Talk:Trentino/Archive 1

Move Province of Trento to Autonomous Province of Trento

Province of Trento → Autonomous Province of Trento – The Province of Trento is more than a Province, it is an autonomous province, and the correct name for it is Provincia Autonoma di Trento (in English: Autonomous Province of Trento). Checco 09:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Support The special status of the autonomous provinces is worth recognizing in the titles of the articles. —Ian Spackman 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually, I can support this name change too. Eventually Province of Bolzano-Bozen should follow this as well. Taalo 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

Oppose --Martin Se 09:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (a mention in the first line is enough)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I would actually propose we strike out all this complicated "Autonomous Province of X" part and go with a simple "Trentino". Gryffindor 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino redirects to this page and is a regional name. Province of Trento works well. Taalo 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. The article talks not just about the autonomous province, but about the history of the entire region as well. Do a Google search and you will see which term is used more often. Gryffindor 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, thanks for sharing your POV. Taalo 17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's something I'd support, too... Tridentinus 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dio.. :P Ok, well I have a lot of affection for the name Trentino as well, but I'd really hope we can have a Province of Trento page as well. It still makes sense to me to simply have redirects from Trentino and Alto Adige/Sudtirol (South Tyrol) to the modern provinces. Taalo 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino is realy the same as Province of Trento. I'd support this move :-|--Martin Se 09:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I'd think we should have a Trentino and Province of Trento page and a Alto Adige/Südtirol and Province of Bolzano-Bozen page. It seems obvious that going for one or the other is just going to create debates until the end of time. Taalo 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Province of Trento to Trentino

Province of Trento → Trentino – The article talks about the historical region. Official names are not used on Wikipedia for territories. A Google search shows that the term "Trentino" gets 26,700,000 hits, "Province of Trento" 1,220,000 hits, "Autonomous Province of Trento" 82,100 hits. So I think this case is pretty obvious. Gryffindor 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Support to move Gryffindor 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support also. Trentino has been where it was much longer than the province (by this I mean, it's a historical unit, as opposed to the provinces of, say, Lombardy). Province of Trento sees little use outside the mail office :). Thank you for this, Gryffindor. Tridentinus 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

Oppose I'll assume good faith, but my gut tells me this is sour grapes on the part of Gryffindor regarding the move of South Tyrol. Bottom line, the convention is Province of X. We have a redirect from the area name to the province name. If it is decided on South Tyrol to do a split (very likely) of a history section and a province section, then I'd say there is some validity to doing that here too. Taalo 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok...

we have multiple polls and this is getting a bit ridiculous again. Could someone scrap the above move requests and go for a poll again like we did on other pages. So far I see Province of Trento, Autonomous Province of Trento, and Trentino. As at South Tyrol we should obviously consider a split in articles between provincial and historical. Taalo 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

So we don't have to run multiple polls at the same time (which I've put over in the archive), here is a list of the three most common names that people seem to prefer. I will move people's support votes here, they of course can change later. Also, please say if you support a split between the area historia and an actual administrative province page. It looks like we are likely going to split South Tyrol into a Province of BZ and a historical page. thanks Taalo 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Province of Trento

Support The special status of the autonomous provinces is worth recognizing in the titles of the articles. —Ian Spackman 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually, I can support this name change too. Eventually Province of Bolzano-Bozen should follow this as well. Taalo 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Checco 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Trento

Trentino

Support to move Gryffindor 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support also. Trentino has been where it was much longer than the province (by this I mean, it's a historical unit, as opposed to the provinces of, say, Lombardy). Province of Trento sees little use outside the mail office :). Tridentinus 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

split of administrative vs. historical

Support I support a Province of TN and Trentino split. Taalo 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Checco 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnecessary Gryffindor 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

So we don't have to run multiple polls at the same time (which I've put over in the archive), here is a list of the three most common names that people seem to prefer. I will move people's support votes here, they of course can change later. Also, please say if you support a split between the area historia and an actual administrative province page. It looks like we are likely going to split South Tyrol into a Province of BZ and a historical page. thanks Taalo 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Province of Trento

Support The special status of the autonomous provinces is worth recognizing in the titles of the articles. —Ian Spackman 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Checco 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rarelibra 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This along with a History of Trentino and redirect of Trentino to Autonomous Province of Trento. Icsunonove 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Trento

Support the most logical name, according to this page, though it is really "morally" irrelevant for me if you decide one or the other. Will we have to move "Province of Belluno" to "Bellunese" or something like that, then? However, I have to say that I'm astonished by the meannes and perseverance of some of the people involved in this polls, even for a non-controversial issue like this.--Supparluca 08:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was certainly some interesting reaction after the T-AA/ST move. heh. Icsunonove 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino

Support to move Gryffindor 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support also. Trentino has been where it was much longer than the province (by this I mean, it's a historical unit, as opposed to the provinces of, say, Lombardy). Province of Trento sees little use outside the mail office :). Tridentinus 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most common and simple name. —Nightst a llion (?) 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should use the most common names. Just as the Article on the Federal Republic of Germany is called Germany or the one on the Republic of Austria is called Austria.
Ok, so I got a great idea for you then. Why don't you go to de.wikipedia, and move all the Provinz X pages to just X? Italienische Provinz Come back and tell us how it goes, m'kay? :] Icsunonove 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Province of Trento → Trentino – {move to most common English name}

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support Gryffindor 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Se 21:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PhJ 10:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tridentinus 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Checco 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Nightst a llion (?) 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rarelibra 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion this poll has been initiated in bad faith. There was/is an ongoing discussion and straw poll, which were not respected and even blanked at one point (and by an admin -- who should know better). [1] Icsunonove 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There needs to be an article on the province simply because there’s an article on every Italian province and the title should include the word province in order to avoid confusing the poor bastards who are trying to read the encyclopedia we are trying to write! Probably most of us here, whichever way they are voting, actually think of this tract of land as Trentino. But then we are all kind of self-styled experts in things subalpine in the southern sense. But what we have to do is to be reader-friendly —Ian Spackman 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This article is about the whole region Trentino, therefore request to move to most common name. A Google search also shows 25,300,000 hits in favour of the name "Trentino", as opposed to a mere 1,200,000 hits for the current version. Gryffindor 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino is not a region but a province. --Checco 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very poor logic from a technical point of view by making this comparison of "Trentino" to "Province of Trento". It is not comparing apples to apples. You would have to do something like "Province of Trentino" -wiki, which provides 109,000 hits. "Province of Trentino" -wiki, which provides 584 hits. If you really put in the time into doing the work to find out what is most used in common English (like opening up Brittanica), you'll find for the far majority of province lists they use Trento. Icsunonove 05:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a Trentino and even South Tyrol page could make sense, but only when done in conjunction with an Autonomous Province of Trento and Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen page (which I believe is how it.wikipedia approaches it). However, excluding the "Province of ___" pages would just be absolutely incorrect. One just has to spend 30 seconds looking at Provinces of Italy... Icsunonove 06:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the search results on the internet speak for themselves. Trentino is the most commonly used English name for the region/province, not "Province of Trento", see for yourself if you don't want to believe me. Gryffindor 14:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they certainly do not. There is something that speaks quite for itself here though. :)) Icsunonove 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Is Gryffindor suggesting that we move the region currently known as Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol to Trentino?

I'm in favor of keeping it as it is with the "Province of (XXX)" designation. Now, whether or not it should be "Province of Trento" as opposed to "Province of Trentino" I need more proof. But I don't like the deviation from "Province of " format. Rarelibra 19:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some points Tridentinus made, I'd actually really favour having both a Province of Trento and Trentino page if we could just figure out where to partition the articles. This could be a model for dealing with BZ as well. Obvious reasons to why the ongoing discussions should of been respected. Icsunonove 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Trentino doesn’t quite make sense to me. The vast majority of Italian provinces take the form Provincia di Capoluogo, were Capoluogo (literally head-place, or capital) is replaced by the name of a town. There are exceptions, like Provincia del Verbano Cusio Ossola where Cusio is a lake and the Ossola is a valley (or set of valleys). But this isn’t that kind of exception. [Autonomous] Province of Trento and Trentino are the two real candidates. Neither is stupid but if, like me, you want to get the word Province into the name the former is the one to go for. —Ian Spackman 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rarelibra, I didn’t take in the name of the editor I was replying to. You certainly didn’t need that pedantic little lecture! But I stand by the argument I was making. —Ian Spackman 22:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count five yeas for the move, and four against it. How was that no consensus? Tridentinus 17:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

consensus: agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole; "the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus" -- 5-4 isn't really consensus, it is the opposite really. you have almost a 50-50 split, with the narrowest of difference (one vote).

I didn't know there was also a minimum quorum required for a vote to be valid. With 9 votes, dramatic gaps were unlikely to happen. Tridentinus 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we switch back and forth every month from Trentino to Autonomous Province of Trento. Or every six months, like the EU presidency? :-) Anyway, we should figure out a way to have the "Province of" for TN and BZ and also the Trentino and Alto Adige/South Tyrol pages for the areas. We should brainstorm a bit on how to do it well. We could reduce the "Province of" pages down to just core administrative information? Icsunonove 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move back (1 June 2007)

Today’s unilateral move to Trentino was made despite the fact that this talk page made it clear that no such move had achieved consensus. It should be reverted to the status quo ante (Province of Trento) until a consensus is found for some other name.( Some oddity in page histories means that no instant move-back was possible). —Ian Spackman 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you, of course. Also Gryffindor's absurd unilateral move of Merano to Meran should be reverted, and eventually Gryffindor should be prevented from editing anything related to this province, since he doesn't accept to apply the conventions he surely knows.--Supparluca 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly endorse an RfC; this is going much too far, and he deleted a page to do it; I have consulted ANI Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all need to calm down, and rather quickly. There was a vote and the majority was discovered and acted upon - no matter how close the vote was or not. Consensus was to move the page to the current naming convention, period. Pamderson - I will challenge any and all such endorsements for RfC, as well as ensure that ANI knows ALL actions (yours and Supparlucas included), including the voting that DID reach consensus. It seems there is a deep and ongoing personal issue with some of you and Gryffindor, and that needs to stop. What he does is by the book wiki - calls for a vote, allows time, tallies the vote, and if consensus is reached, acts upon it. Rarelibra 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus. I am not at all hot under the collar. You might need to calm down (I haven’t felt beneath your collar;) .) It is clear that Gryffindor abused the powers given to him as an admin: a fact that I was not aware of when I raised the issue. But cool off, noone insulted you—you shouldn’t have insulted me. But relax, I’ll forget about it. —Ian Spackman 14:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are too funny, Mr. Spackman. Please point out how YOU were insulted. Take a deep breath - and concentrate. Gryffndor did nothing wrong, and did not abuse any powers. Consensus was reached, period. Just because you don't like how it turned out doesn't give you the right to make accusations. Did Gryffndor make accusations after the Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol vote? NO. Rarelibra 14:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so... how about diffs? Rarelibra 15:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the key issue is not whether you insult me (obviously you do—as the person who started this section I have to be included among the people who, in your words ‘all need to calm down’, but I will forget about it within an hour (Or at any rate I will forget which of the many people with silly usernames offered a vague insult). The key point is that no consensus was achieved. It wasn’t: the decision was perfectly clear:

‘It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)’[2]

Another editor—who had certainly noticed that decision—waited for a good while before moving the page, merrily deleting articles on the way (a power which he has an admin, and a power which he clearly abused). The article should clearly be moved back to its status quo, pronto.—Ian Spackman 15:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You talk of status quo but fail to see the rightful vote for consensus. Rarelibra 15:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking harder. Try looking at the most recent edit to this page and read

‘It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)’[3]

In other words: no case had been made to move the article to Trentino, let alone a case to move it using page deletions on the way,

—Ian Spackman 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The poll above is clear, though: result is five to four in favour of moving to Trentino. Anyone who wants to say no consensus was reached should argument such a position better than just say, no consensus reached. Tridentinus 15:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the governing Wikipedia policy: WP:Consensus. This is not a vote, and a 5-4 majority does not decide it. m:Voting is evil. We do not require, although we hope for, absolute unanimity; but when there is no strong agreement, the rule is to leave it as it was. After all, the next vote may be 5-4 the other way, depending on who notices it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most common name in English by a large margin is "Trentino" and not "Province of Trento", so this current name goes against Wikipedia policy of most common name, if you are going to refer to Wikipedia policy. Gryffindor 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is a guideline, not a policy, and it bothers me that you felt it was your responsibility to use - unilaterally - the administrative tools to apply your interpretation of the guideline when it was clear from prior discussion that at least some users would object to the action. The other page moves mentioned here bothered me too, but I am particularly troubled by the deletions. Dekimasu よ! 11:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Pmanderson - consensus is the majority. Majority of the vote said to move it. Gryffndor acted upon the consensus. Period. Why you have such a heartache I imagine must be for a personal reason, maybe. But you need to accept the fact that majority consensus said to move the page, thus the page was moved. You can go ahead yourself and call for another vote, if you like, and see the results. Rarelibra 19:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article WP:Consensus s/he referred to? Do you have a problem with it? —Ian Spackman 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that it denies that a bare majority is consensus; if we meant "majority", we would say so. "Consensus is not vote-counting", and even the supermajority approximation requires 60-80%, depending on the question under consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, gone for awhile and see this junk all over again. Yes, I fully support a long overdue RfC on Gryffindor. Where do we sign up? Icsunonove 07:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2007

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Province of Trento → Autonomous Province of Trento — To recognize the special status of this autonomous province in the title of the article. —Icsunonove 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

In Support of the move

Support As nominator. We've had past straw polls, and when comparing Autonomous Province of Trento to Province of Trento, the former was more acceptable. Also "Autonomous Province of" is a more correct translation. Icsunonove 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but the special autonomy status makes it plausible to adjust the name. These provinces (TN and BZ) are a bit different in that respect, and it could and should be reflected in the article name. Should this request succeed, I'd also support a move of "South Tyrol" to "Autonomous Province of Bolzano". —AldeBaer (c) 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per AldeBaer —Ian Spackman 12:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In opposition to the move

Oppose The most logical name, according to this page, is "Province of Trento", and the autonomous Italian regions don't have an "Autonomous region of-" title in wikipedia, but they have an asterisk when they are listed.--Supparluca 08:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the thing is, aren't these the only two provinces in Italy that have explicitly "Autonomous Province of" in their titles? Take a look at Italian Wikipedia: [4] (scroll down to Trentino-Alto Adige); [5] (Provincia autonoma di Trento); [6] (Provincia autonoma di Bolzano). I'm an engineer, I like to be precise. :-) Icsunonove 11:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I don't like the version of the Italian wikipedia :). I think that an asterisk is enough.--Supparluca 12:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reasons stated above and also because it would be more difficult to move "South Tyrol" to "Autonomous Province of Bolzano" than to "Province of Bolzano". These are two separate issues, but while "Province of Trento" is a little bit imprecise, "South Tyrol" is highly imprecise and incorrect. --Checco 14:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect in what sense? —AldeBaer (c) 14:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"South Tyrol" is incorrect as a title 'cos the official name of the province is Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano - Alto Adige/Südtirol and normally is referred as Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano or Provincia di Bolzano. --Checco 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NAME and WP:NCGN, the official name is not necessarily what we are to use. Both "ST" and "AA" are far more common in English speaking countries, which is what counts. So "South Tyrol" is definitely not incorrect at all. But I could agree on the official title "Autonomous Province of Bolzano" to get this dismal debate behind us. —AldeBaer (c) 22:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion

~~No opinion~~ "Autonomus Province of Trento is more precise, but the current title is simpler. What is important for me is that this article, and also that on the Province of Bolzano (now titled South Tyrol), have a "Province of XXXXXX" title. --Checco 07:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, make an opinion. Our debate/discussion is now at 1.5 vs 1.5. :P South Tyrol is another matter. I really think Autonomous Province of Trento is more correct, and it is a small change so it matches better the headings and first paragraph. Icsunonove 11:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I need to choose, I'll prefer the current title. --Checco 14:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note to whoever closes this: the title of this article has been the subject of edit warring over the past few months; please see the talk archive for more information. Dekimasu よ! 00:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to clarify a bit, it was an admin Gryffindor who at one point unilaterally moved the page to Trentino. That isn't really related to this request to append Autonomous to the Province's name. thanks for checking in on us though! :-) Icsunonove 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the only user involved in the edit war was Gryffindor, for nationalistic reasons.--Supparluca 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was warring all alone, without any opponents? Please remember that war is not like sex, it always takes at least two. —AldeBaer (c) 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I believe it was a case of masturbation. Supparluca, would you agree? Sorry to be so crude. :)) Icsunonove 17:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 05:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrol

The Province of Trento/Trentino was part of Tyrol. The Tyrol dab page references this historical information. I'm fine to remove the link if you all don't think it is correct. Icsunonove 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to have it, indeed. --Checco 18:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, because it can't happen that a reader is redirected from Tyrol to Province of Trento, so nobody could find that information useful at the beginning of this page.--Suppar luca 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you mean. In the case of Bolzano-Bozen it makes more sense because someone could look for South Tyrol. But, I think we should at least keep the text about the Province of Trento in the Tyrol (disambiguation) page, right? Oh, one thing though. What if someone searches for Italian Tyrol or Welschtirol? They will go to Province of Trento then. Anyway, thanks for the discussion my hyper-nationalist Italian friends. :-) Just kidding. Icsunonove 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and actually Ladin Tyrol is all of Trentino-Alto Adige. :-) Icsunonove 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Trentino' and/or 'Province of Trento'?

In my opinion the redirect Trentino-> Province of Trento is not good (nor here nor in the Italian version), or at least we need another indipendent entry 'Trentino'. 'Trentino' is historically and geographically a more general term, including also notions and history of the autonomy of the Province. In fact you can find easily in every encyclopedia the entry 'Trentino' and not 'Province of Trento'. There is an 'history of Trentino' (see books and references), an 'economy of Trentino', and so on, but there doesn't exist at all an entry, in any encyclopedia, 'history of the Province of Trento', 'economy of the province of Trento',etc. The term '[Autonomous] Province of Trento is an official term, and sounds quite bureaucratic. The same would be if we wrote, for instance, an entry 'U.S. State of Montana' in place of simply 'Montana', and so on. --Gazal Cotre (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Trento=Trentino: I don't see the problem and I remember to all that this article is one of the 110 articles about Italian Provinces, all titled "Province of XXXXX". --Checco (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the problem probably because you don't find important the historical foundation of the term 'Trentino' or equivalents and find the uniformity of the label "province of xxx" the main point (please tell me who decided what, and on which grounds). I meant that we could split this article and add the entry 'Trentino' (or reverse the redirect), a term that refers better to the history of this land (for instance Trentino was an indipendent state in the German empire for centuries under the name of "Principato di Trento", and so on): the fact that all the Italian provinces have their own entry doesn't solve the question. Trentino has an history that is far beyond the term '[Autonomous] Province of XXX' (that is a very recent word, now it is an official term, but you can't find it in any books written more than 30-40 years ago). The form "Province of XXX" doesn't fit to all the Italian geographical/historical regions or provinces: see for instance the entries: Tuscany, Lombardy, Savoy, or simply Maremma and the like. The same question is for "South Tyrol", redirected to "Province of Bolzano". What I mean is that the uniformity of the label "province of xxx" is not always a good thing, and is more historically grounded the simple use of XXX instead of "province of XXX" at least for some entries. More, if you compare any other encyclopedia with the present you will not find "province of XXX" but simply the name of the geographical/historical region. --Gazal Cotre (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with History of Trentino, but I still don't support your idea. --Checco (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its name was "Principato di Trento" why does "Trentino" refer better to the history of this land? Tuscany, Lombardy, Savoy and Maremma aren't Italian provinces.--Suppar luca 04:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double names

This edit added double names to the article, removed the part where it says that "Trentino" is a name commonly used in English and added dubious statements ("The territory of the province equals to southern part of historic Trentino region"). Without explanations, I'll revert in the next couple of days.--Suppar luca 13:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you will not because that is a fact. Gryffindor (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all try to be more neutral. This time I definitely agree with Supparluca, especially on double names for the Province and the use of "Trentino". I don't see the problem: it's just a fact that the Province is often called "Trentino" and that only the Italian name is used. --Checco (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The region is officially bilingual is it not? Gryffindor (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the German-language version of the regional statute speaks of the Province of Trento as Autonome Provinz Trient does not mean that that is the official name of the Province or that it is used in Trentino. If you go to the website of the Province of Trento, you will see that it is only in Italian. There are very few German-speaking people in the Province of Trento, so I don't see any need of giving also the German name of the Province as it is not even mentioned in its website. --Checco (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you go to the website of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen, you will see that the official English name is South Tyrol. So shall we rename the page? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that both languages are official, even in the autonomous province of Trento. Why then do you keep on removing the other name as well when it is linked with a fact on top of that? Gryffindor (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fact indeed. The fact was about the Region not the Province. If you ever go to Trentino you will see that there is no bilinguism in schools and that no official document of the Province is translated in German. --Checco (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art 99 of the Autonomy Statute for the Region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol:

PART XI - Use of the German and Ladin Languages: In the Region the German language is made equal to the Italian language, which is the official language of the State. In Acts of a legislative nature and in cases where the present Statute provides for a bilingual text the Italian version shall be the authoritative text.

Since the Province of Trento is part of the region, the clause of the article obviously applies to it, too. If you think not, I would like to see an official paragraph which explicitly says that the official name is exempted from this clause. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that article does not say anything about the Province of Trento and you probably don't know how things go in the Province of Trento. There is no Italian-German bilinguism in the Province of Trento and you should demonstrate the contrary because it you who say something which is not supported by the source you gave us and that differs from reality. Art. 99 is about official regional acts, but there is no obligation about provincial or municipal acts.

Perfectly fine with me - but only IF you can back up this assertion which official documents. Otherwise it is hardly more than original research and should be removed. The bilingualism applies to the region, of which Trentino is part of, hence it also applies to the Trentino. The statute makes no difference between regional or provincial obligations in this respect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave aside our ideological bias and reason about facts, only facts. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then add facts: Instead your reference in "Linguistic minorities" did not fix anything, you deconstructed pretty much the footnote: you deleted Art. 99 altogether and linked the footnote to the wrong statement. The statute lists actually only four of these non-Italian-speaking communities. Please correct that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three non-Italian-speaking communities in the Province of Trento: Ladin, Cimbrian and Mocheni. Theese three communities are mentioned both in the statute and the WP article. The statute speaks of all three the communities, so I moved the reference at the end of the section. Where did I do something wrong? --Checco (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not outright wrong, but I find it a bit misleading. Now the statute backs up the assertion that such and such languages are spoken in such and such municipalities. However, the angle of the statute is more like that such and such languages are protected in such and such municipalities. Please do not forget to provide evidence for the Italian name being the only official name of the province. Right now, this remains a contentious claim, and you have yet to support your stance by references. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you. In fact the burden of proof is up to you as you are supporting a contentious claim which I don't agree with. If you find a source telling us that there is a German official name for the Province, I will obviously change my mind, but that has not yet happened. Anyway that fact that those linguistic minorities are protected only were that languages are spoken tells us how the status of German is different in the Province of Trento than in the Province of Bolzano. --Checco (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Gryffindor continues to insert the German name and a source which does not tell us anything about the German name. That is simply non-sense! Let's try a compromise. Let's leave in the article the German name with the template "citation needed" as the current source is not appropriate. Obviously we will need anyway a source supporting the Autonome Provinz Trient, which I've never heard as official name as provincial acts are only available in Italian and there are no German official versions of these acts. --Checco (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of a compromise are you talking about? Gun Powder Ma inserted a reference, you removed it three times[7] [8] [9], now you removed it again for the fourth time [10] within the last 24 hours and replaced it with a "citation needed" even though he provided one? Gryffindor (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not say anything about a German official name, so having it or not having it is simply the same. No-one provided any source telling that the Province has also a German official name, namely Autonome Provinz Trient. Sources must be appropriate and verifiable: I just veryfied that the source does not say anything about the double name. --Checco (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying. Gun Powder Ma inserted references, you simply removed them, not even replacing it with anything else or at least putting it somewhere else in the article? Gryffindor (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand if you read the source. The source Gun Powder Ma inserted simply does not say anything about a German official name for the Province, so it can't be used to support Autonome Provinz Trient. So, we need a source telling us just that. Until we don't have one we should leave "citation needed". --Checco (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Trentino, and I am certain that the only official language in the Province of Trento is Italian, so also the official name of the province is the Italian "Provincia autonoma di Trento". There is no official name of the Province in German or Ladin, but only simply traslations of the Italian denomination, because these languages are considered in Trentino as only "linguistic minorities" (with also the mòcheno and cimbro language [11]). However, in the Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol Region also German is an official language (because of the German speakers of the Province of Bolzano) but this do not affect the "language situation" of the Province of Trento. --Gusme (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are correct, but a few users above have a secondary agenda. This actually happened before. :) Icsunonove (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autonome Provinz Trient? This has got to be a joke! Searching for the name on the official website of the province returns two results, and even then it's just used as a keyword, it's never written in the pages themselves. A search in the entire web, excluding wikis and the word "südtirol", returns a grand total of 1,180 hits. Note that Florenz returns over three million results, meaning it's just used as a direct translation of the official name. Gryffindor, Checco was right when he removed the reference, it didn't verify the assertion, it was just misleading, and I'm sure you will agree once you've read the source.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of links to the official journals of the Provincia autonoma di Trento/Autonome Provinz Trient have been added. See heads of the letter for the official bilingual status of the provinces name. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty funny. You first are including Welschtirol, which simply isn't used in modern German. When it was used - over a century ago - it was a very general term, not necessarily associated with what is Trentino. Then someone added Trentino tirolese? Who says this? LOL.

Trentino "tirolese" as opposed to some other Trentino? @_@ On top of that, you are stating that Trentino is officially bilingual, when it certainly is not. The official language is Standard Italian, and there is some recognition of local languages. I personally feel Ladin should be made co-official, but that is another discussion. It is actually quite hysterical to add Autonome Provinz Trient and Welschtirol to this article, and ironic that the same editors went nuts over Adesc Aut, which I showed being used in an official Ortisei tri-lingual government document. :) LOL. It just never stops. Icsunonove (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The territory of the province equals to southern part of historic Trentino region"

Could someone fill me in on this statement? Also, since we are finally going all multilingual, can someone add Hochetsch back to the BZ page? It is used quite often according to a Google search. :) Icsunonove (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fill you in alright: that statement is completely, utterly wrong. Unless one wants to consider the bishop of Trent's "jurisdiction" (which used to reach as far as Bolzano until the early 20th century, when Rome accepted bishop Endrici's suggestion and unified the German part of the bishopry with Bressanone) as historical Trentino - but that's crazy on the political plane. --Tridentinus (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tridentinus, good to see you again! Yes, I know it is wrong, but this is Gryffindor we speak about. I tried to remove his ridiculous sentence, but he puts them back. Maybe he will try to ban me if I do it again? :) Also, the guy Noclador is making sure to go around now and erase any of the historical Latin and Ladin terms used to call the cities in BZ. Anyway, I just stopped by for a small visit to see how these people were doing. :) It is such a laugh in the end.. Icsunonove (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not? Then where is Trentino exactly? Gryffindor (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partial revert

Discuss controversial changes here before you modify the article: we all know that the German name is "Autonome Provinz Trient", just like the French name is "Province autonome de Trente". We don't put the French name in the English wikipedia -> we don't put the German name, unless you have convincing reasons for doing so. Feel free to discuss them here.--Suppar luca 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supparluca, adequate sources for the name were provided, German, unlike French, is co-official in the region according to the statute of autonomy, so the inclusion of the German name is not controversial, its removal is, in fact. I reverted the revert, and I hope I won't need to go any further to make this one clear.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German is co-official in the region and should be used when it is about the region. But it is not official in Trentino itself. When it is about Trentino (Province of Trento) only Italian is official. Italian is an official language in Switzerland, but we do not expect to have Italian official name of the city outside the Italian-speaking area (e.g. Berna, Ginevra, Sciaffusa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.184.203.199 (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you (the Swiss example is particularily useful as guideline), as I agree with Supparluca. --Checco (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are both wrong. English Wikipedia does give the Italian name for each of Geneva, Bern and Zürich. It also gives the German, French and Romansh names for each.

Does it really matter for this purpose whether the language is official or not? Are there German speakers living in the province? If the answer is yes, then the usual convention on Wikipedia is that we include a translation of the name in that language, whether it is official or not. You could argue that, rather than German speakers, the province has Mócheno and Cimbrian speakers, in which case it would be appropriate to have a translation in those languages, rather than German. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name (again)

Is anyone able to add the Ladin translation of the name (regardless of whether it is "official" or not, to avoid all those arguments that raged about whether the German name was "official")? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]