Talk:South Tyrol/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about South Tyrol. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

South Tyrol -> Land

I see that there is a citation needed tag after German speakers refer to it simply as Südtirol and usually refer to it not as a Provinz, but as a Land (such as the Länder of either Germany or Austria). Well, the information is certainly correct, but actually I don't know how to source it properly, because it's just obvious and common knowledge. The provincial government calls itself in German Landesregierung [1], the provincial assembly Landtag [2] and the official publication of the provincial press office is called "Das Land Südtirol" [3]. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Except of the name of the province itself, the Italian term Provincia is somtimes translatd as Land, even in official publications, see for example the official translation of the Autonomy Statute[4] See for example article 57 of the German verion of the statute: Die Gesetze und die Verordnungen der Region und des Landes werden im „Amtsblatt“ der Region in italienischem und deutschem Wortlaut kundgemacht; The provincial institutions are always referred to with the prefix Landes-. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, this is a fluid and contentious issue that is hard to document. Andreas ^(T) 14:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But if you have the official documents as a link, that should suffice as reference. Gryffindor (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

article traffic statistics

This might be an interesting data point for those who still think that Alto Adige is the most common English name for the province. This tool provides traffic statistics for each Wikipedia article. When we have a look at the stats for January 2011 (when South Tyrol was still a redirect like Alto Adige), we see that 443 people searched for an article called Alto Adige, 307 for Province of Bolzano, 525 for South Tirol and 3357 for South Tyrol. By looking at the April stats for Province of Bolzano-Bozen (the month when the article was moved to South Tyrol) you can see that practically all its traffic was caused by redirecting and wikilinks. Well, I admit that many of those who searched for South Ty/irol might have been German-speakers, but the same could be assumed for Alto Adige and the numbers still remain impressive since South Tyrol has been a redirect for more than 3 years at these times. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. And South Tirol with "i" is on a par with Alto Adige.--Sajoch (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Tirolo meridionale

I found the justification of this term very weak. It is mainly used in pre-1919 publictions used in the sense of "southern Tyrol", or for the Trentino such as the Federazione delle Compagnie Schützen del Tirolo Meridionale (german Welschtiroler Schützenbund), an association from Trentino. Etymology is wrong, the term does not come from Latin Tirolis meridonalis, but from the two Italian words Tirolo and meridionale. Tirolis meridonalis is a neologism and is wrong anyway, because Tirolis is the castle, wheras the region is in LatinTirolia (see for example Flora del Tirolo meridionale by Francesco Ambrosi, Volume 1 page 822 note 1). I would delete this passage. Andreas ^(T) 15:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is no right or wrong in New Latin because there is no normative institution which could settle occuring variations (Tirolis vs Tirolia). Anyway, in general you are right that the given explanation for the origin of the term is rather dubious. And I also agree that Tirolo meridionale is by no means common or at least regularly used in Italian in order to refer to South Tyrol and not really necessary for the article. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes... but it does exist, doesn't it? Gryffindor (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rarely, and it never refers to South Tyrol. This book (which is supposed to source the claim sometimes also refers to today's South Tyrol) says that Tirolo meridionale has become Alto Adige, but it's talking about the Napoleonic department "Haut Adige" established in the early 19th century with Trento as its capital. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Never say never. Do a Google Books search for "Tirolo meridionale". Now, most of the results do refer to the area based around Trent - but not all. Here's one that clearly refers to modern Alto Adige/Province of Bolzano. I leave it to others to see if "Tirolo meridionale" is widespread enough as a synonym for the modern province to include in the article. Dohn joe (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I give up, this is indeed a case where it is used as a synonym for the modern South Tyrol :-) Never heart it, though... But that's just my personal experience, maybe others know better. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If we want to include Tirolo meridionale we need sources. Do we really want to use this one book about the Italian language where the phrase is used en passant as the only source? I Andreas ^(T) 00:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I always heard the term Tirolo meridionale in a context which included todays Trentino. I wouldn't give this single book too much weight (eine Schwalbe macht noch keinen Frühling). Italians usually denote with meridionale the southern part, and with settentrionale, orientale and occidentale, the northern, eastern and western part of an entity without claim of precision. The book in question talks about the italian language, and is written by an author who is neither hostorian nor geographer, but psychiatrist and criminologist.--Sajoch (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the passage today. I think the "Name" section doesn't generally match the interest of most readers and is already overloaded enough. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxes

a fiscal regime that allows the province to retain 90% of all levied taxes. I think this is rather imprecise, because the province doesn't get 90% of literally all levied taxes. And weren't there recent changes following the Accordo di Milano/Mailänder Abkommen? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (use of Ladin)

I would like to open a new point of discussion concerning naming conventions of communes. It was politically correct to use the Ladin names, but I do not think that was a good solution. Using the German or Italian name would be more appropriate in my eyes. No English speaker would use Urtijëi. I could even live with it, if there were an indication about how to pronounce it. I mean, we are talking about a language spoken by some 30,000 people. It would be really helpful.--Patavium (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved this to a new section, as the use of Ladin is a separate issue from how to disambiguate in this region. Dohn joe (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult topic starting to speculate about what English speakers might prefer to use. Honestly, I don't expect any native speakers to write or pronounce correctly Villnöß, Margreid, Laces or Fiè allo Sciliar either. So I don't see your point. What should prevent us from using Ladin names? I think the number of native speakers is negligible. How many people speak Pitjantjatjara? And how many people know and use the toponym Uluru? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitjantjatjara is not a location, but a language. Besides, there is an indication about how to pronounce it and a section "Pronunciation of the name". Moreover, there is no alternative to Pitjantjatjara in a more common language (while there is one for Ladin communes, in German and Italian, which are much more common languages than Ladin).

And as to Villnöß, Margreid, Laces or Fiè allo Sciliar it is more probable that an English speaker can pronounce an Italian or German name than a language spoken by 30,000 people all over the world. If you have a look at http://www.suedtirol.info/Ortisei_St_Ulrich/Holiday_resort/L-522822C951CA11D18F1400A02427D15E-en-Ortisei_St_Ulrich.html you would see that Italian and German names are used. Wikipedia reflects the current usage and is not meant to impose the usage of names. The Ladin names are an imposition in this sense, German and/or Italian names would be better.--Patavium (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, you misunderstood my example with Pitjantjatjara and Uluru (probably my fault). Pitjantjatjara is a language spoken by not even 3,000 people. Nevertheless, Pitjantjatjara toponyms like Uluru and Kata Tjuta are worldwide known and used. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The usage of Ladin names is totally fine, don't see why Italian or German names should be used instead. Gryffindor (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions: "Therefore, articles about locations in South Tyrol are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority."... you wish to change that? Lets take as an example La Val: "According to the 2001 census, 97.67% of the population speak Ladin, 1.75% German and 0.58% Italian as first language." What now? Do you want to open a discussion about every single Ladin name now? To debate if we should choose either the Italian or German name? Or should we go with the second most spoken language in La Val - German? We need less discussion here and more article work! I agree with you that there should be a an indication on how to pronounce Urtijëi (all the other Ladin places are much easier to pronounce), but I disagree with you on the idea that we need to use German or Italian names for the Ladin places. We have a clear naming convention, everyone accepts this convention and there is no sense in opening this up for yet another naming discussion. noclador (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Patavium What does being able to pronounce a word have to do with how many people speak the language? There is no connection and your argumentation makes no sense to me. According to your logic, Chinese names should be easy to pronounce because it's a language that many people speak. Asenoner (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There's really no need to change the ladin names - they're usually identical to the italian version: Corvara/Corvara, Badia/Badia, S.Cristina/S.Cristina, Sëlva/Selva, S.Martin/S.Martino, La Val/La Valle, Mareo/Marebbe, even Urtijëi/Ortisei are very similar. Unless someone prefers the german names (Kurfar, Abtei, St.Christina, Wolkenstein, St.Martin, Wengen, Enneberg, St.Ulrich). BTW: in the ladin valleys there are more german than italian speakers - although considerably less than ladins, which always account for more than 80%.--Sajoch (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there might have been unanimous acceptation (Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion) does not mean that it corresponds to Wikipedia standards. Let us continue with the example of Urtijei. The present solution goes against usage in English, which is the most important criterion.

37 matches for Ladin Urtijei in texts written in English (note that it is not used alone, but together with the Italian/German name) [5]
2,160 for Italian Ortisei [6]
841 for German St. Ulrich Italy (to distinguish from St. Ulrich as a saint) [7]
1,560 for German St. Ulrich Bozen [8]

Any solution is good but the Ladin names. As to the Ayers Rock: Uluru is used very often indeed. There are 18,500 hits on google books indeed. Urtijei is practically never used instead.--Patavium (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When doing a Google Books search with such a limited number of hits, you should always go the last page for the real number of results. Eventually, I get 380 hits for Ortisei and 355 hits for "st ulrich" tirol. Considering these numbers, what are you suggesting? Is there an evidence that either St Ulrich or Ortisei is a widely accepted English name? Or would you like to insert a section in the naming conventions, where you exclude Ladin names generally? And what would be a good solution for these cases? Original research article titles like St Ulrich/Ortisei? Don't you think that it's better to keep everything as it is, even if Wikipedia has to use a limited number of rarely used toponyms for a couple of mountain villages? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that the Ladin names are not widely accepted English name at all. In so far the choice of that names is original research and they should not be kept. By the way Ortisei/St. Ulrich is more common than Urtijei, 166 hits. And it is not original research, as it is used by more sources than the Ladin name (I correct myself only 27 hits, including sources in German and Italian, not even English, thanks for the hint!).--Patavium (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but would you say that one of the four options (Ortisei, St Ulrich, Ortisei/St Ulrich, St Ulrich/Ortisei) is a widely used and quite common English name? If not, what is your suggestion for the naming conventions? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Users Mai-Sachme, Sajoch, and noclador. I don't see any sense in disregarding the Ladin names, as they are official as well. Gryffindor (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Original Research is if we come up with something that is not sourced; all the Ladin names are sourced, well documented and in use; and for none of them exists a widely accepted English name (widely doesn't mean it's a 30% more often used than any other variant, it means one name is overwhelmingly used in English: i.e. Munich vs. München). There is no sense to this discussion, as you have not even provided any suggestion as to how you suggest we name the Ladin communes! Just saying not Ladin, but either German or Italian is fine - please state clearly what names should be used and for what reason and based on what clear rules. Then we can discuss the merits of your suggestion. As long as you just do renounce the use of Ladin names, without explaining by what rules they should be replaced this discussion is without aim and thus without sense. noclador (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for not having been clear: my suggestion would have been to make a Google Books research for each of the eight Ladin communes. According to the result, the German or Italian name should be adopted. 380 or 355 is a clear result against 27 (1000% more often). This way to procede would be consistent with the procedure that led to the move of this article to South Tyrol. We can postpone the discussion as I see there are points which seem to be more urgent (here and Trentino-Alto Adige or Trentino-South Tyrol).--Patavium (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I admit 380/355 is much more than 27; however does 380 or 355 meant that this name is widely used in English??? and which one is more widespread? I think anything below some thousands of current uses in English is not really widely used... noclador (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming Ladin places with Italian or German names would be in conflict with the policy on neutrality: WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming. Most common name does not override that policy but has to be in sync with it. On top of that the Ladin names are official as well. Gryffindor (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the Ladin names seems the wisest thing. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#South Tyrol is wise enough to point to cases where English discussion is often so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English. Exactly this appears to be the case for the Ladin villages, so we should stick to the local and official place names. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the Ladin toponyms today. As far as I can see, Urtijëi seems to be the only "problematic" name. In the other cases the problem is either not or barely exisiting (Badia-Badia, Santa Cristina-Santa Cristina, Sëlva-Selva, Corvara-Corvara), mostly insignificant (I found no English book using Longiarù or Lungiarü, less than 50 using San Martino in Badia or St. Martin in Thurn...) and sometimes literally undecidable (How can I find good results for names like Abtei, Mareo, La Val, La Valle, La Villa...?). So I don't see the necessity of changing the current naming conventions which seemed to work out quite well so far. If somebody thinks that there is a widely accepted English name for Urtijëi, this topic should be discussed on the respective talk page. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This rule should also apply to Ladin places in Trentino. Gryffindor (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is not a good idea. In Trentino there is no ethnic proportion (so there is no objective criterion). Moreover, why excluding Veneto's Ladin places (with the following problem: is Cadore Ladin too)? Then why not using the Cimbrian names for the Cimbrian communes? Why not using Friulian toponyms for places in Friuli? And so on. South Tyrol is the exception, we should not make it the rule.

As to Urtijei: it would be fine if someone could add the pronounciation.--Patavium (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Patavium and I think we should use either German or Italian names. Ladin names have no circulation outside Italy and they're definitely not of common usage in English. Why not using Friulian toponyms for Friuli, Venetian for Veneto, and so on? Patavium is right. And why Corvara should be at Corvara, South Tyrol and other communes are under the "XXXXX, Italy" format? Did we decide to use always the province or the region and not the country for Italian communes? If yes, this is OK with me, but we should be consistent everywhere. --Checco (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As to the second part of your question, the convention is to use "XXXX, Region", and not "XXXX, Italy". Exceptions were recently made for South Tyrol and Trentino, as they are essentially treated like regions. See WP:NCGN#Italy. Dohn joe (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a check. Actually there is a declaration of the linguistic group also in Trentino (but different from that of South Tyrol). So we could change the names of the Ladin, Cimbrian and Mócheno communes. In theory I see no problem to change them, as Trentino is not a place of ethnic tensions. In practice I would not make the change, because the Italian names are those commonly used (Canazei is quite famous for tourism) and because of the Friulian etc. argument.

I am glad that Checco shares my point that the German or Italian names should be used for Ladin communes (even in South Tyrol). Me too, I cannot understand why Ladin should be taken into account and Friulian / Sardinian etc. have no dignity at all.--Patavium (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the WP:COMMONNAME argument used to move this article to the current title should be applied also to Ladin-majority municipalities. Isn't it? I'm sure that both Dohn joe, Gryffindor, Mai-scheme, etc. will agree... Do they? --Checco (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the biggest fans of WP:COMMONNAME out there. And I definitely agree that the Ladin names are not widely used in English. But the problem is, neither are the German and Italian equivalents. And the thing about WP:COMMONNAME is that a name has to be, well, common for it really to apply. And we actually have other guidance when there are multiple foreign names for places, none of which are widely used in English: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Multiple_local_names. That guideline suggests using an objective, if arbitrary criterion to select article titles. In South Tyrol, that criterion is the language survey, according to current consensus.

Of course, consensus can change. And if someone wanted to suggest a new criterion, I'd be open to hear it. But I don't think it's WP:COMMONNAME in this case.By the way, where was your appeal to WP:COMMONNAME in the Trentino-Alto Adige move request? :)

As for Sardinian and Friulian towns - feel free to make a case for them, too. You never know what Wikipedian consensus will come up with! Dohn joe (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The whole South Tyrolean municipalities naming discussion is based on the observation that there are, in most cases, no widely used English names. That's why we came up with the census data, in order to have at least an objective criterion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Ladin communities in Trentino with their language and culture and heritage are protected by the Italian state by law, just like in South Tyrol. The Italian parliament passed national law No. 482 of 1999, Legislative Decree No. 592 of 1993 and Provincial Law No. 4 of 1999 that put Ladin under protection by the state and the region. The 2001 reform of the Autonomy Statute further enhanced those rights. The Provincial Law No. 7 of 2004 extended the protection, rights and explicit promotion of the minority languages to the Mocheno and Cimbrian communities. Decree Law No. 178 of 2006, Provincial Law No. 3 of 2006 and Provincial Law of 2006 further extended the protection and rights of the minorities. [9] Gryffindor (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a look at those pieces of legislation, ou see that they always use bi- or trilingual names with the Italian name first (notice use of slash). http://www.minoranzelinguistiche.provincia.tn.it/binary/pat_minoranze/NormativaPAT/1993_592_Dlgs_ITA.1191844364.pdf Now that we have the pronounciation of the Ladin communes of South Tyrol, I see no obstacle to keeping the Ladin titles there. But as I said, South Tyrol should be the only exception. In the case of Trentino nothing should be changed = keep Italian names.--Patavium (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Trentino-South Tyrol are one region. Ladin is protected and used officially in Trentino, just like in South Tyrol. We either have them all in Ladin or not, otherwise it would be inconsistent. It is only in the region of Veneto where the rights and protection of minorities such as Ladins and Cimbrians are basically ignored or neglected. Gryffindor (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The decrees and provincial laws you cited just apply to the province of Trent. Therefore I see no obstacle to keeping South Tyrol as the only exception. And yes, there is inconsistence in this discussion. When it is about to erase the Italian names, common usage is used as an argument. When common usage would suggest the usage of Italian (Canazei) or German names (St. Ulrich), then you exclude the validity of common usage.--Patavium (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no common English usage of names for some South Tyrolean mountain villages. But there is one regarding the whole province, please don't mix things up. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To Patavium: what do you mean with "erase the Italian names"? By that logic I could also ask you why "erase the Ladin names" when 1) the majority of there speaks it and 2) it's official? Gryffindor (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Time out, folks. Firstly, this discussion was originally about the Ladin villages in South Tyrol. If we're moving on to Trentino and elsewhere, then we should be talking about it at the appropriate talkpages.

Second, we have a process in place to decide the article titles for non-South Tyrol towns. Start with WP:COMMONNAME. If there is a name used commonly in English-language sources, use it. If not, follow the advice of WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, and come up with an objective criterion to choose a title. In South Tyrol, consensus has been to follow the official language survey. In Trentino or Veneto, you can propose the same, or you can propose to use Italian because 90+% of the towns in those province/regions are in Italian, or whatever.

And Patavium, if you feel that there is enough evidence to show that Canazei or St. Ulrich are the common names, go ahead and bring that up on those talkpages. Like I said, the WP:NCGN#Multiple local names advice only kicks in when there is no common name. If there is one, then we use it. Dohn joe (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look to this graph and also to this one? Maybe I'm wrong, but, by using the identical arguments Gryffindor used for the naming of the province (WP:COMMONNAME) and Mai-scheme's garphs, my conclusions are completely different from theirs. No Ladin placename is broadly used in English books: Ortisei is just an example. I don't think it is useful either to cite laws because we should the acknowledge that also the current title of this article is not consistent with laws, notably with the Special Statute and the Italian Constitution! --Checco (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ps: I take Gryffindor's mention that "it is only in the region of Veneto where the rights and protection of minorities such as Ladins and Cimbrians are basically ignored or neglected" as a joke: neither Venetian language is protected susbstantially in fact!

[10]

And I definitely agree that the Ladin names are not widely used in English. But the problem is, neither are the German and Italian equivalents. And the thing about WP:COMMONNAME is that a name has to be, well, common for it really to apply. [11]

Start with WP:COMMONNAME. If there is a name used commonly in English-language sources, use it. If not, follow the advice of WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, and come up with an objective criterion to choose a title. [12] --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To Checco: we are not here to discuss the status of the Venetian language, so I don't understand where the "joke" you refer to is supposed to be. Gryffindor (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Ladin language is a little bit overestimated here. "St Ulrich" and "Ortisei" are much more commonly used than "Urtijei" also among Ladins. This is not the argument I want to make anyway. I understand what Mai-scheme says, but it is absurd to have obscure "Urtijei", which is a distant third, just because the much more common "Ortisei" and "St Ulrich" are tied for first place. Moreover it is not even true that these two placenames are tied for first place: actually "Ortisei" is the most commonly used name in English. Most of the entries for "St Ulrich" are about the saint! These are just facts. "Ortisei" is thus the only reasonable and viable title for the article per WP:COMMONNAME and common sense. --Checco (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

366 hits for Ortisei, 339 for St Ulrich + tirol (and excluding the saint). If you think that this is enough evidence for a common English name, then you should go to the talk page of Urtijëi. But I have to admit that you seem to have a different concept of "common" than the others. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a good Google researcher, so I trust you! What is sure is that there are much fewer entries for "Urtijëi" and that's the same with all the other Ladin-majority communes in the province. That's why a single discussion is relevent here. --Checco (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry Checco: "St Ulrich" and "Ortisei" are not more commonly used among ladins. We Ladins always call our town "Urtijëi". Many people also speak german, so "St.Ulrich" is second. "Ortisei" is a distant last. Obviously when talking to italians we use the italian name. And for foreign languages we are often forced to use the italian name (as that's what our guests would find on their navi). So "Ortisei" is often used because we are "forced" to - you know the reason: it's history...--Sajoch (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"St Ulrich" is OK, "Urtijëi" (which anyway sounds much more similar to "Ortisei"!) is encyclopedically unsustainable. --Checco (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Urtijëi seems to be the only "problematic" name. In the other cases the problem is either not or barely exisiting (Badia-Badia, Santa Cristina-Santa Cristina, Sëlva-Selva, Corvara-Corvara), mostly insignificant (I found no English book using Longiarù or Lungiarü, less than 50 using San Martino in Badia or St. Martin in Thurn...) and sometimes literally undecidable (How can I find good results for names like Abtei, Mareo, La Val, La Valle, La Villa...?). [13] Anyway, if you object to Ladin names generally, what is your concrete proposal? Should we start to count Google Books hits, for example resulting in a competition between 20 books using St. Martin in Thurn and 15 using San Martino in Badia (and please note that most of the books are written in German and Italian)? Or should we take the name of the second largest linguistic group in each Ladin municipality, 3.95% Germans in Enneberg beating 2.75% Italians? I'm not joking, I admit that Urtijëi is probably not the best choice, but it's not enough to say: No, not the Ladin names. If you have a good, objective criterion that brings better results than the linguistic majority principle, please tell us and we can discuss it. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mai-Sachme and Sajoch. We need to be consistent and either have the Ladin place names (which are also official) for the region or not. Using the names of places of the majority-speak in the absence of anything else is the most sensible solution. Gryffindor (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Urtijëi" is a terrible and obscure choice exactly as "Santa Cristina Gherdëina", "Sëlva", "La Val", "San Martin de Tor" and "Mareo" are. All are nonsense and should be changed. To German or Italian? As these Ladin-speaking areas are surrounded by German-speaking municipalities, I would say German, but we should look first how these municipalities market themselves among non-German-speaking tourists. --Checco (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking the German names in the Ladin area wouldn't be a good idea, because a fair amount of them have become more or less unknown and practically unused (especially for smaller places currently without an article, but I also have to admit that the first time I came across the name Kurfar was here on Wikipedia). By the way, the same is true for probably more than half of Tolomei's Italian toponyms listed in the Prontuario dei nomi locali dell'Alto Adige... And I strongly oppose to the idea that we should basically put the power to choose Wikipedia article titles into the hands of local tourist boards. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The usage of the tourist boards tends to be sketchy with the names they use. I am also not in favour of using either German or Italian names for Ladin places, but to use the name of the native majority. That would be the most simple and stable solution. Gryffindor (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sudtirolo

This term is sometimes used in Italian, but we need to document this with sources. Again, hard to come by with, given the name is not official. One thing I notices is that at http://www.vacanza-alto-adige.it/sudtirolo.html Sudtirolo is only the southernmost part of the province, also called Il Giardino del Sudtirolo, German Südtirol Süd. Andreas ^(T) 18:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sudtirolo is certainly not only the southernmost part of the province, more evidence that we should avoid to take touristic websites as references... Does this book suffice as reference (see also the section Notabene per la traduzione)? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Andreas misinterpreted the page in question: the southern part of South Tyrol is also called the "the garden of South Tyrol" - and nowhere is "the garden of South Tyrol" seen a synonym for the whole South Tyrol.--Sajoch (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources were there, and they were quite prominent too - why did you remove them? Many italians prefer to call this province Sudtirolo instead of Alto Adige, and its inhabitants are called Sudtirolesi - that's a fact: it suffices to look around and hear people talk.--Sajoch (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I could not find the sources in the History. If you know where they are, please put them back. Andreas ^(T) 19:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Sajoch, but the second reference was original research at its best. Our current problem is that we can only source the information either using a synthesis of published material that advances a position or using unreliable sources like this blog (È strano osservare come una denominazione sempre più popolare nell’uso quotidiano abbia, invece, grossissime difficoltà ad affermarsi altrettanto «sul mercato».) If I remember correctly, I once read in a book (or in a journal?) that the popularity of the term Sudtirolo was enhanced by the Italian left in the 70ies. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read it, maybe I'll find out on Monday. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion on the Brennerbasisdemokratie-Blog. As it seems, people from South Tyrol are much more reluctant to use the term "Sudtirolo" than people outside of our province, because it shows a political connotation, and they don't want to loose potential clients. The fear to loose a single (italian) client is stronger than political correctness. People outside of our province instead have no problem using the term "Sudtirolo", and its use is in fact very widespread: e.g. when on holidays on the Adria, people tell to me: "Ah, del Sudtirolo sei! Che bella zona. Sono stato dalle vostre parti..." and then swarming about "Speck, Loacker, Strudel, Lederhosen, Jodel, ..." but never ever would someone say: "Ah, Alto Adige, che bella provincia...". I'm sure this is not only my perception, and others would confirm this.--Sajoch (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is another blog dealing with this topic. The author, who comes from Genoa, basically confirms your observations: He usually calls the province Sudtirolo, but he notes that Italian speakers from South Tyrol typically refuse that name (parola che ben difficilmente un italiano nato in provincia si sognerebbe di utilizzare). Well, that's an exaggeration, because I know Italian speakers from South Tyrol who use Sudtirolo, but he may be right in the sense that Sudtirolo is probably more popular outside of the province. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoepli has sudtirolese = Del Sud Tirolo but not Sudtirolo. Andreas ^(T) 15:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I found excellent references today. [14] --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good! (Although I miss the reference to Bondi's letter...) Can the referenced books be viewed online?--Sajoch (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Bondi is probably a good source for the alternative spelling Sud Tirolo. Unfortunately the books can't be viewed online, that's why I had to wait until Monday. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

comment

Shouldn't this entry be called Alto Adige? The only people who call it the South Tyrol are the people who claim it is really part of Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.245.223 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No. This region is internationally primarily known as "South Tyrol". Also the majority of the inhabitants call it "South Tyrol" or with the german name "Südtirol" or italian "Sudtirolo", while only a minority (mostly italians) call it with the italian name "Alto Adige" imposed during fascist occupation. For more evidence please look through the past discussions of this article.--Sajoch (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The fairy tale that the usage of "South Tyrol" implies some kind of historical revisionism is getting boring. Does the name New South Wales suggest that Australia is still part of the British Empire? And how come South Tyrol's Italian equivalent Sudtirolo is gaining increasing popularity? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan is about to secede from Sudan, the opposite of revisionism. The same with West Virginia. Andreas ^(T) 14:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the IP's arguments, but the problem is real. Some weeks ago we decided to move the article to the current title on the basis that "South Tyrol" was the most common name for the province in English sources. It could be. Also The Economist tells a different story. In fact in its last survey on Italy (see chart), the well-known British newspaper uses "Piedmont", "Lombardy", "Tuscany", "Apulia", "Sicily", "Sardinia" and... "Alto Adige"! --Checco (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes - or more often than usual - Wikipedia-editors are less ignorant than journalists of well-known newspapers. (The Economist also writes "Trento" instead of "Trentino") :-)--Sajoch (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and The Independent uses South Tyrol [15][16][17][18], exactly as The Economist in 2006 and 2007. I'm not sure what you are trying to tell us. Is anyone here who denies that Alto Adige is used as well? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

edit war

[19], [20]... I appeal to Gryffindor and Dohn joe to avoid further reverts and to discuss first on this talk page. I have to admit that I prefer Dohn joe's version (and especially his last edit), because I understand his argument that the several references are superfluous since they don't discuss the prevalence of "South Tyrol" in English - only that those particular sources use that name. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my part in the edit war. I take responsibility for having it spill over to this page from WP:NCGN, where Gryffindor and I have been trading edits back and forth on whether the editors of this South Tyrol page had also decided that Ladin names should be used in Trentino. If you look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Ladin_names_in_Trentino, you'll see that I tried to engage Gryffindor, but received no response other than in edit summaries which did not address my concerns. I would appreciate it if editors of this page would please take a look over there, and evaluate the situation for themselves. Dohn joe (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Name section

This section has seen a lot of edits over the last week. I'd like to propose largely restoring it to its previous version - something like this. My reason:

The purpose of the section should be to inform the reader about the two most common current names for the province, and why there are two common names. That both South Tyrol and Alto Adige are widely used in English is an important encyclopedic fact, and it should be sufficiently explained to the reader. The current version does not do so, mainly by burying the term "Alto Adige" in the middle of the second paragraph. Starting paragraphs with "South Tyrol" and "Alto Adige" shows quite simply what is being explained.

Some of the changes, such as adding the official Ladin name, should stay. What do other editors think of returning to the earlier version? Dohn joe (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The first line on is article states: "South Tyrol (...), also known by its Italian name Alto Adige". What more promiment could you put the name Alto Adige?!? The name section then describes in a chronological order all the used/given/imposed names (not only the 2 most common ones). I only dislike the 7 references appended to the term South Tyrol - maybe we should combine them in a single footnote.--Sajoch (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the chronological approach is that "South Tyrol" didn't exist until after World War I, when Italy created it as a province. So if we're talking about names for this province, chronology doesn't matter - they all came into being at the same time.

Not only that, but my Google Books search shows that the earliest use of "Haut-Adige" was in the mid-1700s, with the first use of "Alto Adige" coming in the late 1700s, while the first use of "Südtirol" was in the early 1800s. "South Tyrol" has one entry from the early 1800s, but doesn't show up in earnest until the 1820s. So by that yardstick, "Haut-Adige" should go first, followed by "Alto Adige", "Südtirol", and then "South Tyrol".

Again, though, I don't think chronology is the most important factor here - explaining English-language usage is. And by that yardstick, only "South Tyrol" and "Alto Adige" matter, because those are by far the two most common names used in English-language sources for the province. Haut-Adige is only a footnote as far as English usage is concerned. Thus, I would reinsert an intro sentence stating that there are two commonly-used names for this province in English, which reflects the complex history of the area. Then, I'd have one paragraph explaining where "South Tyrol" comes from, and one paragraph explaining where "Alto Adige" comes from. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the spirit of the name section: it's not a ranking list of which names are used most (that's already accounted for in the first line of the first section), but an explanation of which names exist and how those names came to be.--Sajoch (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely - with the understanding that the article should focus on which names exist in English and how those names came to be, since this is the English-language Wikipedia. With that in mind, I've tried restructuring the names section, and added references using "Alto Adige" in English sources to mirror the sources using "South Tyrol". — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Dohn joe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 July 2011

In general I'm fine with the section in its current shape, just two minor remarks: I don't like the claim that Napoleon himself annexed and renamed parts of the County of Tyrol (citing Bert Brecht: The young Alexander conquered India. Was he alone? Caesar beat the Gauls. Did he not even have a cook with him?). Secondly, I think the sources presented in reference 3 are a bit odd since they are apparently just randomly chosen Google Books hits. Books like Grandi Vini: An Opinionated Tour of Italy's 89 Finest Wines or Mussolini: the last 600 days of il Duce don't really focus on the province and hardly show a deliberate choice for one of the two names. In fact, I have the strong suspicion that (almost) everyone who writes precisely "about" the province (in recent times) uses South Tyrol. Alto Adige seems to me more like a debris of Italian source material - just my original research... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to illustrate my point: Assuming, that publications focussing on the province should at least mention the province's name in its title, we can do a search for English books with Alto Adige in its title on Google Books. So we get - as usual excluding Trentino in order to avoid hits for the wider region - 39 books. Unfortunately, some of them are actually written in Italian, counting only English books i come to the number of 27. Excluding multiple entries like [21], [22] and [23] and papers presented at the International Meeting on Protein Semisynthesis : held on 4-8th September, 1977 at Bressanone-Brixen, Alto Adige-Sudtirol, Italy [24] the number diminishes further. And if we finally consider the publication dates of the books we see that just one (!) of these books has been published in the last 30 years, i.e. the proceedings of the Sesto-2001 Workshop held in Sesto Pusteria, Alto Adige/Südtirol, Italy, 3-6 July 2001 [25]. Certainly a surprising outcome for a "commonly used English" name.

Doing the same procedure with South Tyrol we get 128 English books, 48 of them written after 1980. But I'm just playing around with search tools. "Alto Adige" is certainly used, but I suspect mostly in casual contexts. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My own original research largely backs that up. English usage of "Alto Adige" seems most often to appear as part of broader works, such as travel or wine guides, and not as part of standalone works. Of course, a large percentage of English speakers will likely encounter the province precisely through wine and travel guides, rather than more academic publications, so I think it's still fair to say that both names are commonly used in English. Dohn joe (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The chronological order makes more sense to illustrate the different name. There are open questions about the sources you are using, see below. Gryffindor (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources?

Dohn Joe, what are these sources you are showing? The book here you quote for Alto Adige [26] clearly gives "South Tyrol" as well on page 26 [27]. Same problem applies to this book [28], [29], and this one cannot be opened Grandi Vini: An Opinionated Tour of Italy's 89 Finest Wines therefore your claim hard to verify. And I don't know how an "Opinionated Tour of Italy's finest wines" can be considered as an academic source. Your quote about the Cisalpine Republic is also not clear, it is mentioned once on page 261 as "Distretto dell' Alto Adige Capo Luogo". Where is the information coming from in your sentence "Alto Adige was the name of a district in the Department of Benaco in the Cisalpine Republic, and consisted of municipalities now largely in the Province of Verona."? Gryffindor (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

1) As for the first set of sources, they're not meant to be academic. They're simply meant to show that "Alto Adige" is used in English-language sources. I never claimed that any of the sources used "Alto Adige" exclusively. And if using "South Tyrol" is a criterion to question its use, then it should be noted that at least one of the "South Tyrol" sources also uses "Alto Adige" on occasion: [30]. As I've said before, I was not a fan of the "South Tyrol" list of sources either. Neither list proves anything except that those particular sources use whichever term(s) they choose. But if we have one list, I think we should have both lists, to show people that both terms are used in a variety of English-language sources.

2) As for the Cisalpine citation, it seemed pretty clear to me that the "Distretto dell'Alto Adige" was part of the "Dipartimento del Benaco" in the Cisalpine Republic, and that the Comunità listed thereafter were largely part of today's Province of Verona. If that latter phrase seems too much like original synthesis, then I'd be willing to drop it.

3) I also dropped "Haut-Adige" from the provenance of "Alto Adige", as regardless of whether the term originated in the Cisalpine Republic or the Kingdom of Italy, both of those states named their political units in Italian. So while "Haut-Adige" was used in French, there's no reason to refer to it in this section, unless someone can show explicitly that it led directly to "Alto Adige". Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

1) You are backing your header sentence by having "Alto Adige" added to it with the claim that it is widely used in English as well. To what percentage though? And will that justify having it in the header sentence? So far the sources you have given are confusing in that they use South Tyrol at the same time. :2) The Cisalpine quote is not clear, can someone with Italian knowledge shed some light? :3) The Haut Adige was the term first given by Napoleon who created the Cisalpine republic and the Kingdom of Italy. The Italian term Alto Adige evolved from that, not the other way around. Gryffindor (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1) I've removed the list of "South Tyrol" sources again, pending resolution of the issue here on the talkpage. If someone can explain the value of having those sources there, and why there should or should not be a corresponding list of "Alto Adige" sources, I'd appreciate it.

2) I found a clearer source showing that the District of Alto Adige was in the Department of Benaco in the Cisalpine Republic, and included the town of Zevio. Therefore, I added it back to the article.

3) Related to that, we now have sources calling the district "Alto Adige" in 1797 and 1798 - the very beginning of the Cisalpine Republic. If someone can prove that "Alto Adige" evolved from "Haut Adige", that's fine; otherwise, I don't think we can make that claim.

I also removed the POV tag, as I believe everything in the Alto Adige paragraph is verifiable. Dohn joe (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Bad idea, since we need sources to show that South Tyrol is the most commonly used term in English before anything else, which we agreed upon. So how should we prove that in your opinion? There can be a list showing that Alto Adige is also used in English, but you need to make clear that it is not used as often as the previous term, and the wording of your paragraph does not make that very clear. 2) I still object that you are putting in the Alto Adige in the leading sentence, and I know that I am not alone with this concern. It is creating an artificial highlight of the name, which is all explained in the "name" section anyways. 3) Concerning your new source, that one is much clearer and can be used. Concerning the history of the term, the Italian article here [31] and a map here [32] might help shed some light into the situation. 4) You seem to want to divide the "name" section into explaining South Tyrol and then Alto Adige, as opposed to a chronological order, followed by the official use of the moment, is that correct? 5) I am re-adding tags since we are still in disagreement and in current discussion, therefore obviously neutrality is not given yet. As it states in the tags, do not remove them until the issues have been clearly settled and we have found consensus. Gryffindor (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1)Unsure what to do. It's okay to cite sources, which show that the names are used, but it's not really necessary. It's certainly not okay to allow just sources for one name. 2) Alto Adige is fine in the leading sentence. 3) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 5) I don't think, that the tags are necessary.

In general: I think we're giving too much (undue) weight to that section. I guess, that only a very small part of the readers of this article wants to be informed about the history of names. I'd really like to abbreviate that section. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% on all points. The current history of names section is probably too long, and is there more to satisfy the editors than the readers, so I'd also be happy condensing it. How does this sound:

"South Tyrol (occasionally South Tirol) is the term most commonly used in English for the province, and its usage reflects that the province was created from a portion of the southern part of the historic County of Tyrol.

Alto Adige (English: "Upper Adige"), one of the Italian names for the province, is also used in English. Its usage reflects that the upper portion of the Adige River is found in the province. The term had been the name of various political subdivisions in the time of Napoleon, and was reintroduced as the Italian name of the current province after its post-World War I creation."

I'd still keep the official names section as is. I tried to keep it as simple as possible, and anything I removed should be able to find its way into the history section or elsewhere. I'd actually be fine with taking out the last sentence of the Alto Adige paragraph, for that matter. What do you all think? Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In general I think your proposal is appropriate. But were there really various political subdivisions called "Alto Adige"? Not just two, or did I miss something? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to fix one issue after the issue. The problem with not having referenced sources is that some other users (those involved in the past know what I am talking about) will clamour for some "proof". I also find it a bit tedious to have to source everything that seems to be common sense or common knowledge (nothing a simple Google search wouldn't be able to show). However it would be better for future sake to show sources of the use in English for both terms (that is South Tyrol and Alto Adige). I think Dohn joe that one source of the old book that shows the history of the term AA is a good start. If you want to condense the name section it would be a good idea to have a full separate article about the department. There you could add all the information and sources available concerning this part. One or two sentences summarising the article can be included in the name section with a link to the full article built into it. How does that sound as a start? Gryffindor (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

1) The problem with lists of sources is that they can't prove which term is most common, unless you list every single source that uses both terms. Otherwise, it's essentially a random list. For example, if you had a list of five sources using "South Tyrol", I could create a list of six sources using "Alto Adige". You then could create a list of seven "South Tyrol" sources, which I could counter with an eight-source list for "Alto Adige", and on and on until we ran out of sources. And what do we do with the ones that use both? The only way we can "prove" that "South Tyrol" is more common is if there is a source out there that says explicitly, "South Tyrol is more common than Alto Adige in English", or something to that effect. I understand your concern about other editors, but I think there was enough evidence shown during the last move request that "South Tyrol" is more common (ngrams, Google Books, etc.), that we can leave that statement as is, and point doubters to those proofs.

2) I was actually thinking that a separate article on the history of "Alto Adige" - as district, department, and province - would be a good idea. I'll see if I can work something up - or anyone else is also free to do so.

3) And yes, Mai-Sachme, as far as I know it was just two. I put "various" more or less as a weasel word, since I haven't found a source saying it was exactly two. Dohn joe (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to condense the section a bit, following dohn joe's proposal. Since Gryffindor's concerns only addressed the sources for the common usage of Alto Adige, which are not present anymore, I removed the tag in the Name section.

Regarding the Neutrality tag: Gryffindor, am I right to suppose that you object to the mention of Alto Adige? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To Dohn Joe: There need to be sources that show that "South Tyrol" is used more commonly than "Alto Adige". Now how difficult can that be? To Mai-Sachme: please stop removing tags about issues which are not settled yet, it says in the notice "Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message." We have clearly not reached that stage. Tags exist to give other users also the time to discuss and participate, not to be removed unilaterally at the earliest instance within 48 hours. So I ask you to be mindful of that and leave them until an agreement has been reached. There is also an issue of the usage of "Sudtirolo", which needs to be moved from the subsection of "official use" up to the first paragraph which explains the usage of "South Tyrol". It is not a part of the official name in Italian, as opposed to the "Südtirol" in the German and Ladin one. Gryffindor (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the old tag, because the reason of your concerns (the given sources for Alto Adige) had been removed. Your new citation needed tag is fine.

Sudtirolo is already mentioned prominently in the introduction. More details about its usage in Italian would be completely undue, in an article about a political subdivision other topics are far more important than the third most used name in a specific language.

Could you please explain precisely the NPOV-tag in the introduction and the UNDUE-tag in the Official and local usage section? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, what other tag would be more in order in your opinion? We have not agreed yet, so some kind of tag needs to be there. If we agree to explain the terms "South Tyrol" and separately after that "Alto Adige", it makes sense to bundle the "Sudtirolo" into that first part as well, since it is not an official name in Italian. Gryffindor (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the title of the second subsection, where "Sudtirolo" is mentioned, it's called "Official and local usage". Perhaps it would be clearer putting it the other way 'round...? Dohn joe (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The previous layout of a simple "Name" section is better than these two confusing subsections "English-language usage" and "Local and official usage". Subsections are warranted if they are long enough in text, and that is not the case. Best to revert to the previous format of having just one section. Gryffindor (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

Folks here may be interested to know that Gryffindor and I have been working on a new article about the historical district and department of Alto Adige/Haut-Adige/Upper Adige. We're having trouble picking the right title for the article, though. Check out the discussion at Talk:Haut-Adige and weigh in if you're interested. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Colours

This map shows the Ladin municipalitites coloured in blue. The legend of the map in the section Demographics, however, says that a Ladin majority is shown by the colour orange. Can anyone fix this contradiction? I don't know how to find the right code for the colour appearing in the map. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

my bad! after complains from color-blind people one of them changed the map from orange to blue to aid in him/them when looking at this map. I approved that change back then but forgot to also change the color descriptions. I will do that now. Sorry, noclador (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC

Neutrality disputed

The neutrality of the article is STILL disputed, even if some Austrians want to erase the tag. The article should be named ALTO ADIGE/SOUTH TYROL. Even because it is an area that is inside Italy and there it is a huge Italian speaking community in Alto Adige (that in Bolzano it is even the majority!).An Italian "altoatesino" born in Bolzano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.208.127.65 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2011

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Move request regarding Municipalities of South Tyrol

Move requests have been brought up here and here. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

title page are incorrect

Alto Adige/South tyrol is a geographic area, in this voice is about the Autonomous province of Bolzano --Pava (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alto Adige, South Tyrol and Autonomous province of Bolzano are the same "thing". The name chosen here is the common english name, as per WP:COMMONNAME. See earlier discussions.--Sajoch (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To expand on what Sajoch said - Alto Adige and South Tyrol were both names given to the new political unit carved out of the old Tyrol after World War I - neither described a particular geographical area before then. Alto Adige in particular only has a small historical connection to the current geographical area. See its history at Alto Adige (Napoleonic) - the first "Alto Adige" was much farther south than today's. Dohn joe (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

this is a region of Italy and the offical name is Alto Adige/South Tyrol, because you want use only South Tyrol? is legally and officially registered in the records as the Italian Aldo Adige-Südtirol, which corresponds to the autonomous province of Bolzano (and not the province of South Tyrol, which does not exist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Because "South Tyrol" is the english name, and this is the english Wikipedia. It's really that simple.--Sajoch (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We are following the guideline WP:COMMONNAME which says: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Given that South Tyrol, Alto Adige and Province of Bolzano/Bozen are synonyms, we use the name which appears most frequently in English literature, and that is South Tyrol. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

See: Talk:South Tyrol/Archive 4#Requested move. Andreas ^(T) 22:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Census 2011

The results are out: [34], the pdf attached to the press release [35] lists all the details for all the villages and cities. noclador (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Has the 2011 census meanwhile been incorporated into WP? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I updated this article here and all municipalities. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

for all interested parties: a view by the BBC on South Tyrol. noclador (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Autonomy

The article states that Austria and Italy ended their dispute with an autonomy agreement in 1992. It would like to point out that (as the article states previously, albeit in somewhat cloudy wording) the autonomy agreement dates back to the year 1972 while it took 20 more years to resolve the dispute. --Mampfus (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing bias in the article.

The article at its current state reads:

South Tyrol is the term that is most commonly used in English [...] and its usage reflects that it was created from a portion of the southern part of the historic County of Tyrol.

I demand this to be changed to: the opinion it was created from a portion, etc. I do not understand why Ascoli inventing the phrase: Venezia Giulia is a clear, hateful example of Italian irredentism, while the poor and civilized Austro-Bavarian shepherds of Alto Adige claiming it to be an integral part of a long-gone County are simply assessing their rights against the bad, bad Italians.

Moreover:

Alto Adige (literally translated in English: "Upper Adige"), one of the Italian names for the province, had been edited by me to: the standard name for the province. No one, no one uses Sudtirolo. Or anything else.

Finally:

It was reused as the Italian name of the current province after its post-World War I creation, and was a symbol of the subsequent forced Italianization of South Tyrol. was changed to: It was reused as the namesake of the current province when it joined Italy after the victory in World War I, within larger attempts of Italianization. A neutral, and objective statement, instead of the former, which is emotional in a way I do not even consider to comment at lenght.

All these changes I've been making have been reverted twice, and I've been asked to produce them here on the talk page. So I've done. I expect inputs. --80.181.225.114 (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

a) Sorry, but I don't have any idea what you are talking about (Ascoli? Shepherds?)... The word opinion, that you want to write into the article, implies something open to interpretation. That is simply not the case. Tyrol was divided by a border from east to west, creating a southern portion and a northern portion. The fact that the name South Tyrol refers to a southern portion of Tyrol is by no means an opinion... But let's have a look at analogue examples: The name South Sudan reflects that it was created from a portion of the southern part of the Sudan. Is that an opinion? The name West Virginia reflects that it was created from a portion of the western part of Virginia. Is that an opinion? I really don't know, if you're being serious...

b) Well, recently we've been witnessing people denying even the obvious (There is no evidence that Suarez bit Giorgio Chiellini's shoulder.), but I don't think, that we need a discussion about Sudtirolo. That piece of information is excellenty referenced, and if you distrust the cited literature, you may want to do a simple Google search... As I said: I really don't think that getting in an argument about plainly obvious facts is doing anybody any good.

c) I don't see any kind of emotional statement there. Please be more specific. Are you referring to the word forced. Are you denying that the Italianization of South Tyrol was forced? And please note again, that there is a specific reference for the sentence, citing a book written by the historian Rolf Steininger. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with User:Mai-Sachme|Mai-Sachme]]. About the last point, it is enough to have a look to the diaries of Ciano, to know the fascist policy towards the allogeni. Alex2006 (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's Bozen and Meran, not Bolzano and Merano

It's a clear insult against every native South Tyrolean to the "Italian" names "Merano" and "Bolznao" in English instead of the correct German names Meran and Bozen for these two cities.

The "Italian" town names in South Tyrol are not really Italian. In fact, they are pure phantasy names invented by a fascist criminal called Ettore Tolomei, for the "Ialianziation" of South Tyrol. These names are also an insult for Italy's language and rich cultural traditon. In fact, even the original Italian name for South Tyrol - "Sudtirolo" was banned by Mussolini in favour of the fictional "Aldo Adige". No one should be able to see anymore that this area has never really been part of Italy, but has been illegally (i.e. against the populations will) annexed after World War I. Tolomei worked on a whole catalog to replace virtually every German and Ladin geographical name in the area with an Italian one. Due to this fact, these new "names" are on the same level with communist phantasy "town names" like Stalingrad, Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Karl-Marx-Stadt or Ho Chi Minh City.

Using these fictional names in English instead of the original German and Ladin ones is like a posthumous glorification of Mussolini and his crimes against humanity!

Due to constant edit-warring between italian and german POV, it was decided by a large majority to use the names, the inhabitants use. Therefore for most towns in South Tyrol we use the german names (over 100) and only 5 towns with an italian majority use the italian name and a few ladin towns are under their ladin name. Moreover "Bolzano" and "Merano" were already used before South Tyrol was annexed to Italy and are not inventions by Tolomei. For evidence please see the history of this talk-page - good reading!--Sajoch (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As to fictional names. In historical South Tyrol people have always spoken Italian (vast majority), with tiny minorities of Cimbrians and Mocheni, moreover Ladins in so called Anaunia and Fassa. Indeed, under Austrian rule Südtirol meant today's province of Trento (Das Mineralbad Roncegno in Südtirol, Roncegno is in what is now called Trentino, just an example out of thousands), sometimes the region from Brenner to Borghetto.--Patavium (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The "historical South Tyrol" Patavium is referring to (the province of Trento), was called "Southern Tyrol" ("der Süden Tirols", "südliches Tirol" or "Welschtirol"). I think he confuses the two areas.--89.202.179.186 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you have difficulties with German language. Braumüller, which is one of Austria's oldest publishers (he was k.u.k. hof- und universitätsbuchhändler, but maybe you ignore the meaning) used Südtirol in order to indicate today's Trentino Das Mineralbad Roncegno in Südtirol. Or if you prefer this one: Analyse der Mineralquellen von Levico bei Trient (Südtirol) (Levico next to Trent (South Tyrol)). After heavily abusing Italian history, please try at least not abuse of Austrian history.--Patavium (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the anon user however that the name should be Meran, and not Merano. The majority of the population speaks German and we have established the rule to name the cities after the language spoken by the majority. That article needs to be moved. Gryffindor (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem of the articles about so called "South Tyrol" (and historical South Tyrol, i.e. Trentino, but also used for Trentino-Alto Adige) are not the names but the contents. There is a lot of POV supported by users who do not know very much about it and there are incredible omissions. This leads to hilarious discussions like this one. Atrocious crimes against humanity? Actually they were committed at the time of the reintroduction of certain names, and I am not talking about the Italian names.--Patavium (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

you're always welcome to expand the articles Patavium! These "incredible omissions" - please go and rectify that. But please do so with a positive attitude and a neutral point of view. Nobody here wants to re-open that idiotic discussion about names in this province and I dare say nobody wants to discuss who committed what crimes when against whom... and so on. So can we all just move on? thanks, noclador (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@noclador: Sure, you are right. We should not reopen the discussion about the names.--Patavium (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed for years and the current names reflect the consensus. I'm in full support of using the names of the majority of the population, which means using German for most municipalities but Italian for Bolzano. Merano is a tricky case. It is split almost equally between speakers of German and Italian. The policy in this case has been to use Merano because it is by far the more common name used in English. So just as we say Rome instead of 'Roma and Florence instead of 'Firenze', we use Merano as it is common English usage.Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP can't be taken seriously. The OP confuses legality with the population's will, doesn't know the Italian language, expresses anti-communist views, which don't have anything to do with this discussion and blames everything on the next dictator possible. --2.245.178.152 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bolzano and Merano are the right names.Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

About the Italian name

Probably, at least I hope, it's a topic that's already been raised quite a few times. If it hasn't, here's the point: no Italian speaker, at least among the mentally healthy, would ever call this province Sudtirolo. Moreover, the reported IPA spelling of this word - with /tt/ instead of /dt/ - is wrong, quite laughably in a manner that (somehow) suggests the author of the introduction handling German phonetics better than the Italian one. Sometimes you might hear the adjective sudtirolese, but still it's rather odd, altoatesino is definitely dominant between Italians, and Provincia di Bolzano is the only alternative name of the area which gets used, beyond Alto Adige. Even the local native speakers of German, while speaking Italian, tend to use the Italian names of the province and its towns. I suggest rewriting the whole first paragraphs, I would do it myself, if I weren't sure somebody would revert it in a few hours with no given reason. Nothing to say about the English name, sincerely, it doesn't concern nor interest me. Greetings, --79.25.51.160 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a disturbing one sided article

The bias against italians in this wiki article is outrageous. The authors forgot to mention the violent germanisation to which this region and its inhabitants were subject during the centuries. The history of this region doesn't start in 1922 with the birth of Fascsim. Maybe it should have been remembered that the prevalent german speaking population is the result of centuries of forced germanization and migration of population from Austria and South Germany in a territory placed in the italian peninsula and inhabited by people culturally latin.

Meeting of the Council of Ministers of 12 November 1866 Emperor Franz Joseph.

12th november 1866

“ Se. Majestät (Franz Joseph I.) sprach den bestimmten Befehl aus, daß auf die entschiedenste Art dem Einflusse des in einigen Kronländern noch vorhandenen italienischen Elementes entgegengetreten und durch geeignete Besetzung der Stellen von politischen, Gerichtsbeamten, Lehrern sowie durch den Einfluß der Presse in Südtirol, Dalmatien und dem Küstenlande auf die Germanisierung oder Slawisierung der betreffenden Landesteile je nach Umständen mit aller Energie und ohne alle Rücksicht hingearbeitet werde. Se. Majestät legt es allen Zentralstellen als strenge Pflicht auf, in diesem Sinne planmäßig vorzugehen ”

“His Majesty has expressed the precise order that we decisively oppose the influence of the Italian element still present in some Crown lands, and to aim unsparingly and without the slightest compunction at the Germanization or Slavicization – depending on the circumstances – of the areas in question, through a suitable entrustment of posts to political magistrates and teachers, as well as through the influence of the press in South Tyrol, Dalmatia, and the Adriatic Coast.”

Magnagr (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"His Majesty" wasn't talking about the modern-day South Tyrol. Prior to 1918 the name South Tyrol typically referred to the southernmost part of the County of Tyrol, which is today known as the Trentino. The area nowadays known as South Tyrol (= Province of Bolzano) has been largely German-speaking since the High Middle Ages. The slow linguistic shift between 600 and 1300 was neither "violent" nor politically planed. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is like saying " mission acccomplished " in South Tyrol (= Province of Bolzano), now let's start to practice the ethnic cleansing against italians in other regions of the Empire: something to be proud of !!

Romance people were still the majority till the XIV century in South Tyrol (= Province of Bolzano).The same name Tyrol has not a german root but latin. It derives from "teriol-triol" which come from the latin "iter".

The "enlightened" Marie Theresa imposed a policy of germanisation of the "ladini". She forbade the use of the ladin language in public meeting, religious services and during her reign many ladin surname were germanised (e.g.Elemunt=Elemunter, Melaun=Melauner, Costalungia=Kastlunger, Granruac=Großrubatscher). Maximilian I and uncle Franz were even worst, both self declared italophobe, they invented the policy of ethnic cleansing with the italians being the firsts victims. I wonder why this article does not mention anything of that.....

The peasants and shepherds coming from Austria and South of Germany did not belong to the South Tyrol (= Province of Bolzano) geographically, culturally and ethnically. It was the "felix" Empire, towards which many people from South Tyrol have nostalgic feelings, that crossed the Alps, colonized and germanised italian territories and populations, not the contrary.

Starting the history section with the chapter: Annexation by Italy, and then " With the rise of Fascism, the new regime made efforts to bring forward the Italianization of South Tyrol" is a ridiculous, gross and vulgar anti-italian propaganda:it is easy to start the history where is more convenient.

It is obvious that this article has been written by nationalists from South Tyrol but the last thing that the most spoilt minority in the World could do is to play the role of the victim. Magnagr (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please take note that Wikipedia is not a forum. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not the forum but that this article is a POV pushing -- Magnagr (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

we need to use a better tone.Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please take a "piece" of "bias" or what is missing, suggest here what should be, with sources, and let's talk. --Robertiki (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

naming and head

I know the issue was already discussed here. Nevertheless, I find it quite silly that of the over 100 provinces of Italy, there are two that do not follow the naming convention Province of X (Bolzano Alto-Adige / Bozen Südtirol and Trento). This goes against WP:NCCS, which ironically brings as an example exactly the provinces of Italy. Mind that this is not a politically motivated rant and that seeing Trentino instead of Province of Trento irritates me just as much if not more. From the outside, it looks as if Wikipedia can't distinguish between the official names of administrative subdivisions and the brand names that those same administrative subdivisions use worldwide to market their touristic industry. --Japs 88 (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The topic has already been discussed ad nauseam. WP:NCCN is our general guideline. As repeatedly pointed out in the past, South Tyrol is far and away the most common English name for the political entity, almost exclusively used in the body of political and historical literature on the subject. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

History

The history section of this article is unbalanced with nothing prior to the 20th century issues around transfer to Italy. The history section should give a balanced overview of the regional history across the centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.184.88 (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The province was established in 1923, it's quite normal. In addition there's a separate page for the previous story. --Ekø (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Regional presidents in infoboxes

I started a discussion at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 1#Regional presidents in infoboxes on whether the two provincial presidents of Trentino ans South Tyrol should be equated to regional presidents, as it already happens in the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces.
Please have a say! --Checco (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Names (once again)

A nationalist IP keeps changing the article against the established consensus of using the local name first. So the question is quite simple: should we stick to the established consensus of using the local name first or should we always use German first as its the majority language? Using Italian first because it's the national language, as the IP claims, is not really an option as it's contrary to established practice across Wikipedia (we don't use Dutch names for French parts of Belgium, German names for French parts of Switzerland, etc.). Jeppiz (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that Belgium and Switzerland have different official languages depending on the region, Italian is the first official language in all of Italy. Anyway, the first official name of this province is "Provincia autonoma di Bolzano", and not "South Tyrol" (in it.wiki we have two different page), you can use the German or English name if you prefer, but please use the city (Bolzano/Bozen/Bulsan/Pouzen) and not the region (South Tyrol/Sud Tirolo/Südtirol). Because the "South Tyrol" is NOT an Italian province. (And a similar speech can be made for Trentino). --Ekø (talk • contribs)

This has been discussed numerous times: we follow English usage. Jeppiz (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And what is the "English usage" exactly? The name seems correct for all the other provinces, why those two are different? --Ekø (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Look in the archives. This has been discussed in great detail here over the years. There's also a big red inoformation box at the top of this talk page... Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I took a look here, and I can say that this title is wrong because:

Naturalness: I don't know anyone who uses this name to indicate precisely the province of Bolzano.

Precision: The title is not precise, the province of Bolzano and South Tyrol are two different things.

Consistency: The title is completely different to those of the other Italian provinces.

If it does not respect your own guidelines, how can it be the correct title? --Ekø (talk • contribs)

For the record:

South Tyrol is far and away the most commonly used English name for the province. And it's not particularly close...
South Tyrol (or its German equivalent Südtirol) and province of Bolzano became (according to academic literature...) synonyms in the 1920s. There is no whatsoever difference in modern-day usage. This is also reflected by official usage, both by the province itself and the Italian constitution.
South Tyrol is an entirely different administrative entity than regular Italian provinces. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect "Look in the archives" is a pretty straight forward sentence. Again, this has been discussed and you haven't yet added anything new. If there are conclusions in the archive with which you agree, state with which and why. Jeppiz (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I simply can't read all the archives, I read some and is all wrong. What should I add? They are two different things, period; I literally can't add more. --Ekø (talk • contribs)

It seems to me quite weird that typing "Alto Adige", that is to say the official name in Italian, I have to pass through a disambiguation page. I understand that "South Tyrol" is probably the most widespread name for this region in English, but the other pages showing in the Alto Adige disambiguation page are far less important. I think that "Alto Adige" should redirect here, and the other pages quoted in a Alto Adige (disambiguation) page. --Simoncik84 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Names

This page has a wrong name; names of italian 'regioni' and 'province' are written in the Italian Constitution; please fix it as soon as possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.200.163 (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The name is correct! It is simply crazy to think that the name of an Italian / Russian / German region in the ENGLISH wikipedia has to be written in Italian / Russian / German: the name of the page for Germany is indeed "Germany", not "Deutschland"!--Federicolo (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Transhumance

Dear users, for a university workshop I'm inserting a little paragraph regarding Transhumance in the Culture section. I really hope you appreciate my contribution. I wish you all an happy new year! --ADunibg (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Link for Coat of Arms

Hi all, I've been having absolutely outrageous difficulties in linking the appropriate article (Coat of arms of Tyrol) for the CoA image in the infobox. Can someone link this for me? Sincerely, a noob who's bad at editing.Theodore Christopher (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Tyroleans and Tyrolese

@Mai-Sachme: both these terms are used in current English as adjectives plus Tyrolese means the Tyrolean people. For example, see the Collins dictionary entry for Tyrolese. And according to Ngram Viewer, "the Tyrolese" is now more common than "Tyroleans". I'd say both are entirely current, neither is wrong but Tyrolese has the edge when referring to the Tyrolean people. Of course, it's only used in that context. Bermicourt (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Thanks, very interesting... I have to say I'm genuinely surprised by the frequency of Tyrolese, which doesn't quite match my personal experience, but that might be biased, of course. Still, though, one has to be careful with Ngram. When you have a look at the Ngram you posted, scroll down and examine the actual book results you get. If you click on the 2017-2019 time frame... the first book is a reprint (Moscheles), the second as well (Baillie-Grohmann), the fifth and sixth reflect the usage of Mary Shelley, the eighth is a reprint, the ninth again Mary Shelley, the eleventh is a book by Walter Scott... and so on and on. I didn't check the others, but I at least the results I looked at somehow reflect my private experience, that Tyrolese was once widely used and got more and more replaced by Tyrolean, which to me seems far more common in contemporary usage. But this is, of course, just a hasty online research done by me. Best regards, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

And there may be a bias towards American sources too though that may not affect this much. I'm looking "Tyrolese" in 20th and 21st century publications and, certainly the first 3 titles are reprints of old books - Tyrol and the Tyrolese, The Tyrolese Melodies, and The Tyrolese Patriots of 1809. But then we have several modern publications: Disputed Territories (2003), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (1982), Europe and Ethnicity (1996), Ethnic Conflict (2010), Mountain Environments and Communities (2001). Interestingly "South Tyrolese" pops up quite often. So I don't think this is a binary issue and it's good to reflect the sources by accepting both terms as the real world does. Bermicourt (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Meran/Merano

I think that we should change the name of Merano in Meran here, since per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) in South Tyrol we should use the denomination of the language of the linguistic majority. This implies also a move of Merano to Meran. There could be an exception only if in the English sources Merano prevails over Meran. Alex2006 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. Still not done 320luca (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed at great length, and the consensus was that Merano is by far the dominant form in English and should be used for the article. Look in the archives of Merano. Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Then let's wait... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)