of the provice is German WITH the approval of the Italian Govt. and the local community. Deal with it! I suggest that all names be given in German first and then the Italian version provided as a second option. A few cities however have Italian majorties like the capital and Merano/Meran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.148.55 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to tell to everyone that an anonymous user (but I think we all know that it was Mr. Kellyempire09 or one of his friends) modified my comment...

--Sp4rr0W (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION, ADMIN PLEASE READ

I just wanted to let you know that on facebook there is group called "ALTO ADIGE IS NOT "SUD TIROL"", a group lead by italian neo-fascists that invite users to come here and on Orlter article page, to modify the pages

Is it possible to lock the page so that only registered users can modify it? --Sp4rr0W (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PAGE LOCK PROPOSAL

Hi all, i'm really sad and really bored about Kellyempire and all of his friends coming here to vandalize this page and the article's page. I would like to propose to lock this pages and made them editable only by administrator. Is that possible? Can we propose that?

The same happened also on Ortler page and other pages about South Tyrol. We need your help administrators! --Sp4rr0W (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Alto Adige is not the translation of Haut-Adige

This article incorrectly states that Alto Adige is a translation of Haut-Adige. It is rather the equivalent of Haut-Adige, since the usage of naming the departments upon the main river was taken from France. However, in the Kingdom of Italy ruled by Napoleon, the admistrative language was Italian and 'Alto Adige' has been used since 1810. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.149.32 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This false claim has to be corrected: Napoleon called the area around Trento and up till Bolzano/Bozen Haut Adige, while the majority of South Tyrol was part of Bavière. Tolomei introduced the name Alto Adige only in 1910 to denote the province of South Tyrol and conceal the tyrolean affiliation of this area.--Sajoch (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

English names

"...also referred to as Alto Adige and South Tyrol in English". Does that imply, that "Alto Adige" is also an english name (which it is not), or does that imply that other variants like "Southern Tyrol" or "Südtirol" are not used (which is also wrong: Trivago is only one evidence of this fact)? So either we itemize only the english names for South Tyrol, or we list all used names.--Sajoch (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

People also may say "I go to München", but that doesn't make "München" an english name - the englich name is still "Munich". The same way "Alto Adige" is italian and only italian, while "Südtirol" is german and "South Tyrol" or "Southern Tyrol" are english names. I changed that accordingly.--Sajoch (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You are incorrect with what you are saying. Alto Adige is used in English, just as San Francisco is used in English. but is not literally Saint Francis. Go to BBC, go to many American winery websites, they use Alto Adige. You have to understand that English absorbs many foreign words. South Tyrol is indeed used in English, Southern Tyrol is very rarely used to describe this province. Now, I don't know if you are simply trying to erase the use of Alto Adige in English, or you have honest (but ignorant) intentions. I think you should really study a bit more before erasing things. If in doubt, leave MORE information, always... the text is very inexpensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
For example Italian ski resort wants to move. Now, it would be very appreciated if you stop saying that Alto Adige is not used in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
(You should sign in!). The article is about "The Province of Bolzano-Bozen", and in parenthesis are the alternative names in the various languages: "Alto Adige" is italian, "Südtirol" is german and "South Tyrol" is english. What one may use is up to them: if american vintners use the italian name or norvegians prefer the german name I don't care. I didn't try to erase the use of "Alto Adige" (which in fact is an imposed name and thus an affront to most inhabitants of this province).
As of "common usage", I have to add, that "Alto Adige" is often used by foreigners due to the fact, that it is the name reported on most maps (a histrical hangover - but that's a long discussion). Wikipedia uses (or should use) the english names, where they exist, or the names used by (the majority of) the inhabitans (which are 70% native german speakers).
Southern Tyrol is used, albeit seldom - but that's not a reason not to mention it.--Sajoch (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Checco: why use the unwieldy province of Bolzano-Bozen, when there exists a widely used English name South Tyrol that is adequately substantiated? See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Italy. Are you perhaps trying to conceal the tyrolean origins and affiliation of this province? --Sajoch (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, for sure: I am even in favor of South Tyrolean independence from Italy! Anyway, "province of Bolzano-Bozen" is the official name and the title of the article. We long discussed about that. I don't support "Alto Adige" as article's title either, even if it is widely used in English and especially in the United States.
As I wrote on 30 January 2008 on this talk: Recently I had the opportunity to do some research at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, which is one of the most comprehensive libraries in the world. Remembering of our long discussions on the best title for this article, I took a look at several geographical atlases to see what expression was most used in the Anglo-Saxon world. I was surprised to understand that no atlas used "Bozen", as they all used either "Province of Bolzano", "Bolzano" or "Alto Adige", when dealing with our dear province. In particular, everyone can look at The Times Atlas of the World and find out that in Plate 76 (Tenth Comprehensive Edition, 1999) the province is named "Bolzano". --Checco (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I just want to note: That is so because atlasses usually use local samples. In this case: They just copy Italian atlasses without doing any research regarding small provinces in the mountains wheter there might be an alternative name :-) --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a remark. It's not only the American vintners who use "Alto Adige". It's the "Export Organization South Tyrol of the Chamber of Commerce of Bolzano/Bozen" that uses Alto Adige [28]. This organisation is funded by the Province, which has been criticized by the Freiheitliche [29].
As to Italian atlasses: If English-speaking geographers really used them, most of the places would have bilingual names (with the Italian toponym at first place). That is how almost all Italian atlasses are published.
I think the solution we have now is a quite good compromise for the denomination of a territory hosting three quite different ethnicities.--Patavium (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That is how almost all Italian atlasses are published. No, they are not. I would know, I live there. Just have a look at a random road map or the Portale Geografico Nazionale... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You originally wrote about atlasses. Take DeAgostini, Zanichelli etc., they use both names. It's not a question where you live, but whether you have or not an Italian atlas (not of the fascist era, of course). I know (I see it in front of me). Touring Club also uses both names. If you prefer local editors, take Athesia and most names will be German.--Patavium (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, i wrote "atlasses" and meant "maps" (the same working procedure, though). I do own plenty of maps of northern Italy (all of them printed in post war times :-) and none of them mentions the German names (I see it in front of me, too). Obviously we buy our maps in differnet stores... But back to my point: I seriously doubt that American atlas-editors spend amounts of time doing research about alternative names for obscure toponyms. We've got the same situation in German. I've seen lots a maps with "Trento" instead of "Trient" and "Mantova" instead of "Mantua". They just take what they get first, and in the case of Italy, that's the Italian names. So in fact, The Times Atlas of the World's choice to use "Bolzano" for the province doesn't prove anything. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not that american vinters use "Alto Adige" (that was only an example of mine), but the EOS (which ironically stands for Export Organisation Südtirol and not Export Organisation Alto Adige) uses it for simple marketing reasons: they believed, that wine is a typical italian product and thus assumed falsely, that we would sell more wine, if we use the italian name... We shouldn't follow such insane marketing-tactics, but instead we should be more scientific and use real research.--Sajoch (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see in their minds to tell you what the vintners of South Tyrol thought. What I know is that is has already become a political issue and Die Freiheitlichen have made an interrogation to the local government (Landesregierung) on the 14th of March (not a week ago). I agree with you that Alto Adige should not be the title of the article. I am, as Checco is, for keeping "province of Bolzano-Bozen" as the title of the article. There was a long discussion about it, which had been preceeded by long-lasting edit wars. As to the Tyrolean character, I reeintroducted the sentence "and consider themselves ethnically Tyrolean", which had been erased - whyever.--Patavium (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And I removed the sentence again. I don't think that you will be able to provide valid sources for the claim that the German speaking population of South Tyrol has such unanimous thoughts about their ethnicity. Probably factually more correct - but still unsourced - would be to write that they partly consider themselves as South-Tyroleans, partly as Tyroleans, partly as Germans, partly as Austrians and partly as Italians. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I obviously cannot speak for all, but we sure call ourself Tyroleans or South-Tyroleans. While not many of us claim to be Austrians or Italians. Usually it goes like this: first we are South-Tyroleans, and second we are Europeans. Most (like me) say we are italians on the paper (citizenship) but not in our heart as our culture and traditions are tyrolean and our mother-language is german or ladin. The term (South-)Tyroleans matches 100%, while Italian denotes only our citizenship, with Austria we have most of the history in common and with Germany/Bavaria our language/dialect.--Sajoch (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Checco and Patavium to keep the title province of Bolzano-Bozen also in conformity to the other provinces. I simply asked to substitute the unwieldy bilingual province of Bolzano-Bozen, with the English name South Tyrol in the body of the article (as Gryffindor did, but Checco reverted). The naming conventions allow us to do that, and thus render the article more fluid.--Sajoch (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The US atlases I mentioned have "Apulia", "Padua", "Mantua" and... "Bolzano" or "Alto Adige". I don't agree with Sajoch on the "fluidity" argument, but I agree with him on the rest. Actually I would prefer to have the article moved to "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" to be consistent with Biel/Bienne and similar articles. In fact Bolzano and Bozen are different language names for the same city, while the hyphen is generally used to indicate places with joint names, such as Emilia-Romagna and Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Moving the article would be also, and especially, consistent with Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Would you agree? --Checco (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the point, all of them being traditionally widespread English exonyms for centuries which is not the case for a post-1918 established province. They obviously have Florence, Milan and Venice as well. But since we don't have any information about the map-editors' thoughts, this discussion is pointless.
I don't oppose to a move, but wasn't the point having this article as "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" that this is Encyclopedia Brittanica usage?--Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No, this was not the point. This is Wikipedia and "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" would be consistent with similar cases. --Checco (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move - hyphen to slash

(Deactivating this move request for the moment - the RM bot usually can't cope with two requests on the same page, and the one below seems to be garnering much more decisive support.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

movereq|multiple=yes |current1=Province of Bolzano-Bozen|new1=Province of Bolzano/Bozen|current2=Comuni of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen|new2=Comuni of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen|current3=Valleys of the province of Bolzano-Bozen|new3=Valleys of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen|current4=List of political parties in the Province of Bolzano-Bozen|new4=List of political parties in the Province of Bolzano/Bozen|current5=List of Presidents of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen|new5=List of Presidents of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen|current6=List of castles in the province of Bolzano-Bozen|new6=List of castles in the Province of Bolzano/Bozen

Province of Bolzano-Bozen → Province of Bolzano/Bozen — "Bolzano" and "Bozen" are the Italian and the German name for the same province, so we should use a slash instead of a hyphen, consistently with Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (where "Alto Adige" and "Südtirol" refer to the same province too), Biel/Bienne, Aoraki/Mount Cook, etc. I know that slashes are not popular in article's titles, but we should make use of a slash here in order not to confuse readers: "Bolzano" and "Bozen" (such as "Alto Adige" and "Südtirol") are alternative names, not combined names such as in the case of Baden-Württemberg. -- Checco (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Comments

  • Comment. The article says that The province is most commonly known in English as South Tyrol. If that's true, shouldn't the article title be South Tyrol? Especially since South Tyrol already redirects here? Dohn joe (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
That wouldn't be consistent with all the other 109 pages on Italian provinces (all under the "province of XXXXX" format) and I'm sure that many Italian-speakers would not accept it because of the absence of "Alto Adige". See past discussions at Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Naming. --Checco (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
We are here to speak English, not Italian. If Italian nationalists "would not accept it", let them go elsewhere. Nevertheless, before endorsing that solution, I should like evidence that South Tyrol now means the province, rather than the region. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
See evidence in the "Proposed alternative" section below. Dohn joe (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
@PMAnderson: You seem not to understand that without the support of what you call "Italian nationalists" (I'm not one of them of course) there won't be any changes to the article's title and we will retain the current incorrect one. --Checco (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I am reasonably content with the present title, this does not worry me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment on PMAnderson's vote. I did not understand your argument and question. The province has two names, one Italian and one German. The hyphen is highly incorrect because it may lead readers to think that Bolzano and Bozen are different concepts (such as the case of Baden-Württemberg) and not alternative names as they are. Consistency is an essential feature of an encyclopedia. That's my point and the rason why I proposed the move. --Checco (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth. the English version of the Italian constitution (linked to from Italian Constitution) refers to the autonomous provinces of Trent and Bolzano. So perhaps Province of Bolzano and Province of Trent? (I don't think South Tyrol is specific enough - it refers to a general region, not necessarily to this exact province.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The former Southern Tyrol included also todays province of Trent, but todays South Tyrol is exactly the same as the province of Bolzano/Bozen. For the use of Trent instead of Trento, please discuss it on the page about Trento.--Sajoch (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
How does a translation of the Italian constitution define English usage? And nowadays, as Sajoch pointed it out, South Tyrol/Südtirol/Sudtirolo are precise synonyms to the province. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: change the name to South Tyrol

Please note that this proposal is being discussed formally in the #Requested move section below - please consider adding new comments there rather than here.--Kotniski (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Move to South Tyrol. Both the current and proposed titles are inadequate, matching neither "official" nor common usage in any language. I appreciate the attempt to include both Italian and German versions of the province, but the resulting mishmash is misleading and unwieldy - especially when there is an acceptable English alternative: South Tyrol. I understand the point about consistency - the other Italian provinces are titled Province of XXXX - but that's because they're all (I believe) named after a city of the same name, and need to be distinguished. Here, "South Tyrol" already redirects to this article, and does not need to be disambiguated. As for which language to use, we already have Province of Mantua, Province of Milan, Province of Florence, etc., so using the common English name for Italian provinces is already widespread.

    As for evidence of WP:COMMONNAME, see these Google Books results: 460 for "Province of Bolzano~Bozen" (which includes all combinations thereof, including hyphens, slashes, and parentheses); 478 for "Province of Bozen"; 3,000 for "Province of Bolzano" -Bozen; and 39,700 for "South Tyrol". "South Tyrol" is the best name - it avoids the Italian/German debate, and it's the name that people use most often in English for the province. (For evidence that "South Tyrol" does refer to the province, and not the larger region, see the Google Books results for "province of South Tyrol"). Dohn joe (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the reasons exposed above and because, differently from what you think, your proposal would inflame the Italian/German debate. We had long been through this before, as you may see in previous discussions. Moreover there are many Italian provinces which have alternative names, but on each of them the "Province of XXXXX" format was upheld. The official name of the province in English is "Province of Bolzano" (see Autonomy Statute in English), but we reached a consensus on having both "Bolzano" and "Bozen" in the title. We erroneously used the hyphen instead of the much more appropriate slash, but since then we haven't been able to overcome that mistake. Consensus would hardly be reached on "South Tyrol" and we should acknowledge that. I hope you will understand it too, withdraw your proposal and support the current proposed move. It is a small step forward (as "Bolzano-Bozen" is evidently incorrect) and I hope you will help us to take it. We could then discuss on bigger changes to the article's title, but first let us correct the current one. --Checco (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please tell me one single province with an alternative name that is more used than its official one :-) And I don't think that this proposal will inflame the Italian/German debate. Actually, it won't. It seems pretty calm to me since Taalo/Icsunonove left us. And by the way, there is no such thing as an official English version of the Autonomy Statute... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Without any doubts South Tyrol is the most common English name for the province. And it is used by the province itself on its official website: [30]. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but. I would also support the move to South Tyrol for the above reasons. If that isn't possible, we should at least correct the error in the present title inserting the slash. There's one more problem using South Tyrol instead of province of XX: some templates assume the name starts with province of ..., so this may lead to a wrong syntax in e.g. comuni of the + South Tyrol. That's also the reason why I suggested to leave the title province of... but substitute the name in the rest of the article with South Tyrol.--Sajoch (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sajoch is right. I oppose "South Tyrol", but the only title I really hate is the current one. I could even accept "Province of South Tyrol" (or "Province of Alto Adige/Südtirol"), but, as long as we don't find agreement on a bigger change, we should correct the hyphen with the slash (as highlighted by Sajoch and Ian Spackman, it is a mistake – and a big one). Why don't you, Mai-scheme, support this small change for now? --Checco (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
No, PMAnderson there esists no Region of South Tyrol. South Tyrol is only and exactly the province of Bolzano/Bozen, nothing more, and nothing less. The region is called Trentino-South Tyrol.--Sajoch (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not what Professor Alcock says; do you have a source? The implicit claim that Trent, in the former Welschtirol, is not Tyrolean would be an extraordinary claim, requiring substantial evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the claim is that Trent is not Tyrolean; rather, I think that while the region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol can properly be described as "southern Tyrol", with a lowercase "s", "South Tyrol" generally refers to the province created by Italy after WWI. This ngram shows that while "Tyrol" has been around for a long time, "South Tyrol" first appeared in numbers after WWI (the same is true, incidentally, for "Alto Adige", and "Südtirol". This view that "South Tyrol" is a modern invention is backed up here, among other sources. Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
But that is not to the point. Both Trento and Bolzano were in the Austrian Tyrol in 1913; both were in Italy in 1920. The distinctive name South Tyrol applies to annexed territory, and was not used as an administrative term before; so far so good. What is claimed here is that the Trentino is not in the South Tyrol, and I see no evidence of that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
An (imperfect) analogy would be Virginia and West Virginia. At one time, Virginia's territory included what today is West Virginia. Both before and after the split, "west Virginia" could be used descriptively for the western part of "greater Virginia", but "West Virginia" was seldom used before the split, and now is used almost exclusively to refer to the new state. Similarly, "south Tyrol" always has included Trentino, just like "west Virginia" has always included Roanoke; but "South Tyrol" generally refers to the new administrative unit carved out of southern Tyrol. If you look at Google Books results for "region of south tyrol", you'll see that there are few results, and none before WWI - and those results generally refer to the current province that is at issue, not Trentino.

All this is to say - Trentino is in south Tyrol, but is not in South Tyrol. Dohn joe (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Doe john. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
We should distinguish between todays South Tyrol (which matches the province of Bolzano/Bozen) and the former Southern part of Tyrol: Tyrol once included the province of Trento, the province of Bolzano/Bozen, the austrian Bundesländer Tyrol and Ost-Tirol. So fomer Southern Tyrol and todays South Tyrol are not the same--Sajoch (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea with the ngram viewer. Pretty clear results... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Pretty clear in fact: the use of "South Tyrol" is declining, whil that of "Alto Adige" is almost stable. --Checco (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Everyone sees what he wants to see... Pretty clear is that you don't understand how the ngram-viewer works, the graphs don't represent absolute numbers but ratios. So the use of South Tyrol is by no means declining, just the ratio regarding the appearance in all publications available on Google Books is changing. But we can "repair" the wrong impression by adjusting the smoothing [31] --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I perfectly understood that and other users will. Playing with smoothing is fine (50), but that is not the point I want to make. My point is that we should find a title for the article with no orthographic errors in it. That's why I'm interested in having an open discussion and I just proposed that below. As an editor I dislike errors and inconsistencies, and that's it. --Checco (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, so your statement the use of "South Tyrol" is declining was just a joke. My apologies. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting, playing with this ngram viewer: this graph shows, that Alto Adige didn't exist before 1910, and South Tyrol still is by far the dominant name for this province.--Sajoch (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the title, to get a more methodical discussion about that issue. Filippo83 (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's have an open choice

I'm very sorry for the votes given by PMAnderson, Dohn joe and Mai-Scheme because the choice here is not between "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" and "South Tyrol", but between "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" and "Province of Bolzano/Bozen". Why don't we move the article to "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" (with a slash instead of the wrong hyphen: an option supported also by Mai-Scheme in 2009) and then have a final referendum between "Province of Bolzano/Bozen", "South Tyrol" and whatever other opinion. If no option wins at the first round, we should have then a second round among the most voted options. --Checco (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Background

The question of the name is very delicate. In my opinion, Alto Adige/Südtirol would refer to the geographical region, while Provincia di Bolzano/Provinz Bozen to the administrative body. There is anyway some confusion about, since both two forms are used either. If we get a look to the Italian Wikipedia page, we see that the official name would be:

  • Italian: Provincia autonoma di Bolzano - Alto Adige
  • German: Autonome Provinz Bozen - Südtirol
  • Ladin: Provinzia Autonòma de Balsan/Bulsan - Südtirol

thus we see that both are used. But if we get a look at the page of the province council we see:

  • Italian: Consiglio della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano
  • German: Südtiroler Landtag
  • Ladin: Cunsëi dla Provinzia autonoma de Bulsan

here we see that Italian and Ladin speakers prefer to use Province of Bolzano/Bulsan, while German speakers favourite Südtirol.

About the origin of the names Alto Adige/Südtirol and Welschtirol:

  • Alto Adige should come from the Napoleonic era, when Bolzano/Bozen was annexed for a few years to the Kingdom of Italy; at that time, all the departments of the Kingdom (the nowadays provinces) had a different name from their chief town; today, all the Italian provinces are indicated by their chief town, as on the car plates (Bolzano/Bozen is BZ);
  • Südtirol is a modern name, to indicate the German-speaking area cut off the Austrian Tyrol, so Alto Adige or Trentino were used more often after 1919 (or even after 1947); between 1815 and 1919, there was a unique Tyrol which extendend from Innsbruck to Trento, and Trento-Bolzano/Bozen region was indicated in the Italian books both as Italian Tyrol or Venezia Tridentina.
  • Welschtirol is used as the German name for Trentino, but I do not think it is a successfull name even for the ones who would support the retunr to a united Tyrol (the Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party and the Trentino Tyrolean People's Party seem not to usually use the name); remember that, before 1805, Tyrol included Bolzano/Bozen, but most part of Trentino was a separate body.

Filippo83 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ciao Filippo, thanks for taking part in this discussion. I have two considerations: First, I guess a split of this page between the administrative body and the geographical region would represent what we call a POV fork. Both South Tyrol and province of Bolzano/Bozen are used as complete synonyms. I guess a similar case would be the creation of an article Italian Republic and an article for the geographical-cultural area Italy. Secondly, I seriously doubt your claim that Ladin speakers prefer to use Province of Bolzano/Bulsan. For example the ministry for Ladin culture and education uses Südtirol. But you could also ask the two native Ladin speakers present on this discussion page: Moroderen and Sajoch. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I meant in the web page of the Council of the Authonomous Province: in the official name, you see, there is Südtirol for Ladin name too. But, if we use Südtirol, we should use as well Alto Adige: Italian speakers (a minority in the province, about 30%; but about 75% of the inhabitants in Bolzano/Bozen, and 50% in Merano/Meran) like more this name. There is also the Italian name Sudtirolo, or Tirolo Meridionale (South Tyrol!) but it is less used: it is more likely that I use Sudtirolo, just to point out that I do not support nationalistic claims over Alto Adige and against German-speaking people, but it is my position. So, I am not against Südtirol, just I like to be precise and distinguish between it and the Province: I would like to see as well an article about the Italian region out of the one about Italian Republic, I think that they are different things. But it is my opinion. -- Filippo83 (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
In this case we go by the most commonly used name in English, which without a doubt is "South Tyrol". It was also the original name of this article before it was moved in a sham vote by User:Icsunonove, who was blocked for his behaviour. Gryffindor (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an over-simplification of what happened. We have gone through very long discussions, and at some point also you, Mai-Scheme and other users supported the move to "Province of Bolzano/Bozen". How did you change idea? The article's history is not on your side, but I will obviously respect a new consensus even if I will find it ill-judged and POV. I disagree with you and many editors here, but I have not much time to challenge all the inaccuracies I read in the present talk and, of course, I respect the consensus principle. --Checco (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was great that we finally stopped talking about the motivations of other users. But since you are insisting: Back in 2007 I supported South Tyrol as you can see in the archive. In 2009 I favoured a move to province of Bolzano/Bozen, because it was typographical more correct than the current article title. But now, since we have South Tyrol as an option (which wasn't the case in 2009), I don't see a reason why I should still support a barely used name for the province. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Checco: please don't pollute this discussion with false claims: the vote in 2007 was 18 for South Tyrol and 3 votes for Province of Bolzano-Bozen. I still can't understand how Icsunonove was able to push his opinion despite the clear outcome of the voting. It's high time to straighten that out.--Sajoch (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
[replying to Mai-Sachme’s earlier comment] I don’t see a POV-fork issue at all; Milton Keynes (borough) and Milton Keynes urban area may are rather dull articles relating to Milton Keynes, but they are not POV forks: rather, they are encapsulating some rather dull but notable features of the city’s administrative and statistical organisation in a manner convenient for readers with specialist interests. I would see a probably rather brief (perhaps rather boring) article on the Italian province and statistical unit, qua Italian province and statistical unit, as a usefully focussed supplement to the broader, longer and much more interesting article on South Tyrol. By the way google, google books and google scholar seem to give very little indication of ‘Province of South Tyrol’ as a commonly used term. The province qua province is nearly referred to using the name of its capital.Ian Spackman (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ian, your camparison doesn't really work. The three Milton Keynes articles all refer to different entities with different extensions. They are not synonyms. In this case here, South Tyrol and province of Bolzano/Bozen are exact (!) synonyms and completely interchangeable. I don't think you will be able to provide a source, where these two names are interpreted differently and a whatsoever distinction is established. And we don't suggest a move to Province of South Tyrol (which would be as meaningful as Region of Tuscany), but to South Tyrol. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I found a largely comparable case: Kings County, New York and Brooklyn. --85.127.229.235 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If they were exact synonyms then there can have been no concept of South Tyrol before the creation of the Italian province, and the article History of South Tyrol would have to begin in 1919. I don’t think that would be good. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Mai-Sachme. The name "South Tyrol" is the most commonly used name, even on the homepage of the government of this autonomous province. This is a fact that cannot be disregarded, see also the sources given in the article. Gryffindor (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you confirm that the translator of the relevant bit of the website is a mother-tongue speaker of English? If not it’s not relevant. Never mind: I wasn’t really expecting open minds here and the page will go off my watchlist immediately after saving this edit. It’s a shame, though, because there are at least two excellent editors here who (I am fairly certain) hail from South Tyrol. Nevermind—gone with a light heart—Grüss Gott and Salve everyone, but life is too short to care. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything – I underline everything – Ian wrote, and especially on why we should have an article with the official name of the province and on the fact that who translated the province's website is probably not a mother-tongue English speaker (he/she is probably a German-speaker, indeed). I did not pollute the discussion with false claims and it's evident for me that there is a German-speaker's push to impose their view. Even though I am a keen supporter of the independece of the province in question, I am an independent editor and I cannot notice that fact. Please, don't bash me. Many things I read in this talk are not correct, but if a clear consensus emerges (no matter that most of the editors in this talk are German-speakers), I will respect it. "Life is too short to care" (cit.). --Checco (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Checco, again: nobody is bashing anyone here. I really enjoyed that noone speculated about other users' motives so far, which is a big improvement compared to the last years. I'd really appreciate if we could continue with that, but stating that you observe a German-speaker's push here is not helpful...
I still fail to imagine what the content of an article Province of Bolzano/Bozen should be, when we have South Tyrol... And what would be the purpose of splitting content over two articles? Brooklyn and Kings County, New York seem to work out pretty well with just one article.
And I don't think that it's helpful, when you continue repeating that Many things I read in this talk are not correct without giving us a clue, what is incorrect. The hint that the webiste translator might be of German mother tongue is, apart from being a speculation, a straw man that fails to explain these graphs. Are you seriously suggesting that 38.300 Google Books hits are all written by German language authors? And even if that was the case (by the way: it is not), how would this be an argument for Province of Bolzano/Bozen? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Also Ian recalled that. It's not POV to say that most – if not all – of you are German-speakers, because that's simply true. In fact, "noone speculated about other users' motives so far" because there are no Italian users around this time and your side is winning. The only POV thing I wrote in this discussion is that I am a keen supporter of independence for "Alto Adige/Südtirol" (obviously that won't be the name of the independent state!).
I don't want to repeat arguments I already wrote about, so if you are interested in what is incorect for me, you can read my previous posts and read previous discussions (which you know better than me).
I write only when I have new things to write about. You almost convinced me about not having this article under the "Province of XXXXX" format, but I do think that a more correct title would be "Alto Adige/Südtirol" and that Province of Trento should be moved to "Trentino" too. I will propose these moves if the current move is approved. --Checco (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that by saying: "All in favour of x are German-speakers", you are implying something, something that is incompatible with WP:AGF... Have you noticed that I declared myself as Italian on my user page (thanks to my beloved father)? And didn't I mention that Sajoch and Moroderen are both Ladins? But please, let's stop talking about this topic.
Okay, I have to admit that I still don't see, where you explained the existance of thousands of books using South Tyrol... Let's agree to disagree. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You're definitely more Italian than me! Let's stop, I said what I wanted to say. Let's agree to disagree. --Checco (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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: page moved: majority after acromonious discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Archive 3 and Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Naming

Province of Bolzano-Bozen → South Tyrol — Most commonly used name in the English language and literature and media for this region. The name "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" is original research. Gryffindor (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's even a precedence of another province not named by its capital: Province of Ogliastra in Sardinia.--Sajoch (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The original title of the article was South Tyrol, especially User:Taalo/User:Icsunonove/IP 76.89.129.139 (in the meantime repeatedly blocked) set up move request after move request, until a lot of engaged users left this discussion. However, even under those circumstances it remains quite unclear how a move to Province of Bolzano-Bozen was justified. For example, here we find a move request from march 2007, where 17 users favoured South Tyrol, while province of Bolzano was just chosen by 7 users and province of Bolzano-Bozen by 3. In the next poll from August 2007 (set up by Icsunonove, including only 10 voters) South Tyrol didn't even appear as a choice... So, in fact, the current article title is a result of a manipulated move request, set up by a well known POV-pusher during holidays. I guess, it is fully justified to revise its outcome and to check again, what the most common English name for the province is. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Mai-Sachme, and while reading the request from 2007, I see, that the vote of WLD was attributed wrong - he said: this area is known by me as the South Tyrol ... the perfectly good English name is South Tyrol. So the votes were: 18 for South Tyrol, and 6+3 for province of Bolzano(-Bozen).--Sajoch (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Checco, please read through the arguments given by Mai-Sachme above. The last "poll" by Icsunonove and move was clearly against the majority opinion from previous discussions. Gryffindor (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I read all the posts in this page and I don't agree with most of them. I especially disagree with the opinions given by Mai-Scheme. --Checco (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
So you're basically disagreeing that the most common name in English is "South Tyrol", despite the facts? Gryffindor (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there are such facts. Consider me a stupid if you want, but please respect my scientific opinion as I respect yours. --Checco (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would. Gryffindor (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME -- HaTe (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if the Region is Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol the Province is automatically South Tyrol besides the respect to historical reasons --Moroderen (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: for the reasons stated above, I think that all Italian provinces should be named after their chief town, as usually done by administrations (e.g. car plates); it is anyway undoubtful that the Province of Bolzano/Bozen corresponds to the geographical area of South Tyrol. The point would then be whether we are discussing about the administrative body, or the geographical area: I would distinguish between the administrative body, inside this page; and South Tyrol, included in the Italian province of Bolzano/Bozen and so on, inside Tyrol page. -- Filippo83 (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The two autonomous provinces of South Tyrol and Trentino are more like stand-alone regions. We also use to say Lombardy and not region of Milan. Other provinces are small and seldom have its own name, that's why they are usually identified by its capital.--Sajoch (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
That is the first good argument I read in favor of a move of the article away from the "province of XXXXX" format, even if two things are clear to me:
1) The article should be moved to Alto Adige/Südtirol and not to South Tyrol. Consider the similar case of Biel/Bienne:
{{quote|It is located on the language boundary and is throughout bilingual. Biel is the German name for the town, Bienne its French counterpart. The town is often referred to in both languages simultaneously. Since January 1, 2005, the official name has been "Biel/Bienne", unofficially also "Biel-Bienne". [...] Most of the population (as of 2000) speaks German (55.4%), with French being second most common (28.1%) and Italian being third (6.0%). The city is officially bilingual (the biggest bilingual city in Switzerland).
The case is strikingly similar to that of Alto Adige/Südtirol and, in fact, both the names are used in official papers.
2) If this article is moved, also Province of Trento should be moved to "Trentino".
--Checco (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Biel/Bienne is not a comparable case, because we have a perfectly established English name (Wikipedia:USEENGLISH) for the province, which is, as we have demonstrated reapeatedly, South Tyrol.
I'm fine with Trentino as well. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"South Tyrol" is not "perfectly established" among English mother-tongue speakers and it is difficult to prove the contrary. I live in the United States right now and I can tell you that what you we believe it is "perfectly established" is not. Unfortunately, it is difficult to prove that too, even though most US geographic atlases don't use "South Tyrol". We already discussed about that, so we both know each one's arguments on that. I will count on you on the move of "Province of Trentino" to "Trentino" though. --Checco (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Your personal experience vs. thousands of books using South Tyrol & my personal experience (in the UK). "Perfectly established" doesn't imply that the whole English-speaking world knows it. I guess, Barrow upon Soar is pretty unknown in the States as well. Regarding Trentino, you can count on me. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I already said my opinion on this and on the graph. We simply disagree. See also my last answer above. Bye, --Checco (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd support a move to Trentino, too. I know another execption to the scheme "province of <capital>", but WP:Commonname is not primarily concerned with classification systems but with real world usage. "Trentino" also corresponds to official English terminology (Euroregion Tyrol – South Tyrol – Trentino), so clear case. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The name is also reflected in the double-name of the wider region, which makes it official. Gryffindor (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: More than seven days are over and the vote is with 11 to 3 quite clear, even if we include Icsunonove's (who hasn't voted) opinion as oppose. It's not my intention to cut short the discussion below. But from my past experience I know that discussions with Icsunonove tend to never come to an end, and it's only fair to say that some discussions come to an end, have to come to an end, with both parties agreeing that they disagree. So, in other words, I think it's time for the admin to execute the move to South Tyrol. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Administrator, please close this debate and move. Gryffindor (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For editors that use Wikipedia so much, it is surprising that you all again fail to understand the core premise of Wikipedia, that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Flooding this page with votes, be them 11 or 1,000 means nothing -- especially when it is such a divisive topic such as this. As Patavium alluded to, if this was a simple discussion where votes were enough, the arguments would have been ten lines. The discussions a few years ago were much more meaningful than this shock vote and apparent e-mail call for votes. I have to say, if you all were truly interested in furthering this discussion, it would finally involve bringing in a group of unbiased (as in no prior involvement) administrators to review the arguments and data, and then make a solution. If you believe there are issues with the bilingual naming of Bolzano-Bozen, then this page should go to arbitration.

I continue to think that "South Tyrol" is not the the most common expression for the province in English, I agree with many of the arguments proposed by the IP user below (although I didn't have the time to read all the discussion and I don't agree with any personal attacks, if there are) and I found strange that so many editors came to the discussion in a few hours after missing for months or years. A very strange phenomenon indeed, look at the signatures: 11:28, 3 April 2011; 11:41, 3 April 2011; 12:03, 3 April 2011; 12:11, 3 April 2011; 13:51, 3 April 2011; 14:25, 3 April 2011; 15:19, 3 April 2011; 16:05, 3 April 2011; 23:39, 3 April 2011; 00:52, 4 April 2011. Really amazing, more than strange. Thus, even if the data above are very suspicious, it is clear to me that there is a consensus (no matter how flawed) to move the page to "South Tyrol". Everyone knows in his conscience if his/her actions had been correct or not. I'm not attacking anyone and, as I said, if someone has a bad conscience it is him/her problem. Let's move the article and turn the page. "Life is too short to care" (cit.). --Checco (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Checco! I think, it was me that got the ball rolling this time, when I tried on january 13th to correct the assertion that Alto Adige is italian and not english... and Icsunonove reverted it 12 days later. What followed were several corrections and reverts ending in this move request. I was unaware of previous move requests - I only discovered about them through this lenghty discussion. And I can also assure you that there's nothing obscure going on: I know none of the other editors, and nobody tried to influence my opinion (besides Icsunonove, who filled up my talk-page). I'm also happy that I was able to prove by Icsunonoves' own sources (Google) that ST is by far more commonly used in english than AA (see table at the bottom of this page).--Sajoch (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
after missing for months or years. Most of the voters are active on a regular basis. And most of them have contributed to topics related to this province, so their interest shouldn't be a big surprise. Icsunonove's arguments were: plain, erroneous Google hits (ignoring Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers), the claim that books using Alto Adige sell better than those using South Tyrol (no comment), the claim that the ngram viewer graphs are based on 4 or 5 books (just one link) and the claim that South Tyrol and its equivalents are German-centric nationalist usage (for example used by English-speaking academics [33], Italian ministers [34] or Italian newspapers [35] and supported by native Ladin-speaking users, User:Moroderen, or Italian-speaking users, User:Skafa). --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Your observation is dead on Checco, and the same observation that unfortunately had me lose my cool. Mai-Sachme, stop using my name in every single of one your arguments. Make some valid and calm arguments please, and you are telling us you seriously believe it is only coincidence what Checco and I are suspicious of? Like Checco said, if folks can live what conscience, that is really their problem. I can at least apologize for bad comments I've made. (message by unknown user)
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.

Note to Administrator Regarding Above Move Request

To the administrator who will review the above move request. Note that the names used in these articles were chosen after many months of discussions, discussions that included a wide variety of editors. The compromise solution was to use Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol, the Province of Trento, and the Province of Bolzano-Bozen. This was a compromise that kept both the Italian and German usage in the names, and was also the usage in Encyclopedia Britannica (to name just one major English source). There is slander going on above by Mai-Sachme when he says that individuals engineered this solution, or did it by some form of trickery. He also went as far as to erase a similar warning to the reviewing administrator. It is a little shocking, but maybe not surprising, that after a few years a certain editor tries to put things back to how he originally had placed them unilaterally. Right here what we are seeing is nothing less than than a ambush of this page and I strongly suspect that he has contacted a lot of these editors thru e-mail to ask them to come and support this ambush. It is no coincidence that within a couple of days all the German-speaking users who happened to be against the compromise solution show up to vote for this. This is utter abuse of Wikipedia. So, again, if Wikipedia is at all fair, this move request should be struck down. It is FACT that in English both the names Alto Adige and South Tyrol, AND Province of Bolzano are in regular use. Go to any grocery in the United States, and products from this region are advertised as "wine from Alto Adige" or "speck from Alto Adige". Yet, the same editor who makes this move request (and others who are voting here) has constitently attempted to marginalize the name Alto Adige on this page, or remove its bold typeface next to South Tyrol, or even acknowledge that it is used commonly in English (just review the edits made on these pages over the past year). What it truly shameful is that this cements the fact that there is no room in these particular people's minds for compromise and to a solution that allowed an Italian/German naming convention. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, and this ambush of the page to try to revert the page to a German-centric viewpoint by sending a dozen German-speaking voters here is just wrong. I personally want nothing more to do with this, as I believe many English and Italian editors would agree. This project is ruined when it just becomes a game of extended warfare to push nationalistic ideas on Wikipedia. You guys do not even realize this, do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually the one who unwittingly kicked the hornet's nest here. I stumbled across the previous move request (from the hyphen to the slash), and did my own research, independent (and unaware) of any previous discussion. I'm a native English speaker - I have no Italian or German agenda. I only want the page to be at the best English-language title. And as far as I can tell, the WP:COMMONNAME is South Tyrol. Dohn joe (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, kicking the hornets nest happens, no fault of your own. Let me just give you fair warning though, that the editor who initiated the move request has a long involvement in this, and all those folks that are supporting this move along side you are the native German speakers who were adamant against any form of compromise. A bit weird they all show up within a couple days, isn't it? LOL The editor who made this move request regularly communicates offsite through e-mail, hence my suspicions. Anyway, you'd think people could compromise, wouldn't you? I guess history tells us that some humans are not capable of compromise... So, anyway, as far as your research, and I'm not sure where you are based, but if you are in the United States, try dropping by a Whole Foods, etc.. and you'll see that products from this region are labeled as coming from Alto Adige. This is a marketing decision made by inhabitants of this province. Look, I'll be the first to agree that both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are regularly used in English, it is really about 50/50 (especially in the UK). In the US it is almost completely Alto Adige (because our interaction with Bolzano is mostly thru agriculture). Here are some examples of Alto Adige being used [36] and [37] and [38]. Yes, the German speakers can make similar arguments for South Tyrol usage, and we can go on and on and on. That is why the original compromise was made, to use Alto Adige and South Tyrol in the lead paragraph, and use the Province of X location (as is done for every other province of Italy on Wikipedia) for the article. But, some German speaking editors could never accept this, and want this article to match the German Wikipedia article, Sudtirol. Actually, going way back, Gryffindor unilaterally moved all the pages to mirror the naming convention used on German Wikipedia. hah! Ever wonder why they constantly remove Alto Adige from bold face and any statement recognizing its use in English? Anyway, I really hate to even participate in this nonsense anymore, but this move request is nothing less than abuse of Wikipedia (but, hey, what's new). The same old editors are trying to come in here and flood the voting (even though Wikipedia is not a democracy) to change what was a decision made thru many weeks and months of discussions, and to a naming convention that is clearly biased towards a German point of view. So, I don't doubt that your intentions are genuine Dohn joe. Be wary of what is going on here though... almost every single one of those supporters above is a native German speaker. Sometimes I wish Italian centric editors would have came on here and fought fire with fire -- though I guess Italians are not so aggressive. Why not move the page to Alto Adige? Or Province of Alto Adige? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear 76.89.129.139 (aka Icsunonove aka Taalo), your gush of words above show, that you again try to convince the admins that your POV is the only one which should be accounted for. I'm ladin (neither german, nor italian), and like almost all other contributors want to see South Tyrol in the title of this page. Also in 2007 the vote was 18:3 for South Tyrol against Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Not only is it common english usage, but this name is also historically and politically correct. BTW: this time it was me who started the whole discussion, by pointing out that Alto Adige or Sudtirolo are italian, Südtirol is german and South Tyrol is english. You again reverted this fact trying to force that Alto Adige is an english name - which obviously it is not. You said, you hate to participate in this discussion - we would all be happy, if you remain aloof.--Sajoch (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sajoch, You know, you could be speak a little more polite to someone you have never met, nor even know. I am giving fair warning to the admin who comes to this move request. You think that is wrong, given the years of debate over this? I'm expressing my opinion that a little compromise should come into play here, given the obviously strong feelings. Do you have a problem with that? I'm also stating the fact that in the English speaking World, both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are both used very commonly. In the United States, Alto Adige is actually used almost always. You seem to not realize that this page doesn't get moved on English Wikipedia because a Ladin or native German speakers "want to see South Tyrol in the title", or that South Tyrol is "historically and politically correct". Yes, I understand very well (to well!) the political/ethnic reasons why some people want Alto Adige or South Tyrol. This is English Wikipedia however... and is it so hard for you to compromise? Is the location of the page so offensive to you? What is wrong with the bi-lingual Province of Bolzano-Bozen, as is shown in the English Encyclopedia Brittanica? There has to be some acceptance that references like Brittanica do actually carry more merit than ethnic or cultural sensitivities. With your second to last sentence about "force that Alto Adige is an italian name", I can't understand what you are trying to say, sorry. Yes, I'm sure you all would be happy to squash the sentiment of people who don't agree with this agenda of yours. Checco has probably left. Supparluca is long gone. Is that something to be proud of? That Wikipedia is a place to play war? I do thoroughly hate participating in these discussions, because they are not discussions, they are the typical ethnic fighting that is a politics without compromise. Finally, I am a 100% ethnic Ladin, and a native English speaker. I have no issue with you, I don't even know you. The irony is, in real life, we could probably learn quite a bit from one another and even be friends. All I'm asking for is fairness, and you can't tell me that the edits on these pages enforcing a German POV, or moving the page to "South Tyrol" is fair. Would a lot of those editors above even accept Alto Adige/South Tyrol? No, of course they wouldn't... and they aren't kidding anyone to why.

He also went as far as to erase a similar warning to the reviewing administrator. Write accordingly to Wikipedia:No personal attacks (for example without calling other users Neo-Nazis, then nobody is going to "erase" anything of your "contributions". I won't comment your conspiracy theories, which don't provide any empirical data and just repeat your "all users who support South Tyrol are German-speaking nationalists"-attitude, and will continue to remove uncivil comments... My personal note to "Administrator Regarding Above Move Request" is this account of Taalo's/Icsunonove's/76.89.129.139's Wikipedia history (written by Noclador at 12:05, 3 February 2009). --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the Neo-Nazi comment when I was pissed off, and I removed that on my own. That was not what you erased, and you know it. You should explain then why the majority of folks who are voting on here this time are almost entirely native German speakers. Finally, my comments to you on your talk page were not uncivil, they were my feelings on this type of nasty ethnic arguing. It seems it is you that wants to shut their ear to any opinion which differs from your own, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Calling other users nationalists is a clear personal attack as well. As I told you, I'll remove all of your insulting comments. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Calling someone a nationalist is not a personal attack Mai-Sachme. Some people are nationalistic, it is what it is. You have made insulting comments yourself, and I don't remove them. It really isn't your place to censor Wikipedia. Can you honestly tell me there isn't nationalism involved in the naming of this page from both German speakers and Italian speakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes I can honestly. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I'm glad that you can speak for all the editors on here Mai-Sachme. :P 76.89.129.139 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I know what WP:AGF means. You should, too. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I try my best. But when I read editors spouting off that Alto Adige is a nothing but a fascist leftover, that does make one wonder if the decisions on here are unbiased. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Icsunonove, would you please recognize that I'm not interested in German/Italian/whatever points of view? We were having a serious and calm discussion what the most common English name for the province is. You are welcome to contribute, for example by discussiong these graphs. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you post the same thing in two places. Yeah, it is a calm discussion when there are no opposing viewpoints. Only Checco maybe, but you don't find it odd one bit that after that one editor makes the move request, that all these folks who hated the move to Province of Bolzano-Bozen show up? That is a nice datapoint you show, but it is only one datapoint. The fact is, in the United States, when we rarely hear of this little province, it is almost always referred to as Alto Adige. I know the ethnic sensitivities, it is a "fascist hangover", etc., etc. But Alto Adige is used commonly in English, I'd dare say as often if not more than South Tyrol. Province of Bolzano-Bozen is used in Brittanica. Province of Bolzano would probably be more correct in English, and is used in one of the documents Checco referenced on the provincial webpage. Now, I have a few questions for you. Do you agree with the editors who constantly de-boldface Alto Adige and only boldface South Tyrol? Do you agree with the constant removals of text that states that both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are used in English? Why would you guess folks might feel there is an agenda then? 76.89.129.139 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Calling someone a nationalist with the intent of dismissing their views is a personal attack, see WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?. Calling someone a neo-nazi for no valid reason is a very serious personal attack! Markussep Talk 10:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for using the term Neo-Nazi, and I removed that myself from this page. I don't intend on calling someone nationalistic to dismiss someones views, and if it makes you feel better, I won't use it again. I'm having my own views on here dismissed, because I (or Checco, or Suparluca, or Ian Spackman) don't agree with the German point of view on this. All the German speakers have the view it should be South Tyrol (Sudtirol), and if it isn't 100% this way, then we are bad... 76.89.129.139 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You don't want to discuss empirical data, you ignore all empirical data, that indicate that South Tyrol is by far the most common English name, and suggest for various reasons to ignore at least two (COMMONNAME, USEENGLISH) Wikipedia policies? Am I wrong? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude, could you stop posting questions on both your talk page and then on here? :P I do not agree that South Tyrol is by far the most common English name. In the United States Alto Adige is used much more often in daily English. In the UK, maybe it is 50/50. BBC articles I read, for example, tend to go either way. I don't think there is any rigorous method (accounting for margin of error) that would say that Alto Adige or South Tyrol is used more often. If anything, many times they are used in conjunction. So, do you want to move the page to Alto Adige/South Tyrol? Or must it be South Tyrol, because that feels better for German speakers? Look, Province of Bolzano-Bozen is English usage, it is used in Brittanica. The provincial websites autonomy statute translation says Province of Bolzano. Often when people talk of visiting this area, they simply say they are visiting Bolzano. Yes, if you want to hear me say that Alto Adige and South Tyrol are used more commonly than "Province of xyx", fine, I have no problem with saying that. The point of using Province of Bolzano-Bozen was that had citations from English encyclopedias [39], it was bilingual (luckily) so we have some fairness/compromise, and it fits with the rest of the Provinces of xyz of Italy pages. I understand where you are coming from Mai-Sachme. Can you at least acknowledge my opinion on this? 76.89.129.139 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, since you changed your post in mid-swing there. That is interesting data on the books. Does it actually look for that exact phrase being used? If those plots are accurate, that is still just one data point. Besides that is used in books, there is what is used on websites, what is used in news articles, what is used in common daily English (i.e., when someone goes to the supermarket). I'm not ignoring that data (a bit weird to call it empirical, but never mind that). It is still just one data point, and it is going too far to use that to say South Tyrol is "by far the most common usage". 76.89.129.139 (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it looks for the exact phrase. And those are empirical data. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are obviously free to think, whatever you want, I just want the administrator to get a pretty clear picture of your arguments. These graphs are based on a few million of English books. Your personal experience and thoughts are according to Wikipedia:No original research of no interest. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know Mai-Sachme, I appreciate that. Because I'm trying to hold out an olive branch to you and have a discussion, but it seems more like your interest is to build a case against me for the administrator who comes to review the move request. FYI, my personal experience is something I was sharing, something I thought might of interest to you, or others. I wasn't presenting it as data. The graph of English books you have is a good one, but it is still one data point (and one that shows convergence of Alto Adige and South Tyrol in these past two decades). Nevertheless, you also have to look what is used on the web, what is used in newsarticles, etc. I already posted links that show the use of Alto Adige in the United States when talking about wines and speck from this region. If we ever hear about Alto Adige in the US, it is almost only because of these agricultural items. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Stating, that millions of English books are just one data point, is a bit odd, but fine. But I still don't see any data that show the contrary. I also brought scientific usage (Google scholar) and the usage of the province itself when communicating in English. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, It is just one data point -- because you are looking just at English books. I also seriously doubt that there are "millions of books" that talk about this tiny province. That data you have may search through millions of books, but it is likely telling us that eight books in 2008 said Alto Adige Adige, and fourteen books in 2008 said South Tyrol. You do realize this, right? What about the web? What about newspapers? What about what names are used commonly in English to describe products from this region? Here is another data point [40] [41] I know very well there are deficiences in a Google web search, but even so, an order of magnitude (19 million for alto adige versus 3 million for south tyrol), isn't something you shove under the rug. Removing Trentino from the search [42] [43] still shows a factor of two in favor of Alto Adige. The bottom line is your statement that South Tyrol has significantly more usage in English just doesn't hold water, any water. If anything, there is a lot of evidence that Alto Adige is used much more often in English. None of this really matters to you all though, right? :) I see how Sajoch is still going in and removing the reference in the article that points out Alto Adige is used in English. Funny, because your own book search shows it to be the case... but yes, I'm assuming the best of faith in you all :) 76.89.129.139 (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say there are "millions of books" that talk about this tiny province, but the results are based on the scanning of millions of English books. Please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers, plain Google searches are by no means reliable sources. For example, on page two (!) of your "Alto Adige" search I get this link. I see heaps of Italian-language websites, hotel websites and so on... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know that Google searches aren't perfect, but neither is your book search (and by a long shot). First of all, going back to 1920 makes no sense, we are talking about here and now. [44]. Secondly, look at those numbers. In 2008, 0.000008% of the sample used South Tyrol and 0.000004% used Alto Adige. Again, I'm sure you must realize that this is likely telling us that maybe four books in 2008 used South Tyrol and two books used Alto Adige? You truly believe this determines common English usage? By far we would see what is realistic common English usage via the Web. Yes, there are errors that come with the Google search, but many millions of hits for Alto Adige, and usually always more than what we get for South Tyrol, says a little something... well, unless some don't want to see it. :] The thing is this Mai-Sachme, the folks voting above for the most part made up their minds on this a long time ago. The data that backs up their opinion is good, the data that doesn't, isn't. Lastly, if you turn a blind eye to the fact that all these particular editors magically showed up just in time to vote -- well, that is up to you I guess. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
...you must realize that this is likely telling us that maybe four books in 2008 used South Tyrol and two books used Alto Adige. Plain bollocks... In 2008 we had 943 publications using South Tyrol and 396 using Alto Adige (many of them just citing Italian sources [45], [46]). And normal Google searches are according to the relevant Wikipedia policy no reliable sources, while Google Books is a recommended tool. Deal with it. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the profanity ("bollocks") and for being so very civil ("deal with it"), buddy. :P Ok, so I agree with you here that by using simply the number of books published, there is roughly 2:1 usage of South Tyrol versus Alto Adige. That information is a lot easier to interpret than those plots you were showing before, with data going to 1920 and units in millionths of a percent. However, how do you take into account which of these 943 books using South Tyrol and 396 books using Alto Adige are actually more commonly read? I see books using Alto Adige that talk about wine, food, and travel. Then I see South Tyrol books talking about Hilter: a biography, The Changing Austrian Voter, etc. Don't you also have to now take into account that maybe those books about cooking and travel sell 1000x more than a book about Austrian voters? I still contend that it is unfair and incorrect to only use these book numbers and attempt to leave it at that, when searches using Google (even if they are not ideal), show a vast amount of English usage of Alto Adige -- and apparently much more than South Tyrol. If the Google searches showed the opposite trend, maybe they'd good for you? Also, I'd be interested to hear you explain why you (and the others) don't stop editors like Sajoch from doing this [47], when you know full well that Alto Adige is used in English. If anyone visits his talk page and reads what he says about this region, it is pretty easy to catch on to the ethnic and political bias that is involved. But you say 'assume good faith'? Well, I don't even see the people constantly pasting these Wikipedia acronyms stopping people like him from doing such edits. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for stating the obvious. Your usual trick to devaluate sources you don't like won't work out this time. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course Mai-Sachme. It is a trick -- anything must involve trickery if it doesn't agree with your idea that South Tyrol is the overwhelming English usage. When you devalue evidence of the English usage of Alto Adige, that is just dandy though, right? Also, your constant censorship is incredible. There has been a Germanization of this page, that is in no way a personal attack to point this out. There has been a constant cleansing of this page when it comes to the terms Alto Adige and Province of Bolzano. This is fact. It is in the change logs and was done primarily by the editor requesting this move request. You erased that message, and it only appears that you are attempting to cover up what is going on and has been going on. The people voting above were so furious with the compromise move to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, that this page was literally taken over in the following years. You know as well as I do that there exists a German-centric viewpoint that Alto Adige and Province of Bolzano are fascist Italian constructs and must be marginalized at all costs. You see the mentality clear as day in the comments Sajoch made on his talk page. Are you really going to deny this? Are you going to go and erase his messages, are you going to erase this message of mine to further cover up this attitude? Sorry for stating the obvious. And you know what, it is nonsense to remove Trentino when you make your book searches, because the combined phrase Trentino-Alto Adige itself is proof of English usage. You do those same searches for just South Tyrol and Alto Adige and the book scores are dead even. Oh, oh, but trickery! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You are seriously (?) speculating that books including South Tyrol are less read than books including Alto Adige. This speaks for itself. And I'm not going to explain WP:NPA to you again. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not say that at all. I said that simply enumerating the number of books that use Alto Adige versus South Tyrol is still a crude measure. I mentioned that a lot of the books that use Alto Adige are books about wine or cooking. I gave an example of a book that uses South Tyrol being on the topic of Austrian voters. I'm sure there are mirror examples, but overall Alto Adige is a much more commonly used word in English when it comes to the average population. I'm saying that to use these 'number of books', you also have to then know how popular these books are. For example, if there are 20 books that use a particular naming convention (for any subject), but are all best sellers -- selling millions -- how do you rank that against 2,000 books using another naming convention that sold 5 books each and gather dust in libraries? But, I guess I'm using more trickery, magic, or whatever term you'd like to use to disregard differing opinions -- or any data that refutes your claim that South Tyrol is by far the term used in English. What is ironic about your constant WP:NPA statements is that you make personal attacks yourself. Accusing me of using "trickery", no matter how laughable it is, is a personal attack. Also, you made personal attacks on Sajoch's page. Maybe you should censor yourself pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I got it, South Tyrol is bad, Alto Adige is fine. Not really surprising for someone who even joined other language Wikipedias (partly without knowing the respective languages) in order to erase the term South Tyrol and its equivalents [48] [49] [50] (I just checked the Portuguese, Swedish and Italian Wikipedia, no doubts that there are a couple more examples)... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolute and utter nonsense Mai-Sachme. I have ALWAYS been one of the few editors on here who wanted ALL the names included and equally respected. I think Alto Adige, South Tyrol, Sudtirol, Tyrol, are all good. You should examine your own behavior, as I've seen you make edits across Wikipedia that promote the same goals you have here. It is a boldface lie, extremely offensive, and nothing less than a personal attack to say I detest the term South Tyrol (even though you modified your post above afterwards to change your wording). There is nothing further from the truth. Answer me this? What group of people have been de-bolding and removing Alto Adige from the title paragraph over and over? Did you see anyone (especially myself) do that to South Tyrol??? Yeah, I thought so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop spreading lies. I'm not german, and my viewpoint is not german-centric. And I didn't state that Province of Bolzano is a fascist construct. An I didn't erase the italian name Alto Adige... I'm ladin, and I work in the tourism-sector. Lots of guests from all around the world visit our region (skiing in the winter and hiking or climbing in the summer), and I can observe that most people know this region as South Tyrol and not Alto Adige. Even our italian guests call this region with an amicable Sudtirolo. Those italians who know history and have respect to the native people call this region Sudtirolo. Mostly indifferent or ignorant people use the name Alto Adige which they find on maps which were printed using the official names. I don't feel offended, if someone uses Alto Adige - I use it too, when talking to italians - in all those years it has become a valid name - but there's NO reason to spread this imposed name also among other languages. May I repeat: South Tyrol is the politically, historically, geographically, ethnically and statistically correct english name.--Sajoch (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Dude, you called Alto Adige an "imposed name by an alien authority and an affront to most inhabitants". You also constantly remove the boldface Alto Adige from the main paragraph, and any statement that it is used in English. It is great to hear everyone is using Alto Adige, South Tyrol, even Sudtirolo. The names Alto Adige and South Tyrol are both widely used in English, get a grip on that. Your own wine and food companies label their products Alto Adige for sale in the World. Am I spreading lies by pointing that out? It doesn't sound like I was wrong when I said there are folks coming on here with an intention to marginalize the use of Alto Adige though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It's funny you picked out the only product of our region which is labeled Alto Adige without guessing why this was done. My I inform you, that our region is mostly well-known as a tourism destination, and not for its wine? (a hint: the answer lies in my question).--Sajoch (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Sajoch, please calm down. That's just his usual modus operandi.
I think we can leave him alone now. He has already posted such a big amount of nonsense and self-explanatory statements... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mai-Sachme, I really think I should devote more time to the rest of my live, than to this endless discussion with a sole opponent - I simply wonder where Icsunonove gets his energy from. I want some of that stuff too. :-)--Sajoch (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
More personal attacks from Mai-Sachme. I ask again, will you censor yourself? I doubt it. Once again, when shown any argument that goes against your opinion, instead of addressing those opinions you once make personal attacks to try and defame me. The thing noclador says above is actually exactly what you and him are doing yourselves. Of course you lose your cool again, because Sajoch statement's above explicitly back up my concerns of what is going on with this page.

This kind of behaviour is defaming you, not Noclador. Your arguments so far were: plain, erroneous Google hits, the claim that books using Alto Adige sell better than those using South Tyrol and the claim that the ngram viewer graphs are based on 4 or 5 books. I already spent far too much time addressing those opinions. Please don't be mad at me, but I see no point in continuing with this discussion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I'm not sure if it is a reading issue, but I didn't claim that books using Alto Adige sell better than those using South Tyrol. I made an example, and I made the argument that purely using the number of books doesn't correlate directly to what is most commonly used. You can have one world-wide bestseller versus 1,000 books that are purchased only to collect dust in libraries. Instead of even trying to understand my point, you try to sweep this valid observation under the rug. I said I was wrong when I made the comparison of 8 versus 4 books. For one, I didn't realize there were this many books on this province, and secondly the units of the graphs leave a lot to be desired. Still, you jump on this instead of having a debate. Lastly, I apologize and am not proud of making those comments towards Gryffindor. It was in the heat of the moment after realizing that this "vote" was being done. I see you here arguing with Patavium that there is no way Alto Adige can have more English usage. This isn't the same inherent bias that Sajoch has shown us, but it is still a bias. I really have to ask why the folks who are open to a bilingual solution always appear to have a more open mind to this, but those in favor of using South Tyrol -- only want to use South Tyrol, and apparently have no intention of even considering that Alto Adige is of equal or greater use -- or that Bolzano-Bozen is an acceptable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right. That's because "Alto Adige" is much more popular than "South Tyrol" in English usage, but this was an ideological discussion. However, even if I disagree with the outcome and the consensus seems to me to be flawed and a little bit fishy, I have to say that I support it. --Checco (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

English usage data

So, lets see if South Tyrol has this undeniable and overwhelming English usage over Alto Adige. I apologize in advance if I made errors in the searches below, but the overall trends are there. No matter any errors or disagreements on the search methods, to say that South Tyrol is overwhelming common English usage is flat-out false.

Google English search
"Alto Adige" -wiki: 19,000,000
"South Tyrol" -wiki: 3,140,000

Google Scholar English search 1990-2010
"Alto Adige": 4,380
"South Tyrol": 4,350

Google Books English search 1990-2010
"Alto Adige": 18,800
"South Tyrol": 16,500

Google News English search
"Alto Adige": 885
"South Tyrol": 28


Furthermore, obviously the compromise solution to use Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol was a mistake afterall. I think that page should be moved to the overwhelming common English usage of Trentino-Alto Adige. It certainly is not Trentino-South Tyrol:

Google English search
"Trentino-Alto Adige" -wiki: 14,200,000
"Trentino-South Tyrol" -wiki: 505,000

Google Scholar English search 1990-2010
"Trentino-Alto Adige": 2,940
"Trentino-South Tyrol": 150

Google Books English search 1990-2010
"Trentino-Alto Adige": 8,620
"Trentino-South Tyrol": 420

Google News English search
"Trentino-Alto Adige": 351
"Trentino-South Tyrol": 2


So, by all means, move all of the pages to their most common English usage -- that would be:

Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol ==> Trentino-Alto Adige
Province of Trento ==> Trentino
Province of Bolzano-Bozen ==> Alto Adige

Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so we must simply go with by the data and all the Wikipedia acronyms and policies. No more compromise agreements to try and make everyone happy. We really must use Trentino-Alto Adige and Trentino and Alto Adige. I'm assuming good faith that I won't be defamed or belittled by the folks voting above, because this happens to not support their POV. I'll assume I won't be accused of trickery, while at the same time being lectured that we should all assume good faith. I'll also assume that folks will want to really be fair and ask some independent administrators to come in and evaluate the data in an unbiased fashion. We'd all like that, right? Yeah, I'm sure........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your searches were partly erroneous, your results are extremely biased, because you didn't exclude the name of the region Trentino-Alto Adige, which is not the topic of this discussion page. When you do a search for "Washington" and want to get results for the state, you have to make sure that you don't get hits for Washington, Arkansas. Additionally, you are simply disregarding that Alto Adige is the Italian (WIKIPEDIA:USEENGLISH!) name of the province. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, Alto Adige is Italian, but it is also commonly used in English. Funny that you mentioned this yourself on Sajoch's page, and now change your tune given the results above. My results are not biased one bit -- they are what they are. Also, people above in the discussion mentioned Trentino, I didn't see you complain to them about that. I wonder why? And personally, I would be most in favor of just moving the page to Alto Adige/South Tyrol. But, no, we certainly can't have that right? Why? Because Alto Adige comes before South Tyrol? Because Alto Adige is even used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, so we come to the conclusion that there are 2 names which are singificantly used: one is simply the Italian name, the other a English name. In this case: WIKIPEDIA:USEENGLISH. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrong again. Alto Adige is an English name in modern times, just as Los Angeles is an English name, San Francisco is an English name, Detroit is an English name. If you say Adige isn't English, than one can equally argue that Tyrol or Tirol are not English... they were adopted into the language. The truth of the matter is that Alto Adige AND South Tyrol are both commonly used in English, and that is great, they both should be respected. Move the page to Alto Adige/South Tyrol if you want -- or leave the page as it is, and maintain the boldface typeset for both names. That solution calmed things down a lot on here, and maintained everything on an equal footing the best way we knew how. You know putting the page to Alto Adige OR South Tyrol just ignites bad feelings on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Alto Adige is just the Italian name. I also get almost 3 million hits for Südtirol, but nobody would argue that this is an English name. Your solutions are not based on any Wikipedia policies. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The policies are guidelines, above all we are asked to be bold and do what is right. There is no disaster on Wikipedia with having the pages at Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, and with Trentino, Alto Adige, and South Tyrol bolded in the first paragraph. I DO not want Alto Adige to dominate this page anymore than I want to see this constant fight for lingual domination on here. I'll tell you what, why not ask a few administrators without any ties to this region or these languages to come in and do their own unbiased evaluation? Wouldn't you feel better about that than having everyone here that has all their own bias and cultural baggage? Because, I'm in the opinion that if we go by common English usage, then it really should be Trentino-Alto Adige, Trentino, and it is very difficult to judge between using Alto Adige or South Tyrol -- and I don't like the implications of choosing one over the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Nobody here is talking about desasters. If you don't like the policies, it's not my problem. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright then, so by the results above we should move the pages to Trentino-Alto Adige, Trentino, and it looks like Alto Adige. The book results are close enough. The Google Search and Google News are dominated by Alto Adige. Finally, for just the reason that this region is almost always referred to as Trentino-Alto Adige, that precludes naming the subregion page Alto Adige. Now, I'm sure you don't detest the name Alto Adige, right? There are plenty of redirects from South Tyrol to the province page, and we should make sure that folks cease debolding any of these names. Sounds fantastic. Oh, I did see that you ignored the idea to have unbiased admins come in and evaluate the data and move the pages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess, you totally convinced the admin. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Right, so that reply made no sense at all. :P

When searching Google, we often find "Alto Adige" as part of a name, like Fahrschule Alto Adige, Trentino-Alto Adige, Jazzfestival Alto Adige and so on. To rule out those composed names, I tried to search for common-day phrases, like "skiing in Alto Adige". All searches were done on english pages only with exclusion of Wikipedia (-wiki).

Alto Adige South Tyrol
people from 59[51] 324[52]
working in 1 548
living in 117 3,260
wine from 1,930 1,850
apples from 8 1,070
hiking in 19 5,870
skiing in 2,180 6,140
holiday in 618 60,100
love 158 3,510
visiting 199 2,190
visit 283 25,800
capital of 666 6,380
news from 3 1,160

The above table clearly shows the overwhelming preference of South Tyrol in english texts. Only exception is the wine-sector (for marketing-reasons, as we discussed elsewhere).--Sajoch (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it seems that the data presented by the anonymous contributor are the only overwhelming ones. And they clearly show that Alto Adige and Trentino-Alto Adige are the most common names in English, even if it is hard to accept for someone. I really can't believe that someone in this discussion said that the Italian name is "insane" and could do this without any reproach. Nevertheless, I think that we should keep the actual version, with the adpation (slash instead of hyphen) proposed by Checco.
In a recent article the New York Times used "province of Bolzano", with the German addition this is actually the most neutral form. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/europe/17italy.html. "Autonomous province of Bolzano/Bozen" would be even better if we want to keep this expression in the introduction. It does not look good if the text title is different from the text in the introduction. --Patavium (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The province calls itself "South Tyrol" in English: Euroregion Tyrol – South Tyrol – Trentino and South Tyrol. Do you think their choice of name would differ from the common usage of English native speakers? That is hardly credible. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Patavium, I already explained, why the IP's search results are erroneous. We are looking for usage data which are clearly referring to the province and not to the whole region. When you exclude "Trentino" you get overwhelming results for South Tyrol, see my post in the "Requested move" section. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the anonymous user is wrong. It's all a question of selection criteria. According to Sajoch's selection South Tyrol is more common. But his figures are far less impressive. Alto Adige seems to be more common English usage.
The point is another: As someone pointed out, we should not conceal the historic origins and the ethnic character (German majority) of the province (speaks for South Tyrol), that would not be ok. At the same time, we cannot conceal that this province at present belongs to Italy and has an Italian minority (speaks for Alto Adige), it would be an abuse too to ignore it. How can we reconciliate those opposing positions?
  • A double name like Alto Adige/Südtirol, Südtirol/Alto Adige, South Tyrol/Alto Adige etc.?
  • Or keep the solution (Autonomous) Province of Bolzano/Bozen (or similar)?
I think we should leave things as they are now or we need a new compromise.--Patavium (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Huh? There's nothing wrong with my data! I searched for whole phrases, not only single words, that's why the numbers are smaller. Those english sentences rule out, that we get hits from italian web-pages. So the numbers are very clear: several times more hits for South Tyrol in english texts, than for Alto Adige. Those results also confirm the Books Ngram Viewer- results. So there's really no scope left - the numbers are irrefutable.--Sajoch (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Patavium, as I repeated many times: I don't have a German or Italian agenda. I'm just trying to apply the current Wikipedia policies: use the most common English name. According to Wikipedia:No original research it's not up to us to find a new solution which we consider more adequate or wiser. We don't need to make things up, we just have to look at the empirical data. And as I also stated above: The IP's findings might be more impressive, but they are highly erroneous, since they show thousands of hits like [53] or [54] or [55]... Certainly not the kind of "English" references we want to use for Wikipedia. Sajoch's hits or mine (excluding Trentino, and just using Google Books and Scholar) may be flawed, too, but at least they consider only "real" English contexts. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As I stated above, it's not a question of figures. I rewrite it, the point is another: it's not OK if we conceal the historic origins and the ethnic character (German majority) of the province (speaks for South Tyrol). At the same time, we cannot conceal that this province at present belongs to Italy and has an Italian minority (speaks for Alto Adige), it would be an abuse to ignore it. How can we reconciliate those opposing positions?--Patavium (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess there is a misunderstanding :-) I already mentioned Wikipedia:No original research. We don't have to find a solution that satisfies all of us and tries to conceal origins/ethnic character/whatever. We just have to look for the most common English name, and this is not the current article title. If it might turn out, that it is Alto Adige, fine! But I honestly think (and obviously I'm convinced the data are on my side) that South Tyrol is the most common English name. And by saying "common English name" I exclude references like imprints, adresses, hotel promotion, Italian book titles, reproductions of Italian websites and so on, where Alto Adige gets its 19,000,000 hits... But I do include "high quality" usage as in academic writing or books. How would you explain the ngram viewer graphs? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally disagree with you. General guidelines cannot apply for this territory. As you know better than me the question of toponyms is a hot topic, which has not been solved for 90 years. Why would we be discussing if historical orginis/wars/ethnic aspects played no role? If it were so easy, the discussion would end within ten lines. Obviously it's not the case. We must find a compromise, the title we have now is a quite good one (NYT used a similar solution in a recent article, guess why). Moreover, "province of Bolzano-Bozen" is the solution by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has much more authority than a Google research or other computer tools.
If you insist on the most common usage in English, I'afraid we must use Alto Adige. As you admitted yourself, English geographers prefer the Italian name in English atlases and geographic texts. This was confirmed by another user who did a research on the topic (not just with Google tools, with all due respect).--Patavium (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
General guidelines cannot apply for this territory. Sorry, I can't follow you. I do insist in common English usage.
Read carefully. I have never had a look at more than one English atlas, therefore I am not able to "admit" anything. I just tried to give an explanation for Checco's findings. And I strongly belief that thousands of books offer a better insight into real English usage than a couple of atlasses. But I see, we won't come to a conclusion... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Alto Adige is by far more common, this has been demonstrated. For the same reason regional wines are sold under this name: because it's more popular. Someone said marketing-thinking is insane: oh no, it's extremely logical an rational. I am astonished that you are in favour of this solution.
By the way: If you support this idea of common English use, all Ladin (for sure) and German names of the province must be renamed into their Italian form, as those forms are by far more popular in English. Do you want this too?
As you see, general guidelines were derogated in the case of municipalities, a derogation should apply also for the province as a whole.--Patavium (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Alto Adige is by far more common, this has been demonstrated. You can repeat and repeat this claim, it won't become true. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way. A court in New York ruled against Google Books a couple of weeks ago. I hope you will not continue insisting that this is a good source ("high quality").--Patavium (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what that judgement was about? Since you cite it here, I have serious doubts, but I give you a hint: It has something to do with the fact that Google Books is scanning massive amounts of books. And that's exactly the reason why Google Books is such a good source: it provides an almost unbiased insight into the huge English book market. Google Books might not have a "high quality" understanding of copyrights, but it is a "high quality" source for English usage (especially compared to raw Google hits or a couple of atlasses). But I've to admit that I've become tired of this endless discussions. You have said what you wanted to say, and so have I. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The US court ruled against Googles practice of making public copyright protected books, not against the contents of the scanned books which number millions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very interesting how someone here considers violation of copyright a mere peccadillo. I add that high quality products are practically always protected by copyright.

Britannica is a very high quality source, it uses province of Bolzano-Bozen. Therefore the statement that this name is "original research" is false. I hope that this untrue explanation promptly disappears from the move request page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves.

My opinion: things should stay as they are now. This is a very delicate topic, pretending it were just about English usage is far from reality. That is why we use province of Bolzano-Bozen for the province (in accordance to Britannica) and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol for the region (in accordance to Italian Constitution).

But if someone insists on most common usage - which is Alto Adige according to the data delivered here - then we must reopen the whole package concerning the names of this province:

  • For each municipality we must control which the most common name is. It is against common usage to use Ladin Urtijëi for St. Ulrich / Ortisei. Wikipedia is not here to establish and spread namings and no English speaker uses Urtijëi.
  • The region must be renamed too.--Patavium (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).
That's very interesting how someone here considers violation of copyright a mere peccadillo. I never said anything similar, but I guess, you know that, too. In fact, what I said (with other words) is that the whole copyright issue is just a red herring - completely unrelated to the topic of this discussion and by no means an argument, which devalues Google Books results. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Patavium, may I ask what the violation of copyrights by Google has to do with the contents of Google books? The books were scanned in from the library of the University of Chicago. Are suggesting that the inventory of the University of Chicago - more than three million of its books were scanned for Google Books - is biased in favour of South Tyrol? You must be kiddin'. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gun Powder Ma, nice to meet you! I used the argument of copyright violation to say that we should use a source such as Britannica, where such legal disputes have not arisen. My intention was not to kid anybody. Back to Google Books, the outcome of the research is definitely in favour of Alto Adige. If someone wants to see a "bias" - I do not - then against South Tyrol.--Patavium (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Patavium, nice to meet you, too! It's great that you like to rely heavily on the Britannica which is a superb source, but a statistical query on 3,000,000 books is according to <number of men minus one person> an even greater source for establishing common use, so, hey, why don't we take the result from 3,000,000 books over this 1 source of yours: Books Ngram Viewer ? And, hey, you still haven't addressed
  • why the Province of Bolzano calls itself in English Euroregion Tyrol – South Tyrol – Trentino.
  • or why we should not accept Sajoch's list above (12:00, 11 April 2011 ) which actually shows English real-life usage as opposed to the anomyous IP's brute search which misleadingly includes to a high percentage mere proper names. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • or why we should disregard the search of Google scholar ((South Tyrol: 6,160, Alto Adige: 1.760, Province of Bolzano: 940, Province of Bolzano-Bozen: 119) by Mai-Sachme (12:03, 3 April 2011)
Hey, it's great to have you here, but it would be perhaps even greater when your input starts to move beyond "the outcome of the research is definitely in favour of Alto Adige" repeat line, because that is definitely not the case. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you explain why you simply disregard all the evidence that shows widespread usage of Alto Adige, instead of accusing the other camp of disregarding South Tyrol data? I for one do not disregard either, and statically it is quite fair to say the usage is 50/50. You using the word "definitely" should by all means be left in quotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I thank you very much for the invitation to make myself familiar with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). The convention corresponds 100% to what I have been writing since the beginning: there is nothing to change and the convention says Province of Bolzano-Bozen. If you agree on the naming convention this discussion is terminated and no changes are needed.--Patavium (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, articles about locations in the province of Bolzano-Bozen are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority, except where the widely used English name is adequately substantiated and is different from that of the majority language group. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification: Therefore, articles about locations in the province of Bolzano-Bozen etc. The extract from the convention refers to the locations in the province, not the province as a whole. Moreover, the exception you refer to was created for Merano, where the majority of population is German but in English the Italian form seems to be more common.--Patavium (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me cite Patavium this time: For each municipality we must control which the most common name is. It is against common usage to use Ladin Urtijëi for St. Ulrich / Ortisei. Wikipedia is not here to establish and spread namings and no English speaker uses Urtijëi. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
That's only partially true. Since the beginning I have been writing that we should leave things as they are. But if someone begins to challenge the naming convention, this would mean that we would have to reconsider every aspect of it (e.g. Urtijei). If we stick to the naming convention you kindly reminded me of, this would not be necessary and Urtijei would stay at its place. Such as every other name in the province of Bolzano-Bozen and the region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.--Patavium (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
?? Okay, so we both agree that the naming conventions are just talking about municipalities and that this topic is completly unrelated to the naming question of the province? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No we don't. Don't mix things up. The convention explicitely says that the name of the province is province of Bolzano-Bozen (see title and text). If you think to have the right to challenge the naming convention in one part, I reserve myself the right to reconsider other aspects. But if we both agree on the convention in its present form, the problem is solved and the discussion ended. I won't raise any claims if you don't.--Patavium (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now I see what you mean. You think the usage of province of Bolzano-Bozen in the policy already constitutes a final decision about the name of the province. I don't know, why you feel the need to threaten (?) with consequences, but obviously there's nothing I can do about that. If an admin decides to move the article, you may try to change the naming conventions. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course I'not threatening anything/anybody. I don't understand this personal attack. But if you think you have the right to disrespect the convention, you cannot make other people respect it. No admin will move the article, unless he or she wants to go against the naming convention, which in its present form clearly says that province of Bolzano-Bozen is the title of the article. I hope they read this.--Patavium (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I also hope they read this: Here is the reason why we find province of Bolzano/Bozen in the naming conventions. "fixed wikilinks", June 2008. So, following your argumentation, the 2007 move (South Tyrol -> province of Bolzano/Bozen) was a clear violation of the naming conventions.
I hope you saw my question mark after "threaten". I'm happy that's not the case. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The naming conventions were not violated at all, since the naming conventions for the province of Bolzano-Bozen (with hyphen) had not been established yet. I see no specific title, a different structure etc in your excerpt (in a draft status at that time). Moreover, no one objected to the change as everything had been discussed thoroughly, and after expiry of such a long time the convention has become absolute.--Patavium (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You still do not seem to understand WP policy, Patavium... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The naming conventions for the province have been established and written down in 2006, two years before Supparluca "fixed wikilinks". In 2009, someone reformulated the sentences and one day later User:Gun Powder Ma gave the section its final shape... So, if I assume correctly, you are suggesting that the 2006 insertion was more or less unbinding or optional, while the 2009 reformulation and the edit by Gun Powder Ma made the naming conventions incontestable and unchangeable.
as everything had been discussed thoroughly... WHAT has been discussed thoroughly? Here we find a move request from march 2007, where 17 users favoured South Tyrol, while province of Bolzano was just chosen by 7 users and province of Bolzano-Bozen by 3. A couple of month later, during holidays, Icsunonove set up a new move request, "forgot" to put the requested move template, just informed users who didn't support South Tyrol in the previous poll and didn't list South Tyrol as an option. The current article title has never been disussed "thoroughly", it's just the result of a farce. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh Mai-Sachme, more personal attacks? In some sense you are making personal attacks towards everyone who participated in those discussions. You also give zero credit to the amount of calm the compromise solution brought. I guess everything is a farce if you don't agree with it. Quite ironic this accusation of "just informed users who didn't support South Tyrol", given Checco's excellent observation of the time stamps of the above "vote". By the way, if you want to witness a farce, go to the Ortisei page. It was moved to what is common English, and then was unilaterally moved by noclador. Later when Supparluca moved the page back, noclador accused of him of making unilateral moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I haven't the time to write a longer post, but I think that most of the arguments made by the IP (Taalo? Great to hear from you back!) and the argument by Patavium on naming conventions are appropriate and correct. The example of Urtijëi/Ortisei is telling and I think that Patavium's understanding of naming conventions is correct. The IP user writes from an American standpoint and I have to say that he's right. Moreover, it is true that many food and wine producers use "Alto Adige" to commercial reasons in the US (I had the chance to see it yesterday!). I still think that the best would be a title comprising both the Italian and the German name of the province, whether it is "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" or "Alto Adige/Südtirol". Both are good for me, as Mai-Scheme convinced me on the opportunity of having an exception from the "province of X" rule. We should think again about it and try to find a common ground. Would supporters of "South Tyrol"? --Checco (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Patavium's arguments are incoherent (in 2007 the move was correct, but now it would be a violation of the naming conventions...). And why on earth should we use "Südtirol" instead of "South Tyrol"? :-) --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
For obvious reasons: consistency, consistency, consistency! But "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" is sensible too. --Checco (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Any argument that involves not using solely South Tyrol is "incoherent" to you, correct? Yes, Checco, above all I speak from an American perspective, and I agree completely with compromise opinions of you and Patavium. I've said many times that we actually should have used Trentino-Alto Adige or Province of Bolzano if we wanted proper English usage, but favored compromises that respected both Italian and German. I'm sorry to say this again, but there is a distinct bias that comes from non-native English speakers on this topic. That is why I don't think it would be bad to have a few native English speakers evaluate this. I can count off the German roots of many of the voters above, and that does count. You all don't have to be so oversensitive and see that as an attack for being German -- it is pointing out the reality -- even considering "assume good faith".
WIKIPEDIA:USEENGLISH --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You do know that neither Bolzano or Bozen are English, right? Should we use just the Province of BZ? Tyrol, Tirol, Adige, are all not English as well.

Ok Mai-Sachme. South Tyrol/Alto Adige or Alto Adige/South Tyrol would be a good solution, both names are common in English, both the ethnic character plus the ancient history (as claimed by German speakers) and the Italian minority plus nowadays belonging to Italy (as claimed by Italian speakers) would be respected.--Patavium (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Would be fine to me. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No, this wouldn't be fine to about 70% of the native (german/ladin) people: Alto Adige/South Tyrol is italian/english - we would rightfully ask to also have Südtirol in this name. That's why we should stick with the only english name South Tyrol.--Sajoch (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Because, for the last time, English Wikipedia is not a website meant to please the german speaking people of Alto Adige/South Tyrol. This, however, is exactly what a certain subset of editors has been trying to use Wikipedia. When you have a large majority of the "voters" coming here either from Germany, Austria, or are German/Ladin-speakers of Alto Adige/South Tyrol -- that inherently throws in a bias. That isn't attacking any such editors, it is pointing out reality. You ask for respect to the native German and Ladin speaking people.. where is the respect to the native English speaking people?
Hi, Icsunonove! Please stop calling this province Alto Adige/South Tyrol. It's either Südtirol/Alto Adige (german/italian with german first) or simply South Tyrol (english name). If you really care about the english people, you should also favor South Tyrol and not a foreign-language combination.--Sajoch (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great! What do you think Checco?--Patavium (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on the parade, but I still don't see why we need a dual-named title. Here's a quote from the naming convention: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen)." If that portion of the convention is agreed to, then the only question is what is the most widely accepted English name for this province. We've seen arguments for both South Tyrol and Alto Adige. We should use one or the other - but not both. I understand the desire for Italian-German compromise, but it's not necessary when we have an alternative in English. Dohn joe (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
But there isn't a clear alternative in English, this discussion has been a fire for years and forcing a solution for one POV all of a sudden by flooding the "votes" is wrong. If an alternative to that is a compromise solution like Alto Adige/South Tyrol, I'd say that is of much more benefit to Wikipedia. Also, you'd think there should be some weight given to the fact that his province is part of Italy. There is a large Spanish-speaking population in the American South West. In many areas it is a majority. Should we start renaming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In theory you could be right, John Doe. In practice things are not that easy. Here we are not dealing with unproblematic territories or cities (Hanover, Rome etc.). If you choose South Tyrol, you refer to the history and the German speaking majority in that province. If you mean Alto Adige, you refer to the part of Italy with an Italian minority. Being in favour of only one solution means to exclude one of them, and that's the reason of this very long and sometimes unfriendly discussion. That's why it would be better to use both names (the order is not important to me). And I see no problem, as both names are used in English (while Roma and Hannover are not used in English).--Patavium (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But it can be that easy. All "South Tyrol" and "Alto Adige" do is identify what the subject of the article is. It's the purpose of the article itself to explain the history and the status of linguistic majorities and minorities and so on. Wikipedia disfavors dual titles.

And even problematic cities and territories choose one name. Peking, Bombay, and Myanmar are all used in English, but the articles are currently titled Beijing, Mumbai, and Burma, respectively. Names are of course filled with meaning and history, but our goal is to be as objective as possible, and pick one name that conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Here, that means choosing between "South Tyrol" and "Alto Adige". Dohn joe (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hope we can avoid the choice and use both names. It seems that before your (legitimate!) objection we had already found a consensus about the double title, which was not easy. In this case it would be sensible to make an exception to Wikipedia disfavoring dual titles (but it is similar to the solution we have now, a double title would be conform to "customs"). Otherwise we will have to continue this endless discussion.--Patavium (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the huge issue with the Province of Bolzano-Bozen name, considering even in some of the English translations on the provincial website they themselves use Province of Bolzano/Bozen. However, moving this page to Alto Adige/South Tyrol would be a fair enough compromise as well. The thing is you know that the same editors will just be waiting to initiate yet another move to only South Tyrol in six months, in a year, in two years.

I'm sorry to delude such good friends like Patavium and Mai-Scheme, but I don't support "Alto Adige/South Tyrol". I support "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" or "Alto Adige/Südtirol", which are both consistent with official documents and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. --Checco (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Province of Bolzano/Bozen as well. I like that Province of Bolzano-Bozen is used in something as strong as Brittanica, but Bolzano/Bozen is used in official provincial translation and is equally acceptable. Instead of Alto Adige/Südtirol, I'd prefer Alto Adige/South Tyrol, but the former is ok too (since it matches the official Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol). Using only South Tyrol (or for that matter, only Alto Adige) is just unfair and appears to be an attempt to marginalize and erase a particular name. To disregard Alto Adige entirely is utter nonsense, considering the absolutely dominate use of Trentino-Alto Adige in the English language and in every English single atlas you'll come upon. I do agree that Sajoch's analysis showed strong usage of South Tyrol in English, so it shouldn't be second class either. But lets be fair to the name Alto Adige, no matter wines nor tourism, most English speakers encounter this province on map (lets not delude ourselves that we are talking about someplace that is very well known globally). Also, I'm a bit tired of this hammering on the name Alto Adige by the opposition. It is just a name, every name has some sort of historic or political origin. Haut Adige was imposed by the French, yes, we all know it, learn to live with it. The term wasn't just imagined though 200 years ago, referring to a region as Alto Adige or Alto (River Name Goes here) is very common in romance languages. They are all nice names with history, no one is losing their voting rights or subsidies if one is used instead of the other now and then................. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
"Alto (River Name Goes here)" - examples? noclador (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Execute move (or I'll buy a monkey)

Again, Dohn joe, the evidence points to South Tyrol. I don't see any new evidence or new perspective brought by Patavium to the table, so the vote outcome is 11:4, which is still quite clear by move request standards. It only needs an admin to have the courage to execute the move, because this discussion is not likely to end on a consensual note. We don't want just another vote which is decided by simple stamina to repeat one's point ad nauseam; this is something what many attentive people have long - and rightly so - criticized on Wikipedia (cf. criticism that WP's reliably time-consuming mode of operation systematically favours students, nerds, singles and people the like with (too) much time at their hands). I can't see any new arguments or statistics for the last few days brought to the table, but if the admin sees them, I'd like him/her to point them out to bring the discussion to a higher qualitative level. Some guidance would be helpful. Otherwise do the move, the discussion as far as I can see has ended and has moved into the stage where the same viewpoints begin to be reiterated, and I don't want to buy a monkey who types in the same stuff day in day out just to demonstrate to everyone else that I agree/disagree with something. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about the evidence. My only point was on the avoidance of dual-name titles. We should pick the one name that best conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - in this case especially WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCGN, and WP:USEENGLISH. Arguments have been made for both "South Tyrol" and "Alto Adige" - and I agree that the evidence points to "South Tyrol". At this point, it'll be up to the closing admin to evaluate. That's all. Dohn joe (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Demanding a move now? Stop quoting this 11-4 vote Gun Powder Pa, when there is evidence that shows that people were asked to come here and vote for the South Tyrol option. Checco pointed this out very clearly with the time stamps. I can accept the evidence that shows South Tyrol has widespread English usage, but it is nonsense when you try to blow off the evidence of equal or greater usage of Alto Adige. There is nothing here that proves without a doubt that either one is in wider spread usage than the other. Also, you know full well this isn't a move that is "standard", this has been part of a discussion that has lasted now for literally years. The idea of trying to ambush this page and change things to a particular POV within a week is unacceptable. I do agree that this time-comsuming mode favors people with too much time on their hands -- and you see it in this case exactly -- when some folks wait two years to try and sneak in a change after months of discussions that led to many compromise solutions. Chew on that for awhile...
I am rather beginning to wonder why you suddenly popped up after almost two years of absence from WP...I've been here all the time, but where were you during the time...and how did you lose your username on the way? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The moving editor e-mailed to ask me to vote for South Tyrol. :P As far as a two year absence, because, I guess unlike you, I haven't had the time. :P I really came upon this move request by unlucky chance. I honestly wish I hadn't seen what a few folks are trying to do. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who finds the !voting fishy is free to refer the incident to the WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Dohn joe (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I know you aren't very aware of the history of this page, but I want to ask you Dohn Joe, you honestly don't find it fishy? Within 24h the editors that were all most against using anything but South Tyrol as the title page show up and vote?
I don't know if it is or isn't - but if you really believe it, it does no good to keep telling us about it here. Report it and make your case. Dohn joe (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It is nearly impossible to prove without access to e-mail accounts. It is fair enough to document it here for the administrator who reviews the move request, I think. I really hope said administrator not only puts a stop to this, but requires any move of the page to go through arbitration or a review by a few independent native English speakers. You realize how few are involved even now? I am one. I assume you are one. I think that is about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, it is almost comical. Gryffindor, Nightstallion, PhJ, HaTe, Mai-Sachme, Andreas, and noclador are all native German speakers. Martin Se, Moroderen and Sajoch are Ladin. Moroderen himself told me awhile back that these days most Ladin families actually speak German. Then Checco and Filippo83 are Italians (I know Checco, I know... :P). Again, I'm not pointing this out to attack anyone, but hopefully to make even the people voting to look inward a bit to see if they are truly be objective to a language that is not their own. Not to mention the inherent cultural biases. I'd still be interested to see if someone admits to contacting a lot of editors offline with regard to this vote. I won't hold my breath on that one, but I do echo the words of Checco above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As I already pointed out above (in a very sad mood), it seemed rather strange to me that so many editors (all German- or Ladin-speaking) suddenly came out to the article in a few hours. We can't prove it, but it seemed rather fishy. Why can't we simply move the article to "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" (per long-lasting consensus, and with hyphen replaced correctly by a slash) or have "Alto Adige/Südtirol"? Why is common ground so difficult to reach? --Checco (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because you insist on a solution ("Alto Adige/Südtirol") which is rejected by almost everyone? Finally, I have to admit that I'm quite sad that you, after spending many years in the Wikipedia, fail to understand basic policies like WP:USEENGLISH or WP:COMMONNAME. But I totally agree to what Gun Powder Ma said, monkeys could do our job as well. Good night and good luck. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
And I truly respect the sort of mentality that people like Checco and Patavium demonstrate. WP:USEENGLISH or WP:COMMONNAME, in the end, are no excuse for this insistence on South Tyrol, and only South Tyrol. It just isn't. It is no basis either for Sajoch's constant insistence that South Tyrol must come before Alto Adige. After many years on Wikipedia, the only thing I've seen that is consistent in this debate, is that one side is able to be open-minded to MANY shared compromises, and the other side is only open to a single solution... Anyway, we all know what is going on with this "voting". It is embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
@Mai-Scheme: The fact is that I don't think that "South Tyrol" is the most common name, and I rejected "Alto Adige/South Tyrol" because it is an odd mixture of Italian and English (even if "Alto Adige" is used by English-speakers too). I do not insist only with a solution, in fact I propose two solutions (the other being "Province of Bolzano/Bozen"). You insist on having "South Tyrol" (either alone or with "Alto Adige"), but I don't think that having "Südtirol" in the title is so bad. If we are not able to reach consensus on that, let's do a less controversial move to "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" in the meantime. --Checco (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I need a monkey too - where do I get one? at the ironmongery store? :-) --Sajoch (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
First 2 users write novels about why Alto Adige is pure English (in order to avoid the simple application of WP:USEENGLISH, choosing South Tyrol) and now you state that Alto Adige in combination with South Tyrol wouldn't work out, because Alto Adige is Italian... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and this is consistent with what I wrote before, when asked if I like the "Alto Adige/South Tyrol" option. "Alto Adige" is used by English-speakers (especially in the US), but it is not English of course. Let me order the options by order of preference: "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" and "Alto Adige/Südtirol" (both very good), "South Tyrol" (not good), "Alto Adige/South Tyrol" (bad) and "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" (the worst of all).
There are of course other options off table ("Province of Bolzano", "Province of Bozen", "Province of Alto Adige", "Province of South Tyrol", "Alto Adige", etc.), but we'll never reach consensus on one of them. And I don't like "South Tyrol/Alto Adige" and "Süditirol/Alto Adige" either because they're almost OR.
You can disagree or not understand my logic, but at least you can't say that my position is not clear. In my view, consistency comes first, and a name reflecting the bilingual character of the province would be a sensible choice too. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally accept your opinion, even though I fail to understand it. And thanks for maintaining your calm and constructiveness in this discussion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Could Gryffindor please explain what etymology has to do with history? I would rather move the etymology section out of histiry in the Italy article. Or would Gryffindor rather move the etymology section of all other places under history? see, for example Australia#Etymology, Albania#Etymology, Argentina#Etymology.  Andreas  (T) 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not etymology; does it contain a single assertion about the origins of words? It is a history of the naming of the area; whether it is partisan is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I took the format from the article Italy. If you disagree with that and would rather have it as a separate "Name" section or change the layout in "Italy", then that is fine with me too, I have no preference. Gryffindor (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

History of move requests and what it tells us

I took a closer look at the past move requests and I believe this will tell us a lot about what to do now.

  • Support "South Tyrol": 8 votes
  • Support "Province of Bolzano-Bozen": 6 votes
  • Support "South Tyrol": 7 votes
  • Support "Autonomous Province of Bolzano": 1 vote
  • Support "South Tyrol": 10 votes
  • Support "Province of Bolzano": 10 votes
  • Support "South Tyrol": 17 votes
  • Support "Province of Bolzano": 7 votes
  • Support "Province of Bolzano-Bozen": 3 votes
  • Support "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol": 1 vote
  • Move request with three options in August 2007 (3rd poll started by Taalo/Icsunonove — note how "South Tyrol" was omitted from the choices despite it having obtained the largest support by far in the previous March poll. Taalo/Icsunonove simply ignored this poll by introducing his move request with the words "Lets try and narrow down to what are probably the three main choices.")
  • Support "South Tyrol": 11 votes
  • Support "Province of Bolzano-Bozen": 2 votes (+ 2 later dissenting voices, one of them by 76.89.129.139/Taalo/Icsunonove who is now blocked)
  • Moved Province of Bolzano-Bozen to South Tyrol on 19 April 2011

Comment: There are some instructive observations to be gained from this:

  1. The article name "South Tyrol" was never outvoted: Out of five times it was put up as an option it won four times a majority, with a draw in a fifth vote. Only in August 2007, when it was – strangely – altogether dropped from the list of choices by Taalo/Icsunonove and replaced by the cumbersome "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol", it received less votes than the alternatives.
  2. It was this vote in August 2007 which established the current article name. But, as can be easily seen from the list, "South Tyrol" was not even an option in this vote even though the previous poll from March 2007 had resulted in a landslide victory for this article name! It is thus obvious that the August 2007 vote was something of a sham. Probably only the fact that the voting happened to take place in August, the month during which Italy, Austria and Germany alike go on summer holidays, allowed it to pass against all likelihood. Still, the same month dissenting voices already began pointing to the numerous times the WP community had actually supported "South Tyrol".

Conclusion: "South Tyrol" has enjoyed over the years the widest and most lasting support of all possible article names. The current name results from a vote which was not representative of the true preferences of the WP community. Therefore, with yet another clear outcome for "South Tyrol", there is no reason to further postpone the necessary page move back to "South Tyrol". This name has long been consensus among a large majority as proven by the above votings, each of which was accompanied by a lengthy discussion. As it stands, the current name "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" has not even once enjoyed a majority over the alternative "South Tyrol" which has always received more support since the first poll in 2006. Dear admin, please comply with the consensual choice – now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

76.89.129.139/Icsunonove blocked

76.89.129.139/Icsunonove was blocked and I don't think it was a fair decision, even if it was upheld by many admins. As I alredy wrote in this page and in Talk:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol#Requeste move, I found many arguments and behaviors in these two talks odd, strange and someway fishy. Let consensus have its way anyway. No matter how fishy and wrong for me, we have a consensus on "South Tyrol". 76.89.129.139/Icsunonove should have the chance to express his/her opinion as he didn't offend anyone this time. I don't want to repeat myself here, but I have to say that his/her block is making me think of leaving WP. I won't probably do it, but I feel sad and I think that this is a sad day for WP too. I won't probably leave at the end, but my sadness will hardly go away. Let's move the page. --Checco (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Checco, let me put your viewpoint straight:
- we always had consensus on South Tyrol in the past - see the numerous move requests in the past years
- if anything was fishy, it was the move in august 2007
- Icsunonove has expressed his opinion clogged this discussion-page (and the page of many of our talk-pages) more than anyone else (or even more than all others combined)
- he was blocked several times for exactly this behaviour
- this time he had offended me (and in the past many others who dared to argue with him)
I've lost uncountable hours in the last month to examine the old talk-pages, and have to fully agree with Mai-Sachme, Gryffindor, Noclador, PhJ, Gun Powder Ma, Markussep, Emes, Nightstallion and many others, which in the past had disputes with him. I don't want to add anything else. I hope, it's over now - lets move and go on.--Sajoch (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It's over – or it may be over – but it will never be over for me. Praise to Mai-Scheme and Dohn joe, who were always consistent with themselves. --Checco (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Please enlighten me as how: "you really a pathethic nationalistic neo-nazi POS excuse for a human being." or "The Neo-Nazis come back" are not offensive? Nobody else here used offensive terms for other editors, 4 admins thought his behavior was unacceptable; in short: Wikipedia is a much better and a more civilized place with him gone. EOD. noclador (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope with Icsunonove's forced retirement we are closer now to a final closure of the South Tyrol issue. He was the true driving force behind the relentless push to replace "South Tyrol" and, as the voting history amply demonstrates, he was not shy of manipulative tactics to achieve his goal. The real problem is that his agitated gush of words has been successfully conveying the impression of a much larger naming dispute than actually has been the case. His constant absurd allegations of nationalistic block voting has been poisoning the debate for years.

In reality, however, many of the users who support "South Tyrol" over the "Province of..." scheme also favour Trentino over "Province of Trento" for the very same reasons, that is common English use. I am not denying that this is still an emotional topic and that there have been also provided some good reasons against South Tyrol by other users. But with Icsunonove gone, the real picture should become clearer again, namely that over the years South Tyrol has consistently enjoyed the most support, not just quantitatively but just as much in terms of supporting argumentation and provided linguistic evidence. Really, I have seen many much more contested naming debates on WP which were decided in the end one way or the other on a much smaller differential basis.— Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (not yet the monkey)

Just to say that Icsunonove is not gone. He was unfairly banned. At this point it is difficult for me to believe in the good faith of some editors and administrators, but I will. Anyway, I needed to say that: the page would have been moved anyway, and Iscsunonove was unfairly banned. --Checco (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (disambiguation)

At the moment the format seems to be something like this: Mühlbach, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Considering that South Tyrol and Trentino are de facto separate region, wouldn't it make more sense to have places simply named in the format "Mühlbach, South Tyrol"? It would also make the name look less unwieldy and be probably less prone to changes and more stable. Gryffindor (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be fine with both xxx, Italy (not allowed/recommended) or xxx, South Tyrol, and I agree that the current format looks kind of creepy with hyphen, blank, slash and a combination of Italian and German names. So my first choice would be xxx, South Tyrol, which also illustrates that South Tyrol (and Trentino) are de facto regions. Are there any dissenting opinions? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of the simpler xxx, South Tyrol.--Sajoch (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree to use the province for both South Tyrol and Trentino. Someone should probably bring it up at Wikipedia:NCGN#Italy, though. Dohn joe (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree, it is much simpler, more smooth on the eye and it is easier to understand where the place is, if it is only the province behind the name. noclador (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree, we have to write it down in the naming conventions. But first we should discuss, if there is a consensus about this question. Although I think this is quite uncontroversial, article titles like Auer, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol are just weird. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Mai-Sachme, why is the format xxx, Italy "not allowed/recommended"? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Where disambiguation is required, places in Italy are disambiguated by one of the region, province or comune needed to identify it uniquely, as appropriate, not as Placename, Italy. Here is the related discussion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The italian and german WP show Ora (Italia) and Auer (Südtirol) - should the english WP also put the province's name in parentheses? Or is there no agreement for consistency?--Sajoch (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The English WP usually uses commas to disambiguate populated places, and parentheses for geographic features like lakes or rivers. Dohn joe (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To make it easier: the comuni that would need to be changed are the following

and

What about the comuni in Trentino? Dohn joe (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the move request Province of Trento -> Trentino is processed. Then we can also include Trentino in the relevant section of the naming conventions.

What a mess! Any suggestions for the precise wording of our addition? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It really is a mess, look at the categories of other Italian provinces which still show the abbreviation "Placename (XY)" form even though the guideline says they shouldn't. The format should be "xxx, South Tyrol" and "xxx, Trentino". I have left a post on the talk page of the guideline, so that at least they are noticed as well. For the wording, how about this: "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in Trentino is Placename, Trentino and in South Tyrol Placename, South Tyrol (the "comma convention")." Are there any places within South Tyrol and/or Trentino that share the same name? Because in that case we would have to make the guideline more precise. Gryffindor (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That language from the U.S. guideline is a good start, but I'd put in a quick explanation as to why these provinces get special treatment. Something like, "The autonomous provinces of Trentino and South Tyrol (Alto Adige) can in many ways be treated like de facto regions, and places in those provinces that require disambiguation may take the form [[Placename, Trentino]] or [[Placename, South Tyrol]]." What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Strike out the (Alto Adige) part before some other special user uses that as leverage to start lobbying for another article name, and take out the "may" and "in many ways". They either have the format, or they don't. "The autonomous provinces of Trentino and South Tyrol are treated like de facto regions. Using the "comma convention", places in those provinces that require disambiguation take the form [[Placename, Trentino]] or [[Placename, South Tyrol]] respectively." Gryffindor (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I support Gryffindors wording. noclador (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Me too (assuming the move to Trentino happens). Dohn joe (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It is surely unambiguous and I'd support Placename, Italy, too. But I already cited a sentence from the current naming conventions Where disambiguation is required, places in Italy are disambiguated by one of the region, province or comune needed to identify it uniquely, as appropriate, not as Placename, Italy. Here is the related discussion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The question of disambiguating in this reqion was brought up during that discussion, and was left unresolved. If we can agree here, the guideline should be amended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree to what exactly, Septentrionalis? Gryffindor (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Now that both South Tyrol and Trentino have been moved, I suggest we agree on a format for the comuni and then move them to the agreed upon new unified naming system. noclador (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
[56]. I hope I didn't misinterpret Septentrionalis, but the alternative Placename, Italy was rejected by a considerable number of users in the linked discussion, Placename, Trenino-Alto Adige/Südtirol was rejected by a considerable number of users in this discussion and a disambiguation by the provinces seems to be the most acceptable solution and was also mentioned in the linked discussion without any dissenting opinions. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
ok, great :-) now lets wait some time to see if anyone wishes to comment on this and if not I will move the comuni in question to the new format. noclador (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree, we should wait a couple of days. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The page was move and I disagree with the move, but are we sure that "Placename, Italy" is a good idea? Of course it is consistent to all the other Italian municipalities, but I am a little bit unconfortable with that solution. --Checco (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"Placename, Italy" is certainly not a good idea, see also place formats for France and the United States as example. Gryffindor (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
When places in France and the United States are ambiguous, they are usually ambiguous with other places in the same country, as Portland, Maine and Portland, Oregon; that is why we are precise to that degree. The same is true for most places in Italy; but not for these. WP:TITLE provides that titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. (emphasis added). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who inserted the phrase not as Placename, Italy in the naming conventions, probably no user present on this talk page. Feel free to open a new discussion on the talk page of the naming conventions. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

to sum the above discussion up:
the proposed addition to the naming convention is:

  • The autonomous provinces of South Tyrol and Trentino are treated like de facto regions. Using the "comma convention", places in those provinces that require disambiguation take the form Placename, Trentino or Placename, South Tyrol respectively.

which means that i.e.

  • Martell, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol will be moved to Martell, South Tyrol
  • Mezzana (TN) will be moved to Mezzana, Trentino

both the suggestion to use "Placename ,Italy" and the currently used "Placename, (TN)" are discouraged by the naming convention for Italian geographic names: not as Placename, Italy. and two-letter abbreviations for the provinces: these should no longer be used. Therefore the only options are to go with the name of the region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol or the names of the two provinces South Tyrol and Trentino. As in the above discussion no editor has argued to use the regions name, I believe this discussion can now be closed and the moves can now be executed. noclador (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this change. Outback the koala (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You're late. noclador (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me please. The region for this places is Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol not Trentino nor South Tyrol as these are not regions! I only noticed this when you started move a good number of pages I watch but had no idea there was a discussion going on. How are editors supposed to take part in discussion that effect the name of the article directly if there is no notification posted that such a discussion was ongoing. I wonder how many editors are in the dark about this discussion but have an interest. To treat South Tyrol as a "de facto" region is not a naming convention and should not be included on the naming convention page without a wide discussion, instead of a few select editors in a small limited discussion that creats a "consensus" that effects many more articles. It's unfair that such a change could be made without others' imput. Outback the koala (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
With zero notification on any of the effected pages how is anyone supposed to find this discussion unless they happened to already watch this page too? Outback the koala (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/May#Italy naming conventions (geographic names).
Talk:Trentino#Naming of the comuni. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion has been going on now for an awfully long time, you just need to check Talk:South Tyrol regularly. But I have to say I don't quite see the need for disambiguating the communi of South Tyrol this way. The pertinent guideline runs: Where disambiguation is required, places in Italy are disambiguated by one of the region, province or comune needed to identify it uniquely, as appropriate, not as Placename, Italy. But there is no disambiguation required in the case of South Tyrolean towns and villages, because their German names make them all unique and unambiguous in Italy. In contrast to the Italian place names in Trentino, there aren't not another Martell or Mühlbach found in Italy, so the naming scheme Martell, Italy, Mühlbach, Italy etc. seems preferable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Outback the koala, the discussion was noted in two different places. There is consensus to have this format, but feel free to share your thoughts. Gryffindor (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus on this. Any neutral admin should consider that this is the position of one National Cause, brought about immediately after the banning of a leader of the opposed National Cause. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. I'd like to see one single user who regarded Icsunonove as a leader of his "National Cause"... And you did see that Checco (in your words: a leader of the opposed National Cause) also objected to the format Placename, Italy? At the moment of Noclador's conclusion we had here a discussion with 7 users involved, 5 of them clearly preferred Placename, South Tyrol to the previous format (2 of them said that Placename, Italy would be fine, too), 1 (i.e. Checco) just refused the alternative proposal Placename, Italy and 1 (i.d. you) seemed to be uncertain. That's what I call a consensus. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
To User:Septentrionalis: Why are you objecting to the new proposal? We are only trying to reform the format to make naming easier and not so cumbersome with the long name of the larger region, instead using the name of the autonomous provinces which are de facto separate regions in all but name. The new policy should help to create some long-term stability for the names of these articles. I'm under the impression you are objecting to the naming format in general? In that case you should post your proposals on the talk page here instead: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). I would like to point out though that the format was discussed in length in August 2009 [57] and implemented. Gryffindor (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bolding Alto Adige

Fairly minor issue, I know, but I feel that "Alto Adige" ought to be bolded in the lead. If you look at WP:BOLDTITLE#Abbreviations_and_synonyms, the guideline is that If the subject of the page has...more than one name...,each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance.

While "South Tyrol" is the most common name, "Alto Adige" is also very common in English. Google Books English-language returns (South Tyrol: 32,300, and Alto Adige: 19,700). I think that's significant enough to get bolded in the lead. I'm going to change it back - anyone who disagrees can discuss it here. Dohn joe (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the point right underneath your given quote: "Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology. However, some foreign terms should be italicized. These cases are described in the Manual of Style for text formatting." Gryffindor (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Two things. First, "Alto Adige" is normally used in English - to the tune of nearly 20,000 Google Books returns. Just because it's an Italian term doesn't mean it's not used normally in English.

Second, if you read the manual of style section that you provided, it actually says a couple things on the subject: "If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." (If you try it out, "Alto Adige" is in the dictionary, but "Südtirol" and "Sudtirolo" aren't.) And also this: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used". I'll re-bold one more time before taking the dispute elsewhere. Meantime, if anyone else has a thought, feel free to share (ideally in the context of WP policy). Dohn joe (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Merriam Webster knows our province as South Tirol with "i" instead of "y". Maybe we should also mention this variant (it exists already as a redirect), as it is not so seldom (6,950 hits in english-lang Google Books).--Sajoch (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that. That would be fine with me. Dohn joe (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't mention all existing alternatives in the introduction. South Tyrol and Alto Adige (bolded) are enough, the article also has a section called "Name". --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"Alto Adige" is of course used by English mother-tongue speakers much more than "South Tyrol", but who is really interesterd in truth and reality right now? "South Tirol" is so rarely used in English that it should not be mentioned in the article altogether. --Checco (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
After years of having a rarely used article title, we could at least mention South Tirol which seems to be considerably more common than province of Bolzano-Bozen [58] or province of Bolzano [59]. Considering that we forgot to include "South Tirol" in all searches posted above, we come to an even clearer outcome that there is a preference for South Tyrol/Tirol over Alto Adige in English usage. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that Alto Adige should come immediately after South Tyrol in the introduction, before the German/Italian and Ladin names. I think it makes more sense rather than putting the versions in each official language between South Tyrol (or South Tirol) and Alto Adige. I made the change. Moreover, I think that Italian Sudtirolo should not be mentioned together with Alto Adige in the introduction: Alto Adige is official, Sudtirolo is often used, but it is unofficial and has more a cultural than a geographical connotation. Anyway, I did not make this change.--Patavium (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No name mentioned in the introduction is official in its proper sense. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree with you, as all decrees of implementation of the special statute use Alto Adige (Italian) and Südtirol (German), while Sudtirolo (Italian) is not used there. But that was just a marginal note.--Patavium (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My point being: Currently we don't mention superduper-official names in the introduction (they are shown in the box on the right side), but the most common names in the different languages of the province. And Sudtirolo is one of them. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK.--Patavium (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Move the "Alto Adige" part and any other name into the "Name" section where it belongs. The guidelines say it so. Gryffindor (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't get it why Alto Adige should appear twice in the first sentence and thus be more prominent than all other variants. This is what I observed in january and started the whole discussion, which resulted in a move from "Provice of Bolzano-Bozen" to "South Tyrol". Now we are at the beginning again? Please accept, that "Alto Adige" is italian and not english, and less used than "South Tyrol" among english speakers - and thus it should not be given more emphasis.--Sajoch (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would follow Mai-Sachme's suggestion: South Tyrol and Alto Adige (bolded) are enough. Please accept that Alto Adige is commonly used in English, this is why we had this very long discussion indeed. Actually my favourite solution would be "South Tyrol (also South Tirol) or Alto Adige" (all bolded) etc., without the partenthesis. We would have all the common use names in the first sentence an it would be in accordance with the guidelines.--Patavium (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The best solution would be to move all alternative names down to "Name" section, lest you want to start listing everything. Italian name is already given in the foreign language template in brackets as a matter of fact and mentioned again in the "Name" section, along with the other toponyms. Gryffindor (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance. In this case Alto Adige is not simply the Italian name, but it is another version commonly used in English (which is not the case for Südtirol or Sudtirolo). Therefore I think it should be mentioned in the introduction immediately after South Tyrol.--Patavium (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is already mentioned, in the Italian names in the brackets. Why should we have it twice? It is mentioned again under "Name". So that would be three counts already in this article where it is mentioned. How many more do you need? Gryffindor (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dohn joe. "Alto Adige" is common enough to warrant bold letters. My proposal for the lead:

South Tyrol, also South Tirol (German and Ladin: Südtirol, Italian Sudtirolo), also known by its Italian name Alto Adige,

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd keep the rarely used South Tirol in the "Name" section. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems like most of us are in agreement about the bolding; now just the placement and wording are at issue. Here's my latest effort: "South Tyrol or Alto Adige (German and Ladin: Südtirol, also known in Italian as Sudtirolo)...." Why? It's compact, it puts both terms widely used in English up front, and explains that "Sudtirolo" is a variant. I'd also be okay with putting "or Alto Adige" after the parentheses, but I don't think we need to qualify it as an "Italian name" in the lead - that can be explained in the Names section. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It's compact but unfortunately at the cost of becoming too imprecise: Readers who are not knowledgeable in the history of South Tyrol will naturally assume that the names in the bracket all refer to Alto Adige, not "South Tyrol". The only practical way to avoid this confusion is to put "Alto Adige" after the parentheses. I am neutral about the inclusion of "South Tirol" and "Italian name" in the lead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. So: "South Tyrol (German and Ladin: Südtirol, also known in Italian as Sudtirolo) or Alto Adige ...." Does that work? Dohn joe (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Support, but I like the current version, too. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You mean current version with Alto Adige bolded, do you? That was what I meant with the present version.--Patavium (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Bolded. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
weak Support, as I wouldn't bold-face Alto Adige. Despite some people repeating the same old fairy-tale, South Tyrol is still used several times more often than Alto Adige.--Sajoch (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. Alternative: Present solution with Alto Adige bolded. South Tyrol (German and Ladin: Südtirol, Italian Sudtirolo), also known by its Italian name Alto Adige--Patavium (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Again, the policy states "Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology. However, some foreign terms should be italicized. These cases are described in the Manual of Style for text formatting." The Alto Adige part should not even be there. Even if you insist on it, the rules require it to be italicized. There is no going around a rule, your vote does not replace the policy. Gryffindor (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Gryffindor, at this point I feel like we're talking past each other. You've made that point above, and I responded that "Alto Adige" is normally used in English - not as often as "South Tyrol", perhaps, but it is still normal to use "Alto Adige" in English. I also added a point from the MOS saying that words found in Merriam-Webster's dictionary should not be italicized. "Alto Adige" is found in that dictionary. Do you have anything to say to either of those points? Dohn joe (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am afraid we really are talking past each other. The Italian term Alto Adige is used in English, that is true. That does not make it an English term though, merely a foreign one that shows up in English. The guideline says "Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English", so it should be bold. The same sentence however states ", or variations included only to show etymology." So in that case do not bold. "However, some foreign terms should be italicized." I don't understand which sentence seems puzzling to you. Are you stating that Alto Adige is an English term? The way the introductory sentence has been put by Mai-Sachme in the 14:19, April 27, 2011 version would be fine. I hope we can find this agreeable. Gryffindor (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess all I'm saying is that "Alto Adige" is normally used in English, just like "Trentino" is normally used in English, just like "Livorno" is normally used in English, even though it's an Italian term. And that a large percentage of English speakers know this province as "Alto Adige", for right or wrong. And so it should be upfront and bolded to let them know they're in the right spot. Dohn joe (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Alto Adige is very common in English. It is only logical to bold it in the introduction. We are not here to judge if Alto Adige is good or evil, but to constatate that it is commonly used in English.--Patavium (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying Dohn joe, and I am not questioning that it is used in English as well. But how is your wish to have it bold in compliance with the rules? Gryffindor (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I start with the portion of WP:BOLDTITLE I quoted to begin with: "If the subject of the page has...more than one name,...each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Here, there are two synonymous names that are widely used in English, so that part of the rule says to boldface "Alto Adige".

Also, to me, the parts of the guideline on foreign names that you quote don't really fit. First - "variations that show etymology". As you know, "Alto Adige" has nothing to do with the etymology of "South Tyrol". That sentence would seem to apply as a reason not to boldface "Südtirol" or "Sudtirolo", which are variations related to the etymology of "South Tyrol".

Second - "However, some foreign terms should be italicized." That sentence points you to WP:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Foreign_terms, which says, "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English." I'd say that "Alto Adige" is used enough to qualify as "everyday use" (20,000 Google Books returns is my evidence there), and so that sentence doesn't apply. Further, the next paragraph gives a good reason for bolding - "phrases that have common use in English...do not require italicization...If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." Again, since "Alto Adige" is in common use in English - and since it appears in Merriam-Webster Online - I think bolding it complies with the Manual of Style, and therefore with the guideline that refers to that part of the MOS. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We will just have to agree to disagree then. By the first rule you have quoted, we would have to list every possible name of this region, including "Sudtirolo, "Sud Tirolo", maybe even "Province of Bolzano" and others. That is why we created a separate name section to deal with that part. You say that "Alto Adige" and "South Tyrol" are not the same etymology, but the name describes one and the same region. At this point I would tend to just remove everything from the intro not directly related to the name of the article, including "Alto Adige", into the name section, to solve this Gordian knot. Gryffindor (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, again, bolding rules aside, the main reason to have "Alto Adige" in the first sentence is because some significant percentage of native English speakers know the region by that name. Wouldn't you agree that letting users know that they're reading about the subject they came to learn about is a fundamental duty of an encyclopedia? Dohn joe (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Communes category

In the moves of these pages, Category:Communes of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen was renamed to Category:Communes of South Tyrol. Trouble is, no one seems to know how to make that happen, because the layering of the Italian commune templates is a bit arcane. Does anyone here have the understanding to make the required change of moving the contents of the former category into the latter? If so, please do so. Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This has to be done manually for each commune, or use a Wikipedia:bot. As it is now, the communes are in both categories. I did not check if the entries in two categories are identical. Removing all entries from one of the categories has to be done with a strong consensus, because it is very hard to undo. Read the instructions at Wikipedia:bot. Discuss with User:Cyde who did the move and why the old category was not removed. Also, there are potentially other South-Tyrol categories that would have to be renamed.  Andreas  (T) 18:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't close this nomination. It was done under Speedy renaming along with several other Bolzano-Bozen/South Tyrol categories. If you think that was in error, I'm sure we can open it up again on CfD. Regardless, my question was about where the category change should be made. What aspect of the template controls the assignment to Category:Communes in (X)?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It's the template that's the problem. It is being looked into how to fix it. In worst case maybe a new template should be used. Gryffindor (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

End of diskussion

Anyone who says that the correct name isthe Province of Bolzano in Trentino-Alto Adige, as it is, is blocked. It's the same problem with all cities in the area which has been renamed. Use a map is not English wikipedia so you do not lose you if you visit the area. Do not waste your energy on discussing this topic because you are getting blocked. It is ok to block me too. --NERIUM (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Tyrol/Archive_4&oldid=1142535992"