Talk:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol/Archive 2

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

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was let's start mediation. Lar has been kind enough to offer mediation below, so let's close this poll and actually get something done below in a civilized fashion. There is clearly no consensus on this poll.

Trentino-South Tyrol → Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol – this page was originally Trentino-Alto Adige. It was moved to Trentino-South Tyrol on 25 Oct. 2005 with out consensus. Prior surveys have been done, but from my opinion, they have been tainted by Nationalistic ideas. Going to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol allows a sharing of the regions between Italian-German. It is also the name used officially in the Italian constitution. It containts Trentino-Alto Adige, which is the most commonly used form in English (UN, CIA factbook, etc.). It is a compromise, keeps everyone happy, and this should be what WP is based on. Not promoting extreme POV. Taalo 03:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

      • Addendum: I've made an update to the request. Merge the original Trentino-Alto Adige and Trentino-South Tyrol, both valid, into Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. This avoids OR and actually I believe best represents this region. I know this must be bad form to update the request on the fly like this. My apologies. I'm honestly just trying to help find the optimum solution. Taalo 06:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)***
        This is bad. You should have made another request. You asked a question, had people answer, and now changing the question.--Panarjedde 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        *blush* Ok, I'm quite sorry. Forgive me based on a lack of experience and that I'm learning as I go along (with Wiki, the region, etc.). In some ways I'm just trying to moderate this discussion so we can come to some good, fair, decision. These move requests are so rigid, and with all the voting, it doesn't help a proper discussion really. It would be nice if we could just have a multiple choice. I'd actually like to suggest from the feedback that I've seen that we simply decide on the original Trentino-Alto Adige or the current Trentino-South Tyrol. We try, all of us to skip the POV, put themselves in the other people's shoes.. and try to come up with the best overall solution. Is this acceptable? Taalo 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

no sockpuppets please A user or two look suspicious below. If anyone is trying to help either side, know this won't help in the end. I really appreciate anyone trying to help make things right again, but this ain't the way. Lets not be so serious either on here, ok? If there are sockpuppet accounts, just say so, and you have to buy the first round of beers if any of us ever meet in the region. va bene? ok? I like the Forst beer. :) Taalo 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support: recasting my vote. I support this merging of both names, per the recent historical research papers I've dug up. Taalo 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't care, as long as there is a link from one solution to the other; this is sort of becoming a political war on what I consider a minor point. --Adriano 11:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and be aware in the archives who initiated this political war. A certain student of International Politics, based in Vienna. Taalo 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Taalo, please, stop attacking other contributors. This brings to nothing. --Adriano 19:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make an attack, but I did point out how this did start. Is even this an attack? Taalo 04:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like Adriano, I consider the point very very minor. I oppose because a) who on Earth will go searching for such a compliacted, not to say artificial name? b) it seems odd to substitute a name probably easier to pronounce for English speakers with two foreign ones. --Tridentinus 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the request based on my findings to Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. It looks like even the gov't has adapted this name, according to that latest link I found. I believe what the guy is referring to is the constitution which now has Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol.. which then does properly translate into Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Can this finally, maybe, perhaps, be a reasonable compromise? :) Taalo 07:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously. This is already the third time we are voting on this issue, it was solved twice before but some just can't seem to accept that... Gryffindor 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You know what, I can accept your viewpoint when YOU come clean with what your intentions are. For all intents and purposes you are the originator of this huge debate. YOU originally moved this page from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol without debate, consensus, discussion, anything (i.e., you started it). Have the orbs to be honest with all of us. Taalo 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for being so hard on you here Gryffindor. But you have to understand, that how you did things originally was just not the right way to go about it, and ended us here after one year. In the end I agree with what you did "half-way". I think based on what I/we've found, Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol makes a lot of sense. It in fact merges the page you moved into the page you moved it into. va bene? Taalo 07:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted, if it's sincere. Hopefully we can talk about this whole affair one day when things calm down again. ciao... Gryffindor 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Gryffindor, if I say I'm sorry, I'm definitely saying it sincerely. I love sarcasm, so if I was not being sincere, you would of been able to tell..heh. Even if I come down on you again -- in the heat of the moment -- it definitely isn't making me happy to come down on you -- or anyone else for that matter. So anyway, I'm trying my best. :) I am however bothered about how you went about things on 25 Oct. 2005, and how you now insist others do things properly -- where at the time, you clearly did not. Please try and understand how this comes off, especially to those (such as myself) who care for this region (both provinces!). If you can somehow find the time to address that some day, I think it would be good for you and all involved in this fiasco. With regard to your last sentence: sure, and I would like that too. you take care now. Taalo 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Gryffindor - you are unprofessional, rude, and inconsiderate. People don't have to accept it when it is incorrect. You need to realize what POV and consensus is all about. Rarelibra 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    There is no need for personal attacks, Rarelibra. Olessi 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: in English Wikipedia use English names.--Panarjedde 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we should use English where it is very clear. It is clear that South Tyrol is the English translation of Sudtirol. It is also clear from research articles posted and the current constitution of Italy, that the official name is Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. This translates into English as Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. I can translate Alto Adige to Upper Adige, but yes, it is not commonly done as the Sudtirol to South Tyrol translation.. hence the Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol I propose. reasonable? Taalo 07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The official name of Italy is "Repubblica Italiana" (the country) and "Italia" (the georaphical name), yet in English it is "Italy". The official name of Tuscany is Toscana, of Apulia is Puglia, yet nobody seems to care to ask for them to be changed. I do not like this "South Tyrol" matter, but the rule is to use English names when available, ignoring official names. So South Tyrol should be.
Furthermore, oppose also to Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, which is worse than any other solution.--Panarjedde 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL, well I didn't think it was that bad, but ok, opinion accepted. I see we have to either go with Trentino-Alto Adige or Trentino-South Tyrol to gain consensus. I don't know, at this point I can agree either of these is fine. There is the weight of having some English in Trentino-South Tyrol, but also there is the weight of Trentino-Alto Adige being used in the vast majority of English sources, maps, etc. You know, I wish the Austrian/German folk could also be a bit flexible with their thinking on this. I'm not insulting anyone! I'm just saying, lets really compromise on this, consider better others opinions. I'm certainly trying my best here..... Taalo 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: time to end all of this and keep it nuetral. Vargwilku 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible Vargwilku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
According to Rarelibra's edit summaries, this might be one of his co-workers, and so not a sockpuppet. That doesn't change the fact that he has no contributions outside these polls. Kusma (討論) 09:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I told you before, I mainly use wiki for reference and not edit. I don't appreciate you changing this - and labeling me. Check my account creation, it was well before this mess. Vargwilku 12:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not be offended. We are using a straw poll among Wikipedia editors here, and you have not edited any Wikipedia articles. As this is not a vote, your comment stands and is not removed, but may be given less weight by the closer of the discussion. Kusma (討論) 13:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And please do not remove my signed comments. Kusma (討論) 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving in that I haven't had many edits, but I don't think I like the fact that you are labeling me as a "possible single user" account. Rarelibra and I work with geography from all around the world in international telecommunications, and I rely on Wiki as a reference many times. But I am a "techie" and database person, whereas Rarelibra likes to make a lot of the maps. As a contractor I don't have Internet access, thus, I have to access via his PC. So forgive me if it seems such - I will log on from my PC later tonight and you can check my information just fine. But please don't label me, especially because I don't get into the edits and such and, instead, rely on wiki as a reference tool for work! Vargwilku 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You're allowed to rebut the {{spa}} tag and you have done so but removing it completely gives the appearance of trying to hide your edit history from the closing admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone better be saving their beer money. :) Taalo 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, oppose moving during WP:RM discussion, and point out that Trento-South Tyrol listed above as the present name has never been other than a redirect. Gene Nygaard 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Please re-evaluate the proposal. The page was originally Trentino-Alto Adige. It was unfortunately moved by not following proper wiki rules to Trentino-South Tyrol. It turns out that likely both of these are correct, so I've now proposed that we ==> Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Taalo 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't you mean 'Support' when you mention Trento-South Tyrol being a redirect? Rarelibra 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, keep at Trentino-South Tyrol. Markussep 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
please re-review Markussep. I have proposed Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. There was actually never a hope to have Trento. That was probably a mistake somewhere. Taalo 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Trentino-Alto Adige" and "Trentino-South Tyrol" are both acceptable for me, both seem to be used in English. Just no double or one-and-a-half names, like T-AA/ST. Markussep 19:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Prefer "Trentino-Alto Adige", which is used in my Hammond Atlas (1998, which translates Tuscany, Lombardy, Sicily, Apulia, Piedmont). Olessi 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
please re-review Olessi. I agree with what you say, but also the italian constitution and research papers also point to the adoption of Trentino-Sudtirol (aka Trentino-South Tyrol). I think the neutral compromise, based off the consitutions Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol, has the best English translation as Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Taalo 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I agree more or less with Olessi. I'd prefer the current title to the proposed move, as well. john k 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I've redone the proposal. Please review the new information I've posted and notes I've placed throughout. Taalo 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the request to Trentino-Alto Aige/South Tyrol See above how this is most likely the best translation of what is in truth the official name(s) of the region. I can understand you don't care either way, but for the simple sake of coming up with a neutral compromise.. please consider this. Taalo 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "South Tyrol" is the neutral ground between Alto Adige and Südtirol, and it's an English word which is in current use, so I see no need to change this. —Nightstallion (?) 12:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's Alto Adige or South Tyrol, not both. See Luxembourg for a similar case. (When will all this end?) -  AjaxSmack  19:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
AjaxSmack, please be patient my friend. I'm actually coming around to the Trentino-South Tyrol idea, even though I also feel we should be true to what is used on the majority of English maps, encyclopedias, etc.: Trentino-Alto Adige. Regardless, this naming convention is becomming the lesser issue afterall. The Province of Bolzano page to me seems more important since it seems POV is overruling simple technical fact. Anyway, I'm content to see at least a reasonable discussion. The past votes looked hyper-POV. Worst of all the page move without following Wiki guidelines. Hopefully this time it can properly be put to rest, but we should be patient. Taalo 20:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Just so everyone can see how neutral are friend Gryffindor is in this debate, please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Trentino-South_Tyrol_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29 Real ethical of you there buddy. Non-sense names, eh? Thanks for showing your true colours. Oh yeah, I'm assuming that good faith! Taalo 10:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies buddy, I didn't realize that I had deleted information. By the way, could you point me to the discussions and voting that was done before your move on 25 Oct. 2005? :))) Taalo 08:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and thank you very much for sharing your opinion. I think this time though we will actually focus on the use of citations and not perform Original Research(OR). The name Trentino-South Tyrol is not a regularly accepted name for the region, by any means. In the large-majority of English citations, Trentino-Alto Adige is used. I am proposing a compromise for the sake of the Italian-German nature of this region, i.e., Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. toodaloo! Taalo 08:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No need to accuse anyone of original research. There were lengthy discussions on this topic, see Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol/name, we can't keep on bringing this topic up over and over again simply because you seem to have a problem with the English word "South Tyrol" for whatever reason. Gryffindor 09:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The English translation of Sudtirol to South Tyrol is fine. The region is South Tyrol, it is Sudtirol, it is Alto Adige, it is the Upper Adige. The thing is, this is all beside the point. In English, this region is referred to as Trentino-Alto Adige in the large majority of citations. If we develop our own criteria to deviate from this norm, then we are moving into OR. Lastly, you saying that I seem to have some problem, etc., etc. What was your motiviation to change the page from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol without going through the proper steps in the first place? Why have you gone through SO MANY pages with relation to this region and systematically moved everything to a German-first POV? As someone who deeply cares for this region, I now have the right to ask you this. What is this problem you seem to have, that you can not even agree with using names that share the Italian-German heritage of this area? I specifically am suggesting Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol, because I want both names listed. Because the Tirol culture is all of ours in this region. It is something that has come from all the people of this region. I as a kid wore those Tirol style clothes! Have you? No, I'm not sending you pictures. :P Dude, come on now... Taalo 09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

English references which show this region as Trentino-Alto Adige and Province of Bolzano. Regardless, I believe we should have the Italian/German name, because this is fair to both groups of the region. Also, written directly into the constitution of Italy, they call the region Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. So at least the Gov't of Italy was able to make a compromise, eh?! Should, hopefully be a compromise so people can chill out, and we can actually get to work on making good pages.. not creating anger. I'm going to cross post websites that refer to the naming convention for the Province of Bolzano/Bozen & the region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. Note once again, that if there is any reference that only has Italian, I full support listing both, which is done in the Italian constitution and locally in the region on road signs, buildings, etc. Let's share finally... Taalo 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/it.html#Govt

Constitution of Italy (refer to Article 116): http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/it00000_.html

Countries and Cities website: http://www.countriesandcities.com/countries/it/provinces.htm

Province of Bolzano website: http://www.provinz.bz.it/lpa/autonomy/autonomy_statute_eng.pdf

World Gazetteer: http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gmap&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-108&srt=npan&col=aohdq http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-108&srt=npan&col=aohdq&pt=c&va=x&geo=-1956 http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-1956&srt=npan&col=aohdq&pt=c&va=x&geo=491419135 http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Italy_Autonomous_regions.htm

More and more links *yawn* (simply searching under "listings of provinces in italy") Taalo 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) http://www.slowtrav.com/italy/maps/regions.htm http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/it-reg.html http://directory.google.com/Top/Regional/Europe/Italy/Regions/ http://goeurope.about.com/cs/italy/l/bl_italy_region.htm http://www.infohub.com/Maps/italy_map_203.html http://www.big-italy-map.co.uk/maps/map-of-trentino-alto-adige-.gif


To Taalo,
Yes, you are right. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a little bit nit-picking. It states, "autonomous provinces Trento and Bolzano." Though, this link is more useful to the discussion on the Province of Bolzano. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, they missed a few, but that doesn't make the citing worthless. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW here we find the province of Bolzano as Bolzano-South Tyrol, thus supporting the use of South Tyrol as well.
Ok, to sum up, everything is perfect in those pages, but that doesn't mean all this information is simply thrown away. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
To sum it up: nearly all the links you provide use Trentino Alto-Adige because the have not translated all Italy's region names. Other are translations from Italian documents, and could be not so accurate (see the example of the Italian Constitution). The same goes for misspells in other documents
Only exception I see is from the website http://www.countriesandcities.com. This is jus one new element.
In my opinion, and I repeat it, we should all forget German and Italian languages. This is English and should be solved by using original English sources.
And, finally, this is just a name!! Don't you think that, as long as the article can be reached by typing the different possibilities, we should not care too much? --Adriano 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have posted some more links below. You don't know how much I agree with you Adriano, when you say it is just a name, just as in Shakespeare. The thing you have to realize though is that a certain user performed an injustice when this page was moved without consensus. That, and the term Trentino-South Tyrol in English is really not obvious as correct. I think on the other hand that certain users are trying to promote a pro-German POV. That is why this will never go back to a calm situation until a compromise is met, and why I suggested using both names. If you look at the situation, it is those who ignited this all that were the ones who should of realized "a name is just a name". Don't you think? regards. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
--Adriano has got it right. No use pointing out to Italian websites, let's stick to English instead. Gryffindor 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
They are English websites, and although not all perfect, they do point to what is commonly used. If you want to use English so bad, then why not Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, or Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol (Upper Adige/South Tyrol). You know, I'd even suggest to you that you should remove yourself from this debate and actually observe. Why? Because you actually instigated all this on 25 Oct. 2005 by not following proper procedure in the first place. I'm not saying to go away, but you really need to look inward a bit there dude. Taalo 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should care - that is THE POINT here. Also, you not only reverted it back incorrectly, but you also changed it to read "High" Adige? Just so you know - "Alto" translates to "UPPER", not "High". Wow, you guys are something else. Rarelibra 14:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rarelibra,

  • why is it so important?
  • and on which basis should it be changed (i.e.: anything new to support your point)?

Please note: I haven't changed "Alto Adige" with "High Adige". You know, nothing should be changed, until consensus is reached. I do not know if this is a Wikipedia policy. It seems to me it's simply common sense. --Adriano 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? You haven't scrolled to the top of this talk page to see what article name it is? As far as importance - most of the known world refers to this area as "Trentino-Alto Adige", yet still we have those who refuse to recognize this. NOWHERE is the translation used as "South Tyrol" (other than your travel or tourism books) - as the official name from the Italian government is "Trentino-Alto Adige". How much more 'support' do you need? And as for your evaluation and comments of the websites - well, I guess it isn't enough to see so many sources listing the correct name. Go about your fantasyland and do what you may, do what you wish, as far as I am concerned this is done because of the outright, brutally obvious corruption that is occurring here. What exactly do you value in all of this? That an English user can get to the site? Seems that every possible redirect can handle that. So why not give in the the TRUTH and allow an honest edit to be made? As far as consensus... if 'consensus' decided to nuke the world, would it still be CORRECT? NO. In this case, it is so obvious, yet here we are continuing down the path of lunacy. Rarelibra 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rarelibra, you do not support your point. Instead you attack the other wikipedians.
  • You say that most of the known world use Trentino-Alto Adige for this region. Is it an English mother-tongue speaking world? Do you also include Italy? Is there anything you can use to support your statement?
  • The fact that this area is named Trentino Alto-Adige by the Italian government does not mean that this is the right name in English (Toscana is called Tuscany, Lombardia is Lombardy etc.). The very same article of the Italian constitution, as appears on the official link I provided, translates Sicily and Sardinia, but not Aosta Valley.
  • The fact that South Tyrol is used in travel and tourism books could instead be important, if these are original English texts, showing the usage of either name.
  • I have checked all the weblinks provided, stating my opinion on each of them, and why they should be considered or not. Why don't you challenge, point by point, my arguments with other arguments?
  • You say all this is obvious, but it is quite clear that this is not the case for everybody. Hence, you need to support your point. Why don't you do that?
  • As of consensus, please read Wikipedia:consensus, the relevant part on Wikipedia guidelines. ("Wikipedia works by building consensus")
I do not care about this name, but I would like to see the reasons supporting one position or another. Statements like "it's obvious" or "you are wrong" without any supporting proofs are -in my opinion- no use in forwarding wikipedia.
And, finally, once for all, I did not change the name of this article... Just tried to reverse changes made without consensus (which could be considered vandalism), but, not knowing how to do it, didn't change the article's title. You don't believe me? Check on the change list!!--Adriano 15:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Adriano, let me HELP you here just so you don't miss it. I have been the one to be brave enough to take this on, seeing all of the bugs come out of the woodwork to attack me and change things back when evidence has been given in support of the changes. The region is known as "Trentino-Alto Adige" which, if you wanted to translate, would be Trentino-Upper Adige. We tried that, it was changed back. There is an insistence upon this "South Tyrol" which must stop. That is an ALTERNATE name - a german name - which is given respect, following the rules of wiki, with the naming convention of "Trentino-Alto Adige (Sudtirol)" - the PROPER name. The fact that South Tyrol is used is an english translation of the germanic name, but using this does not keep in the rules of wiki with respect to multilingual areas. I'm challenging your entire argument to go to these websites and have the nerve to actually sit there and say "well, those are all Italian names". Wow, really? I thought they were yiddish. Some of those names translate (like Tuscany/Toscana) and some don't (like Campagnia or Calabria).

You know where my frustration works in? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. What do you do for a living? I work in GIS, also volunteer with the UN. I work with this stuff every day. I've been to 24 countries and speak 3 languages other than English (2 of them fluently) and know the variances of translations - how about you?. The statements supporting this show direct evidence and references - lists from official governments and entities. Rarelibra 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It is somewhat obvious that "voting" on this matter is not going to get us anywhere. We will be stuck with the status quo that certain users are trying to cement. I think we need to ask for a group of neutral admins to help address the issues across the naming of this region, province and towns. I would also recommend an investigation be put forward onto the process that was used to originally change Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol, Bolzano to Bozen-Bolzano, etc, just so it is clear how we got here in the first place. Taalo 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Dear Rarelibra,
  • I have already set my comments on the proofs which were provided, and this one by one. I agree with you on the point that some names have a translation, and some others haven't. But, when I find a few names in a list which are translated and others which aren't -although there is an English version of it- a little doubt comes to my mind: is the list accurate? If they "forgot" to translate, say, Lombardia, did they forget to translate Trentino Alto-Adige as well?
  • I am not supporting either version. I would like just that people support what they say with proofs, in order to convince the others of their point. And to help you on this point, here is a link supporting your version, from the UK embassy in Italy website: http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1054570678725
On the other hand, on the BBC website we find Trentino and Süd-Tirol

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/sport/clubs/newcastle_united/champions_league/inter_milan.shtml

Both these links are what we, professional translators, call "real life sources".
  • You say there are wiki rules regarding multilingual areas. Could you please provide a link to it, I am quite new to wikipedia and could not find it.
  • You say I have no clue of what I am talking about, and challenge me on qualifications. I have 2 University-level degrees and a master in translation/interpreting/simultaneous interpreting. Moreover I am certified tourist guide and certified journalist. I also work in tourism on promotion and marketing. Been just in about 15 countries, but lived in 5 of them, and speak 4 languages (3 of these fluently).
I like debates, whenever they remain polite and focus on what is said, rather than who said it. But, most of all, I am ready to be proved wrong, if someone brings clear evidence of this. Please, do. --Adriano 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, a real debate would be nice, actually. If everyone could drop the nationalistic agendas. You know what, I don't think you can be proved right or wrong. The thing is that by the nature of this region there is the Italian-German conventions. That was my primary motivation to use Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol to finally come up with something that shares. I thought this could satisfy the camp that wants to just go with the German POV, which would be Trentino-Sudtirol or Trentino-South Tyrol. I could of just as well argued to put it back to Trentino-Alto Adige, considering it is what is most widely used in English and also that the move was done without going through proper channels. Instead, being from this region, I am hoping this compromise can be used. Because, as I said before, there is no straightforward wrong or right. my regards. Taalo 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Adirano, You have this education and experience and, yet - you even post a website from the UK embassy showing proof of the names (I would consider this more of a source than BBC). Interesting. BTW I've lived in quite a few countries as well. Seems even it Taalo produced pictures from the region and province, people here would still refuse to initiate the changes. Pardon me for pointing this out, but the very fact that you posted the UK embassy website proves this name incorrect, does it not? Rarelibra 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What really saddens me, besides all this b.s. revolving around the region my family calls home, is that there is no compromise at all. Very few people are even looking for that neutral ground which I asked for. I could of just as well pushed for an Italian POV, which I think would also be utter nonsense. This region is prosperous and peaceful, we don't have the situation of (cold) war like in Cyprus. But even the Cyprus page seems to have been able to satisfy all the children with some compromise. How certain users can actually use Wikipedia to promote political agendas is just plain frightening. I can only hope that certain users are using this as a case study in a Thesis, rather than it being their true intention. o_O Taalo 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
None of the multilingual wiki pages use "South Tyrol" - Italian [[2]] and German [[3]]. So it seems the 'compromise' would be Bolzano-Sudtirol. Rarelibra 19:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)



Dear Rarelibra,
Yes, I have posted a website showing the use of Trentino Alto-Adige - and, after that, another one with Trentino and Süd-Tirol from BBC.
After another brief research on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I have found another sentence saying that "German is the predominant language in the South Tyrol (Trentino-Alto Adige)" ([4]) thus using both.
An occurrence of Trentino Alto-Adige is in the UK National archives ([5]).
Yes, the Embassy website could be considered more important than BBC - but, as often goes with diplomacy, the choice of Trentino Alto-Adige could have been a politically-correct option, in line with the official Italian version - and not necessarily a correct one.
You could consider this as in contradiction with what I've said - If I had said that I'd support one or another renaming. But, and I stress this point, I firmly believe that, as long as there are redirects from the other options, any solution will do. My initial comment to Taalo was that, as there had just been a discussion, with survey, on this point, whether there were new elements for this survey to be re-opened.
You could ask: "If any solution will do, so why not changing?". Then I could reply: "If any solution will do, why changing?". So, please, let's stop throwing mud at each-other and try to find consensus on the point, with sound, high-standard proofs and links, as I have tried to do. --Adriano 19:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
To Taalo,
I have commented every link you posted. In order to gain consensus, wouldn't it be useful that you challenge my comments, or, else, add some new elements supporting your idea? --Adriano 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I Adriano, I tried to go through your list, in the same detail you have. Granted, I am actually needing to catch up on work after the fiasco of the past two days. :) Try to look at this from the other side. You did find little errors here and there, but how many links do you find with a list of regions that has Trentino-South Tyrol? Not many is the answer. Maybe Gryffindor, et al. hope to use WP as a method to change this. Isn't using WP for politics against all ethnical judgement? Call this an accusation, but with what I've seen, this is the conclusion I'm coming to. I have that right I think, especially given the hardnose methods he has used. I am a native English speaker, and am very familiar with this region. WP is the first time I ever saw this phrase used to describe the region. Taalo 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
stop. To comment on "politically-correct" options but "not necessarily correct"? Are you kidding me? The province is in Italy. Doesn't matter if the majority is German speaking. If the majority of the speakers in the United States become Spanish speaking, does that mean we change the name to "Estados Unidos"? I think not. The name, proper and official, like it or not, is Trentino-Alto Adige or Trentino-Sudtirol(acc). Just as the province name is Bolzano - not South Tyrol. I am not asking that any solution will do - I am saying do the right thing and let's change this to a proper, multilingual solution (since it is primary german speaking but still italian). You want to keep this page as is? Fine - it covers the translation of "Trentino-Sudtirol". But the single "South Tyrol" page MUST be changed to Bolzano or Bolzano-Bozen or something along the lines. Remember not to confuse the AREA of South Tyrol (passed on through historical means) as opposed to the REGION and PROVINCE proper. Cheers. Rarelibra 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


mmmm....
You are talking about a province, which is in Italy. But Trentino-whatever is not a province. It is a region.
The province of Bozen - South Tyrol is in Italy. But it is German speaking. German is the official language, besides Italian and Ladin. You should go there and ask if people feel Italian. And, also by personal experience, I can say that if you speak German, you are often better welcomed than if you speak Italian (personal experience, confirmed by other people). So the fact that a province/region is in Italy does not mean that the Italian name is the most correct one - even if used by the UK Embassy in Italy in order not to anger Italy's government (The last assumption is just my opinion, I have no proof that this has happened).
To see what damage politically correctness does, remember the name which was given to FYROM, commonly known as Republic of Macedonia. BTW if you click on the former you are redirected to the latter, not the other way round... Which means that the most "politically correct" solution - found in order to pleast the Greek government - is not necessarily considered the most correct one.
"Estados Unidos" is already happening. The White House website is in Spanish too! ([6]). BTW, in the English Wikipedia there is a redirect from Estados Unidos. Someone introduced this redirect in the English wikipedia more than a year and a half ago, and noone ever tried to change it. So there must be a reason. According to the article Languages of the United States there are already bilingual signs in Southwestern United States, with New Mexico as bilingual state... Ok, ok just teasing you!! :-) And, besides, this does not help in this discussion.
I found proof that both expressions are used... Which one is most widely used by English mother-tongues? That is the question --Adriano 20:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You are comparing apples to oranges with the Macedonia case. The Greeks are upset with the name from a very long history of the area and simple pride. The name is the Republic of Macedonia. Just because the Greeks have a region name by the same is of no matter. Should the United States be upset that there is a country named "Georgia"? Or should we force them to have the name "Former Soviet Republic of Georgia"? Apples to oranges. As for the redirect from Estados Unidos to the proper name - I would hope so! And of course there are bilingual signs in the US - which language are you talking about? In the City of Chicago, you can see a lot of signs with Spanish and Polish, while on the west coast, you can see signs with asian languages. This debate is about proper name, not popular name. To not have the proper name is misleading to all wiki readers (English or otherwise). There is a compromise possibility. That is Trentino-South Tyrol for this page (the region), and Bolzano-Bozen for the province page. Rarelibra 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, Adriano, Rarelibra is absolutely correct with the Macedonia situation. This is an entirely different issue. I've actually studied this situation a lot, and if you really understand the situation it is fascinating. Macedonia was basically almost like Rome, it spread far and wide. Macedonia is also a part of the Helenic culture, i.e. Alexander the Great. The Republic of Macedonia used the flag and the name because technically that land was also part of the Ancient Macedonia. Of course the irony is, just as the UK can claim to be the Republic of Rome since they were part of Rome, this is what the Republic of Macedonia has done. Where the Greeks become sensitive is that this country is right next to their own Province of Macedonia. There are fears that this is a conspiracy to create a feeling amongst the people of then Yugoslavia that this is all their homeland. The funny thing though is that the occupants of the Republic of Macedonia are actually Slavs which came to the land literally a 1,000 years after the Helenics. :) Anyway, it is kind of silly, though kind of serious too because it potentially can bend the history. I've even read of some Slavic Macedonians claiming Alexander the Great. If Alexander the Great is eventually portrayed as a Slavic, I will laugh to die. Ok, that is my take at least.. and sorry for deviating. It is just interesting the obsession a few have had throughout history to even be bothered with this sort of thing. Power hungry? Nothing else to do? LOL. Taalo 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


To Rarelibra and Taalo;
My intention wasn't to compare the situation of Macedonia to Trentino-whatever. I just wanted so show the damage political correctness can sometimes do, and that politically-correct does not always mean correct.
A funny side: Rarelibra, you write that I am comparing apples to oranges with the Macedonia case. Now, the word macedonia, in Italian, means fruit salad, with apples, oranges and all the rest :-) --Adriano 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


  • (reposted from South Tyrol talk) Here we go: My hypothesis to why a lot of this debate is going on is the following. If this region was not part of Italy now, but instead was part of Austria, in all likelyhood the Province would be called Sudtirol (aka South Tyrol). If the ethnic Italians would have enjoyed the same rights as the ethnic Germans now do, we will never know. That said, I commend that the German people of the region stood up for their rights, and that we have the situation we have now, the people who have lived here for centuries (Italians and Germans) living in peace. Going back to the hypothetical argument that if Austria had retained control after the breakup of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. If the local Italians would have no say, most likely the province would of been called the Province of Sudtirol (as this is the common way to name provinces in Austria). The cities would of likely retained only their German names: Meran, Bozen, Brixen, etc., etc. As I have ancestors from Austria, I sincerely hope that they would of done a mirror of what exists in Italy now (i.e., naming cities Bozen-Bolzano, Meran-Merano, etc.). But I can only hope and guess. Now, the reality of how things did come to end is that the Italian gov't has control of the region. The Italian convention of naming provinces is by the major city of the province (and I've gone over this a lot above, and I find it hard to see now this is debatable). So, therefore the province (by this simple method) is called the Province of Bolzano (or Provinz Bozen in German). In fact, I find it even harder to believe that any average neutral non-political guy/gal in Bolzano/Bozen will not agree the province is called Bolzano/Bozen. Now, what I find disturbing in all of this, and I'll let you all be the judge, is when I see an insistence by primarily Austrian/German individuals (and mostly all not even from the region) to call the province Province of South Tyrol, the region Trentino-South Tyrol, and work on making the city names either Brenner, Italy or Bozen-Bolzano -- I feel sickened. Why? If you read the basic history I have outlined, I hope you can see that this mindset would be what an extremist minority would hope to convey -- because for all intents and purposes -- it is the naming convention that would of existed had Austria retained this area! Now, I know not everyone who is supporting using South Tyrol is German/Italian/etc., so don't blindside me with that argument please. I'm not trying to generalize or accuse German/Austrians. I'm just pointing out what I have seen. Anway, to me, whose family is from this region, I find this discusting that individuals would try to migrate the names to a would of been convention. Sorry, but that is my opinion. I have absolutely no problem with the history of the region (as long as it is done fairly). My culture is Trentino/Tirol/Tirolese. My background has "Italian" and "Austrian" roots.. though by far if you look in the archives and cemetaries, much of all our roots are firmly from Rome and Latin. This is really a family squable, because the people are all the same. I have Italian relatives that are blonde-blue eyed and look similar to user Fantasy. :) I have others that are dark haired and darker skin. All these relatives have their family tree tracable for literally centuries through the local churches. Anyway, by rights, and going by the rules of Wikipedia the cities should be in Italian, the region should be Trento-Alto Adige to preserve neutrality and the province should be the Province of Bolzano. But this risks a war going on forever, especially from those who have these extreme views I detailed before. So going all Italian is not a good way (and I don't buy this English in English wikipedia -- these places do not have straightforward English names. I am a native English speaker, I have some clue on this!). Going with the ultra-South-Tyrol mode of trying to move everything to how it might of been if the Austrian Gov't would of retained control is even worse --- far worse. Downright horrendous in fact. That is why I have said over and over again, for this special region in Italy, use the Italian-German as has been actually used in the region. The cities can be Bolzano-Bozen or Bolzano (Bozen). The province can be Province of Bolzano-Bozen or Province of Bolzano (Bozen). I would prefer to have the region as Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol or Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Something that maintains neutrality. People saying that the area is South Tyrol in English when arguing the province should be Province of South Tyrol are either absolutely oblivious to the history and reality of this region or are trying to push through a German POV. Anyway, I hope my small dissertation :) has helped a little bit to understand the cities, provinces, regions, and issues this brings up. The culture of this region is sharing.. everyone needs to back the heck up and realize this, and also think of how this page can be the most neutral and fair. Not an attempt to re-write history through WP or fantasies of the province being part of Greater Austria. Life is too short, doesn't this simple-minded stuff not get old? To the individuals who made it their purpose in life to start this a year ago.. come on guys, go down and visit the rivers and mountains and -- RELAX. regards. Taalo 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Point by point: If current South Tyrol was still part of Austria it would simply be part of Land Tirol, as it was until the aftermath of WWI. There has never been a current of thought advocating separation between Tyrolean peoples south and north of the Brenner. Incidentally, the official name of Trentino under Austria was Welschtirol, which means either “South Tyrol” or “Italian Tyrol”, depending on how do you translate ‘welsch’ translating. The official name for Italian versions of all documents was Tirolo meridionale.
The cities would surely have retained their German name, as would have befitted to places inhabited by an overwhelming majority of German-speakers: remember that many Italians came to South Tyrol during the Fascist era. Italian exonyms would have remained exonyms, I guess. And this is mere speculation, like yours after all. :)
Then you make a case of the official name of the province(s). All right, yes, officially they are called province this and province that. So, you say, “the region should be Trento-Alto Adige”. But let’s be paradoxical: can you honestly say that Tuscany should be renamed Firenze? In the case of my Trentino, it took decades to gain the right to use the name freely, if not officially, and we’re pretty attached to it (Venezia Tridentina was contested at its inception [which, I may add, was before Mussolini, contrary to what the history section says], and was cheerfully forgotten after WWII). In the case of South Tyrol, I honestly can’t see what’s so “sickening” about it, or biased. Nor do other Italian-speakers who entered this debate, as I see. Not to say that Trento-Alto Adige would be a first in the complex regional toponomastical history.
On one point I concur: this is a family squabble. But lo and behold, all the other cousins had no problem whatsoever with South Tyrol. Be a good cousin yourself: are you aware of the Italian philosophy called quieto vivere? If you’re very much isolated on an issue, the sensible thing to do is lay it to rest. :D Tridentinus 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I got to reply to this part: "can you honestly say that Tuscany should be renamed Firenze?". This isn't a valid argument really. Tuscany is the region. Firenze is a city, and also a province in this region. Likewise, the Province of Pisa (containing the city Pisa), the Province of Siena (containing the city Siena). So just as the Province of Trento and the Province of Bolzano are in the region of Trentino-Alto Adige, these three provinces (and seven more) are in the region of Tuscany. So, ok, in the end, I'm not sure what you were trying to argue with this paradox... but in the words of Marco Ranzani, "VAAAAAAA BENE!!! OOOOOK!!!" :))) Taalo 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
ma dai..., how can you say I'm "very much isolated"? That is patronizing after I try to do my best to explain my take on the situation. (not trying to be aggressive here, ok? :) Consider that by saying this you are essentially brushing my thoughts on the matter aside, with one sentence. Anyway! I'm not saying that South Tyrol is sickening. I'm saying that individuals trying to have the Province of Bolzano-Bozen webpage listed as the Province of South Tyrol has, what appears to be, less-than-ethical motives. You know, sometimes you assume the best, and that person is holding a knife behind your back. Let's not be completely naive, ok? I'm not being paranoid, I'm merely reacting to the process I've seen documented over one year. I dearly want to assume the best of everyone in this World.. but that often can bite back. Not everyone is so good, unfortunately. As far as the region, I'm simply saying lets come up with a neutral version. I am primarily from your Trentino, but obviously the entire region of Trentino-Alto Adige means a lot to me. The Tirol culture is ours too. Also, I really doubt these claims that the ethnic balance of the (province) of Bolzano was so drastically changed. I feel this is politics. I know a lot of this you are maybe getting from that statistic that says 97% were German, 3% were Italian? But from what I've seen in church records, the people for the most part stayed the same. It was actually a small percentage that went out and came in -- afterall maybe in the order of a few thousand. The thing is if you look at a census from the era of 1910 that says this and this "ethnicity", is it really verifiable? If I'm living in Merano in 1910 and the Austrian Gov't knocks on my door.. yes, I will probably just check off German and say.. ciao! I mean, auswiedersehen! :)) It is like going to modern day Germany and asking who speaks German. It isn't based on true ethnicity. These are not the only languages we have spoken also.. so it is not a clear language-to-ethnicity correlation. Heck, you know how many darn dialects the people REALLY speak, which are a mix of everything.. i.e. the dialect from the Val di Sol, the one from the Val di Non, etc., etc. So anyway, I don't even know where I am in this conversation now. :) I, being the (American) cousin, only want fairness and sharing of our joint-culture. That's all. A particular valley is my home, but Trento and Bolzano I consider all of ours who love this region. I have no problem with anything really whatsoever -- except users who are exactly going against the quieto vivere you just mentioned. But you are asking me to do this quieto vivere, maybe this is ironic afterall? Considering I would of been happily quiet and content had certain users (who sure do remain comfortably quiet to their intentions!) hadn't initiated things on 25 Oct. 2005. Anyway, at least we are having an interesting debate. Where are you at in general in Trentino? Don't give out too much details, or they may come to get you -- these POV dudes. JUST KIDDING. I love sarcasm. ciao. Taalo 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that large number of people lied to Austrian census-takers, or that the census was flawed in some way? All you have provided as yet is some vague hypothetical anecdote about what you would do. john k 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; good point. Yes, I'm just hypothesizing, and thanks for pointing that out. You know, I'm fine if somebody shows me I'm wrong. My field is one of research afterall, so no result is a bad result. The thing is, from cemetaries (the family tombstones mainly stay the same, etc.), accounts of elders from that era, etc.. there doesn't actually appear to have been this huge colonization. I was just trying to make a point to consider, that maybe you take with a grain of salt a census by the Austrian-Hungarian Empire from nearly a century ago.. You'll get a similar argument from peoples who were under the Ottoman Empire -- or any Empire for that matter. My opinion is that the people have mostly stayed the same over the centuries. But it is an opinion and also probably borders on the edge of OR. Actually, I've just been trying to give some information and background on this region to have a fair discussion -- so indeed take it all with a grain of salt as well. Regardless, my intentions are -- and have been -- just to come up with a neutral solution. If it was wrong for me even to bring up this discussion about the region, I can accept that as well. I do wish that a thorough discussion would of happened way before this process began last year -- when it was initiated unilaterally by a few users. To me the situation was and is not right -- but it is just my opinion. Of course I hope it was worth it, putting my neck on the line -- so to say. regards. Taalo 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Gonna bail for a bit. I've spend way too much time this past day and a half on this. I feel like I have talked too much also. :) I assume this process will be discussed at least for a week or two. I'll check back later. Just hope an actually valuable discussion/learning experience comes out of this -- for everyone (me too :) Taalo 04:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll provide this link I dug up. http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/1_3kag.htm This does show that there were roughly 73,000 Italians that moved up to Bolzano-Bozen to help build hydroelectric plants. The only thing I can feel happy about this lousy time was that it appears the majority of "Germans" who were going to emigrate, ended up staying afterall. At least this is good to know that no one was cleansed out -- but there does appear to be many new families who moved in. I guess this fits with what I've seen in the churches/cemetaries at least -- that the original people have stuck around. My only point of contention then is that I still disagree with this strict term of "German" or "Italian" -- often based on language. I still believe the people of Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol are a people.. and the "German" or "Italian" is actually a lot due to the rulers who have come and gone. Also, the people are definitely a mix of Roman, Germanic, etc., etc. -- so I really just can't agree that there is a "German" people in Bolzano and an "Italian" people in Trento. All in all, the cultures are almost identical.. and a lot of the dialects (that are actually used more than Italian or German) interweave. Anyway, I hope you all take this history lesson in good faith. I for one learned something more about what happened to my neighbors/cousins over the hill. Regardless, lets try to come up with a neutral position that respects this region and the people -- and indeed the new ones that arrived during those bad days some 70 years ago. That said, my current feeling goes to: cities: Italian-German (this is multiethnic Italy); using the proper Province of Bolzano-Bozen (with a page or section describing South Tyrol/Sudtirol) and maybe we do this page as Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol? Then we follow what is in the maps of the World (i.e., we do not go against the grain of what is really out there on maps, britannica, etc.), while respecting the Tirolese culture. I don't think this name is too confusing. How do you all think? Ok, now I really got to get work done.. damnit. :) Taalo 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Although the region "Trentino-Alto Adige" was not abolished, its name was changed to "Trentino-South Tyrol" and most of its important powers were taken away and transferred to the two provinces South Tyrol and Trentino." I really hope this author is giving an accurate account. So does this mean both names are in effect? Also, "Until the present, German and Ladin speakers did not distinguish between Italians in South Tyrol and Italians in general. Most of the people did not even distinguish between the Italian people and the Italian government. There is no awareness of the two distinct levels of the conflict. But Italians in South Tyrol can no longer be seen only as the invaders and as tools of the Italianization politics. After living in the province since the 1930s, or at least since the 1950s, they consider South Tyrol to be their homeland too. Their offspring were born there, went to school there and work there. Italians became, over the years, Italian-speaking South Tyroleans." Anyway, that is really a great historical article, if it is accurate. I don't know, I've given credit to the Trentino-South Tyrol folks, without them actually doing any research. :) I still think though, to be fair with what is on the maps, etc... more and more Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol makes the most sense. Again, with the cities, we really should use both names. The province, it is hard to argue with what exists.. i.e. the Province of Trento and the Province of Bolzano-Bozen. I like Olessi's idea the best to have a subpage or something describing South Tyrol. Man, for sure I did not like what the Austrians did in the 1800's to the Italians of Trentino... and no more do I like what the Italian Gov't did to the people of Bolzano-Bozen in the 1900's. I hope you all who are from this region can at least realize that many of us have been around here back when we were even all under Rome. I still consider all the people of this region brothers/sisters/cousins. regards. Taalo 06:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

(moved from Survey section)

You know, I can fully understand trying to be civil and a good person, I try to this in my daily life. It is obviously important to try and mandate this on Wikipedia. But, if someone appears to have conducted himself in a way that is unprofessional, rude, and inconsiderate, do we just keep it to ourselves? It is almost as if you see someone robbing someone else (just making a hypothetical argument), and you chastise the man/woman who goes and knocks the robber over the head. I know it doesn't help our argument, or probably even give a good impression when making accusations towards so-called established users. But the thing though is, sometimes the proof is in the pudding (the archives in this case). I for one can't be happy seeing what I have seen happen over the past year. Trying to protect the one being accused is commendable, however, it can also be naive and end up hurting the good people and simply protecting the bad (all while he/she stands quietly off to the side). Take no offense please; at this point I'm making a general statement -- just something a wise old someone once told me. take care olessi. Taalo 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the phrasing used over the last few days involving the South Tyrolian articles has, from my eyes, appeared almost slanderous and like a witch hunt. I happen to agree with some of your substance arguments on the disputed topics, but these constant references to "people from Vienna" are becoming quite annoying to see. I don't care how right or wrong someone is in a dispute; personal attacks (by anyone) are never allowed and go completely against Wikiquette. I am optimistic that your apology will help to create a more peaceful atmosphere. Olessi 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do apologize if I offend Austrians or those from Vienna. I'm not singling out people from Vienna. I only say this because the people who went through and changed everything over the course of a year list themselves as being from Vienna. So, try not to confuse it as referring to people from Vienna as a whole. I'll try to just avoid it, fair enough? I am happy to admit I've become too emotional at times. Part of it also comes from seeing only a few people that have been willing to really take the time and see what was done in the past, what really initiated all this. It is disappointing from a humanistic point of view that the original aggitators don't even come out and say, ok, i did something wrong. Instead when people try to move things back to what they were (before being changed without discussions), they abuse WP and say vandalism or POV edit warriors. Look, someone last year started going through WP bit by bit changing to a particular POV. I don't want a witch hunt, but it would be nice to have at least an acknowledgement of what realy started this. I for one am not in the habit of being annoyed just out of the blue! I can actually understand their POV, but for the sake of being neutral, for the sake of trying to make everyone happy rather than just pushing a particular viewpoint (for whatever good or bad reason), it would sure be nice if people could think a bit deeper. You know, even admit they are wrong from time to time.. I have no problem with that. It is indeed good for the soul! Yeah, I also have no problem to say sorry. I hope it does make things more peaceful. But I also hope the ones who are at the root of this also have the orbs to come out make good as well. I'm pretty cynical though, so I doubt it will happen. :) regards. i have appreciated your ideas throughout this process. Taalo 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

OBVIOUS ANSWER

Just a quick observation - Wiki Commons uses the OFFICIAL name of "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" for the Category. Seems pretty sensible to have the same occur here. Just a thought - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Trentino-Alto_Adige Rarelibra 03:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons is not obliged to use the most common English name for its articles.--Panarjedde 13:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

CALL TO STOP POLL

As I've said on South Tyrol, this is getting us nowhere. We need someone or someones to mediate this. I'm not enjoying see people just vote along ethnic/language lines. If anything, this should all teach us just how screwed up pages can get that have to do with nation and politics. One thing I've personally gotten from this is that both Trentino-Alto Adige and Trentino-South Tyrol are valid. That one happens to have Suedtirol translated into English and the other doesn't, isn't enough to bias one over the other. In my opinion the issues that do need to be worked out in order to have a long lasting peace on this issue is: 1) the issue of how the page was originally moved from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol must be examined to see if it was done properly. There must be closure on this somehow. 2) We have to deal with the fact there are two equally valid names for this region and how we will deal with that fairly. I prefer merging the names, even though I've already been told it is bad, bad, bad. 3) a solution has to be based on citations/references, not on people coming on here saying, "it is obvious this, or i feel it is that, this is definitely what is used in English, blah blah blah". Taalo 21:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment

I don’t really want to involve myself too much in the debate: partly because naming debates too often end up as a fantastic waste of editors’ time, but mostly because I have neither strong views nor sufficient knowledge. However, there is one point I would like to make. Currently I am editing List of Italian PDO cheeses (don’t look now: I haven’t saved it yet; and besides it’s only a list of cheeses). And, as I am copy-editing, Trentino-South Tyrol (which I am using because that’s our current canonical name) is looking very silly. The problem is that is a half-translation. I have nothing against full translations: Lombardy, Sardinia, etc. seem to be perfectly good. I have nothing against not translating when the translation presents problems: I prefer Lazio to Latium, Puglia to Apulia (both depending on context). But in this case we are translating only half of the name. After all ‘Trentino’ is simply the Italian form for ‘the area surrounding the place known in English as Trent’. So ‘Trentino-South Tyrol’ just looks silly as opposed to (for instance) Trentino-Südtirol. I doubt whether that helps much but I would like to see a non-silly name chosen and I am yours, sincerely —Ian Spackman 12:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as it looks to me, is we have come up with this hybrid name due to misunderstandings or perhaps a wee-bit of national bias. I was proposing Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol or Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol as a compromise (in order to find a neutral position). Besides people not liking double names, as I've found out (!), maybe I was being naive to hope for a compromise such as this. If I take out my personal feelings on the matter and just go to the web as a reference, I get: From Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-61335 (with common English translations where applicable). I go to Google and type in "italy regions". I get: http://www.initaly.com/~initaly/regions/regions.htm (uses common English names where applicable) http://www.travelvantage.com/ita_regions.html (map is all in Italian, but in the discussions it uses common English names again.) http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Italy/Regions/ (ditto to the first link). And on and on. I think part of the confusion may have come from the Province of Bolzano website (www.provincia.bz.it). One, on their opening page they say "Benvenuti in Alto Adige", which is welcoming you to a regional name rather than to the province. I've explained this before, I know. :-) Also later in the English translations they refer to "Province of South Tyrol" (incorrect), "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol" (kind of correct, but bad form) and "Province of Bolzano" (bingo!). Point being, if we want to find out what is used in English, we should not necessarily base this off of non-native English speakers trying their best to come up with a website for tourists, even if it is the provincial website. Anyway, the Brittanica map is very well done, and it is as of 2006. I've seen previous versions of this map going back to 1998, etc. Anyway, I'm babbling. Thanks for the input. Taalo 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Trentino" is certainly used in English, as there is no english word for "the region surrounding the place known in English as Trent." The problem is that the term used in English is an Italian one, while the term "South Tirol" is Anglicized from a German name. It is a bit awkward, certainly. john k 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The interesting thing with the name Trent also is it is, I guess, the English name for the town, but it is very rarely used. In fact, I almost always see Trento used, with an aside that it was where they held the Council of Trent. So just because Trent is English, it does not mean it is what is commonly used in English -- therefore Trento makes more sense (at least to me) to use. Submit your opinion on the mediation by Lar dude. :) Taalo 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OUTSTANDING END

Thank you to all for your input and influence in rectifying this situation. Rarelibra 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We're done? I thought we were just getting started, was waiting to hear from others. ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Rarelibra was just so happy to see some reason come about on the discussion of the city of Bolzano (Bozen) page. We'll see if people can turn off the POV for this discussion too. Indeed I was also hoping to hear more people respond to your offer for help, if even just to say thank you for the offer! Anyway, I'll say again that I hope you can help us with the regional page, province page, and all the cities of that province. take care. Taalo 21:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that everybody (or, at least, myself) has already expressed their point of view. So, Lar now can enjoy himself in reading all contributions until now and say what he thinks about this "issue". After that, there could be more comments and a decision could be taken. At least, this is how I would do... Good luck! Adriano 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
and that is an acceptible opinion. But, it doesn't seem like a lot of us have done our own reading, because Lar has asked us to say yes/no if this is a solution we can agree with. So, it seems you agree my friend; go up and say so! :) take care. Taalo 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly so. Please do. I don't want to force a solution on you, I want consensus that you want me to take this tack to be helpful. Maybe notice ought to be placed on the other pages that are part of this? I confess I am not sure exactly how wide the scope is. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides this page, Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol, I have added links to the mediation offer to Talk:South_Tyrol and Talk:Communes_of_South_Tyrol Taalo 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


ops, nearly missed this. Took the habit of checking just the last lines and not the changes on the top of the page...
So, better, do a general announcement: Lar offered to mediate, please read the first topic of this discussion and reply accordingly... Adriano 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
argg, :-) i just moved it to the top in hopes people would see it. think i should move them all to the bottom? how about both! ;] Taalo 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

**OFFER TO MEDIATE** (please respond to Lar)

Hi. This came over to Commons where it came to my attention: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#PLEASE_HELP I offer my help to mediate if it would be helpful. I'm an admin here: Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) and I have absolutely no interest in this controversy. I admit that I have ethnically German ancestry, and that I am married to a wife of Italian ancestry, but I have never heard of this region, or the controversy before today. So if you like, I would be happy to try to help mediate.

But you've got my attention now, like it or not, and I am a bit concerned at how incollegial this has gotten. I think either you guys need to work this out yourselves, amicably, and quickly, get a mediator, (myself, or someone else, anything is fine) or ... if you continue with incivility and edit warring, there may well be either page protections, or some blocks handed out to all parties. I should warn you, when I block I tend to use a broad brush and not care who started what or who was the most incivil, etc... I just am looking to get the matter to stop.

As for what the "right" name for any article is, my coming in thinking is, whatever name is most likely to be what people look for, with redirects for everything that anyone might use.

If, that said, all the parties would want to accept my mediation, sign below. If further you want me to actually decide for you, say that too. Hope that helps. (I recently helped work through issues with the state highways naming... see WP:SRNC ... I was rather heavy handed there but it was needful.) ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

support: Like a breath of fresh air, I welcome your help. Thank you! Rarelibra 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
support: Yes, please! I hope maybe you might also be willing to go ahead and help us mediate/decide the entire naming issue of this region, province, and towns? It is all very connected together, so I hope it won't really be that much more work. Discussing this whole thing on one page, instead of all over Wiki, would be very welcome as well!! Actually, deciding for us; I think if you are willing, this may be the most neutral way to deal with this afterall. :-) So, yes and yes. Taalo 23:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
support: I'm all for it. I do agree the scope is very wide - I'd say wide enough that it will need a separate page somewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
support: so this whole discussion will come to an end and we could start working on building something, rather than wasting time and resources... BTW, Lar, a clean discussion page could be useful. I got lost and nearly missed this part. (Thank Taalo for drawing my attention to this!) Adriano 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
support, of course. I hope we can finally apply the naming conventions in a logical way, without trying to satisfy the majorities and/or the minorities (this is also the best way to avoid discontent)--Supparluca 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
support: agree to mediation. Thanks, --Asteriontalk 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
conditional support: I agree to mediation; I do not agree to delegate the decision. Septentrionalis 19:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the overall 'threat' of delegating the decision (AKA artbitration) helps to have a totally neutral discussion. We have tried to discuss this, tried to debate this, and even when a common ground was offered, the POV was skewed to a german stance (instead of a joint Italian-German stance, or just Italian). This creates a discriminatory bias to the very country that this region is located in (and the province). So I am for a totally open discussion, but leaving the decision to someone who has been brought in from a very neutral standpoint (and is willing to punish those who do not remain civil). Rarelibra 19:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
hear, hear! and most of all, maybe this can finally get everyone to work together in a professional and friendly manner. i see it beginning. god knows it has to better than the archives over the past year. :_) Taalo 20:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And when we're all done with this, we're going to move to the Wisconsin talk page and start a consensus to change the name to "Cheeseland". It's about time they adopted a dairy POV there. Rarelibra 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have seen a mediation where the mediator imposed a decision, instead of seeing if a consensus could be brought about. The results were neither professional nor friendly. As for Wisconsin, that might pass; they have a pawky sense of humor. Septentrionalis 16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Mediation is where a neutral party helps both sides reach an agreed solution. Arbitration is where the neutral party listens to input and actually makes the decision. Lar has offered to mediate in this case, and is reading through the input to offer up a suggested solution. Because of the various amounts of emotional response (on both sides), and because there is, in existence, a biased POV, I am definitely in favor of arbitration rather than mediation. It doesn't seem as if POV is willing to approach a neutral solution (it was suggested to have the English translation of "Trentino-Upper Adige/South Tyrol", which would include the "South Tyrol" translation of "Sudtirol" and the "Upper Adige" translation of "Alto Adige"). Consensus was reached on the city level (with Bolzano), after this discussion on the region we will then also focus on the South Tyrol naming issue (since the real, proper name of the province is Bolzano - or to appease the german POV translation of "Sudtirol" it could be "Bolzano-South Tyrol" - one of the 'neutral' suggestions is to have "Province of Bolzano" as the proper article for the province and "South Tyrol" to have an article about the region. Because of the historic nature and influence of the region itself, one would think that this is a very fair and impartial solution. But on we go with the discussion... Rarelibra 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is only one body authorized to arbitrate in Wikipedia. You are welcome to go to them, but the odds are enormous that they will dismiss this as a content dispute. Septentrionalis 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I will agree that many times, arbitration does not serve the best interest of either side. So that, in itself, should motivate this along to a neutral solution. It is not the content being disputed, it is the correct title - and corresponding unilateral name change throughout English wiki (as can be seen in the history of many articles). Rarelibra 18:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Mediation does not mandate decisions. Who are all the key parties in this? ALL of them would have to agree to an imposed decision in advance (which then would be consensus in advance for the imposed decision), absent ArbCom getting involved. If at least one party objects to decision imposition, all I can do is help work through this with you and get it clear to everyone what the consensus is, if any. If we can't find a consensus, probably an RfC would be next. But if we do find a consensus, it's not me that would be imposing a decision, it would be you guys imposing it on yourself. Does that make sense to everyone? Because Septentrionalis is exactly right, an imposed from above decision, is vastly inferior to one that the community arrives at. Let me know. (also knowing who all the key parties are that need to agree to this, and the scope (see below though, it looks like a prelim ID is the geography of the entire province and related articles), would help a lot. I do not see this as a fast process, by the way, it will take some time to get going.) I think if it goes, we'll do it on a subpage somewhere. I have been in communication with folk in the Mediation Cabal, who have offered to let us use a subpage there, and offered to help by providing their process guidance and so forth... lmk. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Lar - if the end result is peace and understanding, then I am all for it. Maybe even for them to evaluate and give their suggestions/opinions. The more neutral party input, the better. If they tell us that "South Tyrol" seems to be effective, I will be happy enough to let it go. If they say that the correct name is "Trentino-Alto Adige", then maybe others will have to accept that. If they tell us a medium answer (like "Trentino-Upper Adige/South Tyrol") then we'll have a neutral, acceptable answer for a complex region. Then we'll move on to address the province name. Rarelibra 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally would just like to see some experience and neutrality come to the table and help us decide what should be done. The biggest problem in the past has been decisions arrived at essentially by mob rule, and in my opinion largely based on nationalistic/ethnic perceptions. If we can get away from this, that should be the most satisfying result out of all this for all of us. Anyway, I don't get the impression Lar plans on coming on here as a dictator. I'm getting a really good vibe on letting him do his thing. I say, at least give it a chance... Taalo 23:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
support. I was already quite happy with the solution found on Talk:Communes of South Tyrol, but I know the discussion has been quite heated and way too personal in the past, see Talk:South Tyrol/Archive 1, Talk:Bolzano, Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol/name, Talk:Adige, User talk:Gryffindor#First Warning, User talk:Taalo#Gryffndor. Well, that should give you enough to read. Markussep 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, Markussep, I must say that was a rather crude move of yours to start these discussions off like that, and just cements feelings of bad faith when you go as far as to post my personal talk page. Really disappointing move there pal. You didn't provide anything in those links that actually help us move forward. Also, if you wanted to go around digging up stuff, you should of also dug up talk pages of other users (from the German POV side, especially) who were involved in these debates. I certainly could, but I will not. You did no service to yourself to show you as neutral, and in fact I just get the feeling of sour grapes now that this process is likely going to be taken care of from a neutral/objective editor (not from the gang voting that has been going on here for a year). Also, this discussion is about now, not about digging up the past debates. If we go there, that will indeed bring up the issue again at who all started this whole mess in the first place last year, and propogated it ever since. *shakes head* whatever... Taalo 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you and Rarelibra have been disproportionally rude to Gryffindor, and there's no need to wipe that under the carpet. I must say I was shocked when I read it. You can post anything from my talk page, it's all wikipedia you know, no secrets. Markussep 14:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hah, if you want to feel shocked, well, that is certainly up to you. I certainly felt shocked (and a bit horrified!) when I understood what had been going on on here for the past year, but I've been able to get over it. So, you can tell me later what is worse in the end: words or actions. If I thought of wiping anything under the carpet, I wouldn't be here explicitly pointing out your post. Regardless, if it is your intention to try and stir up bad feelings some more, that is your prerogative. I already consider myself vindicated that the majority of people are agreeing that the methods of the past have been a farce, and it is time to have a neutral and mediated solution. That, and it has been nice to see people finally acting cordial (and I count myself included). ciao ciao. :)) Taalo 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Markussep, please keep any personal comments to yourself and keep the focus of conversation on the topic. No need to start anything all over again. That is one of the reasons that Lar got involved, and we don't want to tempt a broadened punishment and watch everyone involved become affected. If there are any more such comments, bring them to attention for Lar to see - as far as "wiping under the rug" and "secrets" - it is of no surprise that one can see the histories of comments and posts. No need to emphasize this. But if, say, Taalo posts something on my talk page and I either wish to ignore it, not comment/respond to it, or just get rid of it so it does not promote any further such comments - I would think that I am not doing any harm by removing it. I will remind Taalo that the proper neutral parties are involved now and we don't have to display any more emotion about this topic than necessary. And I will remind you, Markussep, to try to focus on contributing to the overall good of the topic and not sidestep with such comments as you posted above. Thank you. Rarelibra 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Rarelibra, you need to stop making fun of others users, such as User:Markussep. If anyone should be keeping their personal comments to themselves, it is you and not him. regards Gryffindor 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
support mediation efforts. Olessi 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(keep signing above).. it is clear to me now there is a fair bit to read here. I think if deferring the move requests while everything is worked through is thought to be good, it sounds good to me. I think I will make a sub page or something similar rather than archiving this. There is key stuff to read. On the subpage I wil want to get you all to help me understand what the scope is, that is, what are the open questions (not just this one), and then get short summaries of pros and cons (from the perspective of encyclopedia readers first and foremost) and seek consensus... maybe it will be obvious. If not, I'll try polling but if that doesn't work, just decide. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to take down the move requests I setup. I should wait until we get agreement for the overall process though? thanks. Taalo 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think so... ++Lar: t/c 09:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed at some length at Talk:Communes of South Tyrol. The questions considered were:
  • Should we use double or triple names, compounded of the two or three official names?
    • There was a strong majority against.
  • Which of these places is there clear evidence of English usage?
  • What do we do about those communes for which no clear evidence of English usage exists?
    • The majority depended on cases, but there was a linguistic census in 2001, showing strong local majorities in every commune but Merano. There was a strong opinion that local-majority Italian communes (five) should be named in Italian, and the eight Ladin communes should be named in Ladin. There was a less strong opinion, but a majority, that the remaining German-speaking communes should be named in German.Septentrionalis 19:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add a caveat though. A lot of these discussions involve a lot of Italian and German speakers, so I doubt the, lets say scientific, conclusions. I for one don't really like the idea of trying to start naming towns by their primary speaking population. This isn't really done anywhere else on Wikipedia, is it? I mean, the villages my family come from, they all speak dialect.. so in fact you would have to rename all the cities in Italy for the majority spoken dialect. :_))) I say just use what has now been implemented on Bolzano. Though, I really hope someone neutral/objective can decide this for us. regards. Taalo 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Part of the idea of Wikipedia is the hope that the nationalists will cancel each other out (unless one side has better arguments than "because it's ours"); and I think they did so. As for the merits: Wikipedia has a three-step process:
  1. Use English
  2. Use the local official name
  3. Find something else.
This situation is unusual in that most of these articles are about places so obscure, like Villanders, that no English name is clear; and step 2 is indecisive, because Villanders and Villandro are both equally official names. (Villandro has a slight google lead, but I am not persuaded it is significant.) Elsewhere in Italy, AFAIK, the (Tuscan) name is official; although I suppose the Val d'Aosta is an exception. Septentrionalis 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
They could be both official names (though I don't agree), but if you have to choose one or the other, the neutral way to do it is to choose the Italian names, since these cities are in Italy (I mean, if you choose the Italian names, you can give the logical reason that these cities are in Italy, but if you choose the German or Ladin names, how can you justify this preference, in a logical, "not-pro-minorities" way?)--Supparluca 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is nonsense. There are two ways one could justify the preference for German or Ladin names: 1) that name is more commonly used in English. I think this is clearly true for Brixen, and quite possibly for some of the other places as well. We name Florence, Rome, and Naples by what are, technically, their French names, despite their being in Italy. There are many other examples where the same thing has been done, either currently or in the past. 2) this is the name used by the local inhabitants. That a city is in Italy does not mean it is largely inhabited by Italians. Assuming that both names are equally official, it makes sense to go with the name used by the majority of local inhabitants, rather than the name imposed by a distant central administration. john k 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I was replying to Septentrionalis' post "This situation [...] an exception" and particularly to the second part, from "and step 2 is indecisive [...]". You could read at least part of the whole discussion before saying that what someone says is nonsense. And by the way the naming conventions say that the current local name should be preferred if there isn't a common English name, so maybe you can modify that page if you think that it's nonsense (<-- to be interpreted without grudge of course).--Supparluca 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Could open up a can of worms though, and it isn't really a simple solution as I eluded to below. If we want to go by the names used by local inhabitants, well then you may find yourself using all the names used by local dialects! :-) You should know that in all these towns and valleys people speaking their own dialects and then you even get another variation on town names. Also, this says then that definitely it should be Trentino-Alto Adige based on the majority of Italians in this region. Where is exactly the local too? Local to North East Italy, and the majority says Merano. Local to Merano, well, I don't know, we also have to make a census on that! :)) Taalo 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You know, in engineering we often follow the principle: KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). If you look at the Bolzano page as it is now, it follows a simple logic: It is in Italy, there is no English equilvalent like Rome, so you simply list the city name as Bolzano. You have appropriate redirects, and the local translations (German and Ladin). End of story, now everyone can get onto more interesting work! My main gripe with the other method is that it adds another level of complexity, which I'm not sure is necessary -- and maybe is even a bit naive. Also, "the hope that the nationalists will cancel each other out", wow, if that isn't some dreaming. :-) Anyway, don't take offense with my tone (which I'm worried might not come out correctly on text); I really think this is all one of the most critical debates on Wikipedia (the discussion on how nationalism, etc. comes into play). Regardless, the best thing here is that hopefully someone like Lar will figure this all out for us. :-) take care. Taalo 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The complexity exists anyway. Brixen, Italy is called Brixen in English, and always has been; the fact it is in Italy has not changed that. Septentrionalis 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This only points to a bias, Septentrionalis. The town of Bressanone is in Italy - just so happens that the German name is Brixen. By stating the English name is "Brixen" is assuming a POV approach that only takes the Germanic translation, and not the Italian translation (if it exists). It is the root of this matter. As many have stated, the correct thing to do is to take the Italian name (since it is in Italy), and leave the minority status to deal with it, basically. We could avoid all kinds of this havoc if those with a POV approach would just realize that it isn't a personal or biased sting to use the correct naming convention from the government that the place/city/etc. is located. Or should we consider renaming everything based off of a minority bias and open up Pandora's Box on Wiki? Probably not. This argument even carried over onto Commons when I tried to rename the provinces on a map correctly and was also challenged there (for attempting to make a correction). In the end, wouldn't it be a lovely world if we all just became more culturally aware? I mean, if the Chinese take over the US in the future, I'm sure I can get used to the new names. :) Rarelibra 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, how do I put this? Brixen = Bressanone; Brenner = Brennero. Septentrionalis 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Ack! (corrected) Rarelibra 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, my friend, if it is indeed the case that Brixen is the name used in English (such as Rome or Turin), then there is no complexity: you simply list Brixen. I don't think we are having any disagreement here fundamentally. hah. The only issue with Brixen (or Brenner for that matter) is if they are really English translations that are most commonly used (again, such as Rome, Turin, Milan -- which are universally accepted). For Bolzano, Merano, etc., I'm quite sure there is no common English equivalent. One thing for sure though, we shouldn't be trying to define what should be a new English equivalent. That is what it appeared to be part of the reason for listing all the German names (which can arguably look more "English"). This is a very wrong approach though. take care. Taalo 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Your claims to telepathy are unsourced. ;-> No one has supported Villanders "because it looks more English"; and personally I think Villandro does. Of course there is an English word for Bolzano, it's Bolzano; probably more common than Brixen. Septentrionalis 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
With respect to Meran/Merano, Philip Augustus's wife is universally known as Agnes of Meran in English. I've certainly never heard of "Agnes of Merano". The morganatic descendants of Archduke Johann of Austria are always called "Counts of Meran" in English. With respect to Brixen, we discuss the Bishopric of Brixen, not the "Bishopric of Bressanone". Obviously all old examples, but sometimes that's all we have to work with. I think "Meran" is by a considerable margin the dominant English usage (and certainly Brixen is). john k 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy with Meran or Merano; just not the present double-barrelled name. Between the two, google suggests there may be overall present English usage for Merano; but this is one of the more difficult cases, since the proposed "local majority test" is also indecisive. Septentrionalis 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Google is particularly bad for issues like this. I too would accept either form in this instance. john k 12:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And I think there is a difference between title and context in your examples. The context of this discussion is not age-old titles of people you stated which were titled when the area was a part of Austria (or its predecessor). Of course their titles won't reflect the region name in Italian - they were given many centuries ago. So in reference to history - as an example, I'd say it's pretty safe to say that the District of Louisiana can be referred to in a historic reference, but the proper name in modern context is now Arkansas. So you're above input has no bearing on this discussion. Rarelibra 21:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Trieste is always known by its Italian form in English, despite having been just as "Austrian" for many centuries as anywhere in Tyrol (more "Austrian" than Brixen, certainly, which only came under Austrian control in the 19th century). john k 12:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up those points, if anything for the history lesson with regard to English. I don't know if I would say that is still enough to tell us what is commonly used in English. I'd tend to just go by what is on English maps, lists of Italian cities/provinces, etc. cheers. Taalo 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the scope of this mediation is article titles for geographic topics (municipalities, villages, rivers, valleys) related to South Tyrol a.k.a. the Province of Bolzano. Markussep 20:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, more or less everything in the Province of Bolzano. *thumbs up* Taalo 21:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any "key player" who hasn't commented on this page or on Talk:Communes of South Tyrol. If the rest of you do, please leave a note on their talk pages. Septentrionalis 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support: the much desired neutral decision-maker has finally materialised! Tridentinus 09:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Conditional support I can only agree, if the tone of the discussion is in accordance with polity, no verbal abuses or snidy remarks as has been happening before, and Wikiquette is followed. Otherwise this whole thing would just degenerate even further. But it is in the interest of everyone to find peace instead of arguing. Gryffindor 10:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


CURRENT VOTE TALLY: strongly support (1), support (8), conditional support (2), oppose (0), strongly oppose (0)

SUMMARY: yes votes (11); no votes (0)

Strange disparity

We have a very long talk page here for a very short article which badly needs copy-editing by anyody who knows English reasonably well, or who at least has a spell-checker. Wikifying too: do most of our readers know what a ‘mark’ is? —Ian Spackman 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian - the root of the matter is the incorrect naming convention. I'm wondering when this whole thing can be decided. Rarelibra 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Rare (reciprocally to invent affectionately a first name), with utter respect, it isn’t the root of the matter. The root of the matter is writing a good article on the territory. Naming disputes are a spectacular waste of editors’ time. As a reader I do need to know the various names by which some place is called, and, sometimes, I do need to be given to appreciate that the names given to it are controversial (Derry vs. Londonderry), or that in some contexts one is generally prefered and in others a different one (don’t talk about a wine from ‘Montferrat’). But I expect to be able to get over that brief naming-stuff in the first sentence. Or have it relegated to a footnote. Mostly I want to know about the thing named. Effort put into improving the article is nearly always expended more usefully than effort put into naming disputes. Personally I think of the region as Trentino-Alto Adige and of the northern half as Südtirol. But I have no desire to assert that mental habit as canonical. But nattering on talk pages is an easy trap to fall into and, not for the first time, I have fallen. —Ian Spackman 04:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ian - I work for a British company, so I know when someone says "No, it isn't 'Burton on Trent', it's 'Burton upon Trent' or the whole "Derry vs Londonderry" thing as well. Or try telling the justification someone from Portsmouth, RI that the default page on Wiki goes to Portsmouth, England. But this is also about the naming and the unilateral changes that were made a year ago. Finally time to address all of that now. Rarelibra 05:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming disputes are often the toughest to resolve. I hope I can help. but I admit some dismay that the question of what is in scope seems to have been a hook for a long thread (just above). We shall see. I think I have about what I need to move forward though. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, don't worry Lar, I think you'll actually help finally sort this out. Don't be too shocked about the thread going nuts, I'm sure soon we'll start debating food, wine, cars. My regards. :-) Taalo 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, fundamentally, a discussion of a naming convention. I was considering making this, and the discussion on Talk:Communes of South Tyrol, into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (South Tyrol); and if no one would complain that name was biased, I would still do so. I agree that this has very little to do with article text. Septentrionalis 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pam - I totally agree. It really is an issue of naming convention. Proper naming convention for a region and province vs. naming of an area. Rarelibra 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


(quoting from Ian Spackman) "Naming disputes are a spectacular waste of editors’ time." Holy words, I daresay! :-) Adriano 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I assure you that the words were uttered in a pure spirit of European Enlightenment atheism! (I was going to say more, but nattering on these subjects seems to be the biggest drag.)—Ian Spackman 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical Discussions

Here were some intresting discussions from Talk:Adige a year ago. I must say this was a bit extreme to want to name an Italian river the German name. Best quote, "You are not going to rename Trenitalia in Zügeitalien-Trenitalia because part of the trains go through the province of Bolzano, are you?"

Nice one—but be careful, you could be placing temptation in people’s way! —Ian Spackman 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation status

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol has been set up. That page is mostly a tracking of status page... discussion will happen elsewhere (here, or on some subpage) Sorry things are going slow but there is a lot to read. I am going to try to summarise what I think the dispute encompasses and what all the questinos are, and ask for your aid in getting to consensus on that list. ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A (non-comprehensive, feel free to add articles) list of articles within the scope of this mediation:

Markussep 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! that is a big list. Is ALL of this really in scope? ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess so... But we should be able to find some general rules, like those from the Talk:Communes of South Tyrol survey. Markussep 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC). An additional comment: many of these articles are related, so if it is decided that the province article will be renamed "Province of Bolzano" (which wouldn't be my first preference, BTW), the categories and subpages like Communes of ... and Castles of ... should be renamed as well. And if for populated places, valleys, rivers the local majority language would be chosen (in absence of a single commonly used name in English), that would fix most of the list above. Markussep 11:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Bolzano Victory Monument and ADO (South Tyrol) are IMHO ok
All resultes like moving South Tyrol to Alto Adige are not discutable for me--Martin Se 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Remember that's your opinion, which is not necessarily what's good for wikipedia. For me "Alto Adige" is definitely the least preferable option (after "South Tyrol" and "Province of Bolzano"), but for "Trentino-Alto Adige" it's different. Let's not discuss single articles for now. Markussep 11:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I d'ont refer to single articles and think this two are interrelated.
I'd like to mention that Etsch-Adige was moved to Adige for his location in more then one province--Martin Se 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you right. "discutable" doesn't exist in English (it does in French). Do you mean that these article names are not debatable/not open for discussion, or that they're not disputable/not liable to controversy? Markussep 11:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe he is saying that this is all not "discussable" (i.e. debatable), as far as he is concerned. Martin Se, I just saw what you wrote on your user page about leaving Wiki and that you are exploding. Dude, please relax... You are taking an extreme political viewpoint and going overboard. Try your best to realize that there are two sides to every story. I must say that if you work in the provincial office, it kinda makes me think a bit more why the provincial page is so.. lets say, confusing with its naming. :-) Seriously, stay calm. Taalo 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lar, I will say it is not as complex as the list may make it look. A general naming convention will take care of everything -- or should. :-) Taalo 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this mediation still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did it ever start?--Supparluca 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not closed. Thanks.
I have done terribly at moving the mediation forward, and I see that there are straw polls and discusssion going on about this article farther down the talk page. I'm not sure if another mediator should be found for the global name question. I'm also not sure if the local rename, run to conclusion here, might not give useful information to the global question. I am sorry I've been so terrible at moving this mediation forward. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige

So I did some research and checked with some pretty credible sources as to what they print, in ENGLISH, for the name of this region (and province) in Italy.

  • Fodor's - a well recognized and respected name (and expert guide) has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Michelin - also expert in travel guides - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bozen".
  • Rand McNally (name speaks for itself) has world, regional, and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Streetwise Map's regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Dorling Kindersley or "DK" - by far, probably the best travel guides available - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Lonely Planet (the self-proclaimed largest independently-owned travel guide) regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
Comment: my Lonely Planet guidebook of Italy (English language, 2000 edition) uses Italian for all locations in Italy, including Milano, Roma, Firenze and Sicilia. German and English names are given in brackets, where applicable. Markussep 10:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hammond Map - a subsidiary of Langenscheidt Publishing Group (a privately-held German publishing company) - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".

As far as proof, I am quite sure that the above sources are credible enough, especially in the sense of geographical knowledge, expertise, and English-translation. However, those who wish to continue this incorrect POV naming convention refuse to recognize such expertise in their own efforts of control and domination of Wikipedia. The truth says something different. Rarelibra 03:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC) ==

You ignore the relevant guideline, as you ignore policy. As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says:

When considering a source in determining English usage, remember the purpose of the source. When a guidebook or roadmap written in English shows an autobahn between München and Nürnberg, it is attesting to local usage, because that is what the signs on the autobahn will say; Munich and Nuremberg are still the English names.

So here; you cite four guidebooks, three roadmaps and a partridge in a pear tree an atlas strongly oriented towards road travel. This amounts to the assertion that the local signs say Alto Adige, which may well be true; but is not the question at issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did some of the tests (in december, I copied this from User talk:Lar) described in Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references for the region and the province:
I'd say that there is clear common usage for Trentino-Alto Adige, but for the province it's less clear. If someone feels like it, they can weed out the false hits and commercial nonsense sites from the Google tests. Markussep 09:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The consensus of the encyclopedias is good evidence for the region. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
So Pmanderson and I actually agree on this? If the consensus is good evidence, then we need to go about getting this recitified. This is what we have been asking for all along... and is going into the 2nd year of debate. The consensus is Trentino-Alto Adige, therefore, this article should be switched to the name "Trentino-Alto Adige". Rarelibra 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, a solution is quite simple. Use what Brittanica uses and like every darn major reference out there. Wikipedia is based on proper references isn't it?? A simple way is to just use what is in Brittanica. Then as in any other multi-language/ethnic area (like Quebec, etc.) definitely include the other languages.. i.e. Bolzano, Bulsan, Bozen, etc. I have said before that I would fight even harder if there was any idea to not include the Italian/Latin dialect (Ladin, Nones, etc.) and German names for the cities. Of course places with obvious English usage such as Milan or Brenner should use those names.. but those are really far and few between. Then those obsessed with this issue can start a letter campaign to Brittanica, et al. and ask them to change all the names so you all feel nice and comfortable.. *rolls eyes*. hah! Taalo 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Common usage for the province is the Province of Bolzano. I have yet to see a list of Italian provinces that says Province of South Tyrol instead of Bolzano. I am 100% up for taking into consideration the Italian and German/Austrian POVs, but the hard fact is.. when I see Trentino-South Tyrol or South Tyrol as the province name.. this gives me no other impression than individuals playing politics. The body of the articles can simply be written to be fair on the issue to any and all groups, and end of story. Then some enjoyment (finally) on writing a good article.. more content, less politics. Taalo 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
More content and less politics is the only really useful thing said yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There have been a lot of useful comments and evidence... you've just continued to refuse to recognize a lot of it. Nice comment about the 'patridge in a pear tree'. Trust me, measure for measure, I guarantee that I qualify in many more realms than you for 'official comment' on the usage of a region and the proper naming convention. Every time I present something, you merely pawn it off as trivial, useless, and the sort. Then you introduce your own paltry evidence of "... but it's always been called that"... our questions have been, by who? You can quote "anglophone" this and "English speaker" that - but there are many "anglophones" and "English speakers" that have commented as to recognizing the name as Trentino-Alto Adige. I love how you trivialize everything that you disagree with, PManderson. What is it you do for a living, again? Would you like to compare notes sometime? Are you published? Qualified for comment on the naming convention of a geographic region? Work with geographic data and naming on a daily basis? This, I am highly interested in finding out. Rarelibra 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
These weeks I traveled through this Trentino-whatever region, and noticed on the motorway that the road sign at the end of its northernmost province used both Bozen and South-Tyrol, unlike any other similar road sign in all other provinces I have seen in Italy. Should this exception be reflected into the English version of its name?
I also heard that the issue of languages in road signs is being discussed on a local political level...
Having said that, I think that if this article can be reached from all these optional names, then there should be no problem whatsoever. So - as Taalo said - we could enjoy writing a good article right now without waiting for this issue to come to an end (which, IMHO, will never happen) --Adriano 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty easy to end this issue. Use what is used in the majority of reliable references: Brittanica, etc. Not doing this is in itself against the rules of Wikipedia and also the good policy of checking politics at the door. It has been disappointing to see this Trentino-South Tyrol being pushed for so long, only because it is (seems) obvious what those pushing for this are trying to do. Tryol is a name of an Austrian province as we all know. The idea of trying to standardize South Tyrol as name of this region and province has only one goal... one that is political and just plain childish. In my opinion, the page should be moved back to Trentino-Alto Adige. Then in the body of the page you can make sure everyone is happy with the Alto Adige and the Seudtirol/South Tyrol names. Then, yes indeed, start working on a good article! Taalo 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Before you get too carried away, Britannica titles its article Bolzano, and uses South Tyrol. Nor is their authority sufficient; their naming policy isn't ours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Talking about getting carried away, you posted me links that require a login. :) I will post you a public link instead Map of Italy from Brittanica. Now I ask you. Show me an English reference that lists the provinces of Italy (Trento, Rome, etc.) and lists South Tyrol as a province of Italy. Lastly, I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Brittanica in the Wikipedia framework definitely has more authority than you or I. Wikipedia is based solely on sourced material, not mob-rule or POV-biased naming conventions. The overwhelming majority of English-based references list the region as Trentino-Alto Adige and the province as Bolzano. There is nothing really to argue about. The pages should be moved back and then the various names well documented in the body of the text. Taalo 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Was it only ONE road sign? Was it the road sign near the Austrian border (which would be very understandable, I guess)? This issue doesn't only exist here... it crosses over into names of islands (POV pushed off to force the "old" Greek name of islands that are clearly in Turkey, yet people on Wiki INSIST on the POV name being used - another incorrect usage)... it crosses over into the name of a lake on the Armenian/Montenegrin border (which neither the Armenian name nor the Montenegrin name is used... an "old" venetian name is used)... I am told, you see, that "when the name becomes more popular" that the name may be considered then - an easy excuse. So 50 years from now, MAYBE the powers that be will finally decide that "yes, Virginia, it is a proper name". My point is to correct the inconsistencies now to reflect proper and official usage. Certain users - some with admin status - will continue to use their own powers to ensure that these inconsistencies exist for their own reasons. This, as a 'community', should not be allowed. But it is understandable... powers are abused in all facets of life on a daily basis. Once in a while, though, justice is served. Just so everyone knows that the proper name usage occurs everywhere else in life EXCEPT Wikipedia. Rarelibra 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rarelibra, I completely agree with you about the naming of this region and the places inside this region (cities, lakes mountains, etc) because the names commonly used in English are clearly "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Bolzano", "Ora", "Isarco",... with maybe one or two exceptions like "Dolomites", but in fact you are wrong when you say that we have to use the official names, because this is not the naming convention. In this particular case, the names where pushed for nationalistic reasons by some users (and you can see this also in the content of the articles, before my "review"), but I don't think that "Vienna" for example is named with a name different from the official one for political reasons, but because these are the conventions. You did a good work citing those sources, but please consider that the naming conventions of wikipedia doesn't care about the official names, and if someone offends you like Septentrionalis did, just move on.--Supparluca 08:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't 'move on' in situations that have to be corrected. And Wikipedia not caring about official names is bad - is misleads the common user or reader into believing that what they see is truthful or correct (when, in fact, it isn't)... and continues the legacy of "always being that way" as the norm. Point is to ensure that the information is the most up to date and correct. I have had the luxury of meeting people who have helped to have information very much up to date (even within weeks of, say, name changes for new administrative units). But for some reason we have this POV situation with a few things. So I'm afraid this is where my interest peaks. Rarelibra 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But this is a sort of encyclopedia; in a French encyclopedia you don't see "London", you see the French name of "London", because it would be strange for a French reader to see that name. The same applies for this English wikipedia, which should be read by English speaking people, and so it should be written using English names.--Supparluca 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, this is circular again. You keep saying we should use English names, yet you insist that "South Tyrol" is the translation of "Alto Adige" - which is simply incorrect. The translation of "Trentino-Alto Adige" into English is "Trentino-Alto Adige". The "South Tyrol" part comes in by taking the "Trentino-Sudtirol" name (an ALTERNATE name, mind you), and translating ONLY the "Sudtirol" part to make it the abomination of "Trentino-South Tyrol" - not a proper, direct, or correct translation. So it proves that the correct usage is "Trentino-Alto Adige". Same with the province. The province of Bolzano does not translate into "South Tyrol" - that is taking the "Sudtirol" part and, again, improperly translating it into "South Tyrol" (to heck with the name Bolzano, right?). "Sudtirol" is historic in that it was one of the Tirol regions ("North Tyrol", "South Tyrol", and "East Tyrol"). But the history does not preclude the naming of the province as "Bolzano" and having a historic reference to an article about the AREA of "South Tyrol" (NOT the province). Round and round and round. Like politicians ... point to one thing until it circles around again, then point again. Enough. The proper names are "Trentino-Alto Adige" (with reference to the alternate name of "Trentino-Sudtirol") and "Bolzano" (with reference to "Sudtirol"). Rarelibra 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, wait a minute! I already said that I agree with you that the English name of this region is "Trentino-Alto Adige", and that it should have this name in the English wikipedia. I'm just saying that the reason isn't that it is the official name, but that it is the name commonly used in English.--Supparluca 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Rarelibra (22:07, 16 January 2007),
The road sign I have seen was on the motorway, between the two provinces which form Trentino-whatever. The road sign was both in German and in Italian and, to my surprise, said "Provincia di Bolzano - Alto Adige / Provinz Bozen - Südtirol", an exception to the rule of all other Italian provinces, as far as I know. There was just one road sign, as there was one province border crossing.
This is the only new contribution I can give on this discussion, which I still consider pointless, no offence intended to anyone.
One off-topic question to Rarelibra: you use as an example "the name of a lake on the Armenian/Macedonia border (which neither the Armenian name nor the Macedonian name is used". Could you please explain where Macedonia and Armenia border with each other? I found no information on this point. Regards. --Adriano 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I messed up and wrote "Macedonian" when I meant "Montenegrin". It is a lake known to the Montenegrins as "Lake Skadar" and to the Armenians as "Lake Shkodër". The lake is incorrectly listed under "Lake Scutari" (which neither side uses) and also claimed to be the "English" translation (from an old Venetian name, no less). It is, again, an example of where Wikipedia fails to correctly list the name - not as a community - but the few who have decided to exercise their little piece of modified control on their little corner of the world. Interesting enough when the 'rest of the world' calls it one thing (even an article by the Swiss, translated into English, calling it Skadar Lake), but the few geographically challenged in wiki that continue to insist upon something else. From an educational perspective, it is a massive failure - leading those new to the articles to believe what they see - thus, continuing the cycle of incorrect usage. Rarelibra 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Lake Scutari/Skadar/Shkodra is on the border of Montenegro and Albania, not Armenia. Markussep 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Rarelibra,
Don't take it personally, but, as Markussep also pointed out, you are still mixing up Albania with Armenia, and didn't even notice that. It's pretty fine for everybody to make mistakes in Geography, much less for someone who claims to be part of the "geography community"... Regards --Adriano 09:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I have seen a sign here and there that has the Provincia di Bolzano - Alto Adige / Provinz Bozen - Südtirol. I'm hoping it is just someone with good intentions listing the Province of Bolzano/Bozen; or it could be on the other hand creeping politics. Taalo 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I could see, the one on the motorway was an official road sign... --Adriano 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As it's planned, as it's right. In South Tyrol German enjoys official status. Tridentinus 12:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not 'right' at all. The road sign mentioned is on the border, and respects both the Italian (Provincia di Bolzano - Alto Adige) and German (Provinz Bozen - Südtirol) usage. It is painfully obvious to see that this is a case (both region and province) where - again - only a handful of users (and their puppets) wish to control the usage as a "half" translation and not respecting the region and province for BOTH usages. This could easily be solved by calling this region article "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" and the province "Bolzano-South Tyrol" (or some equivalent), thereby respecting both. Remember, it doesn't take away from who you are or where you are from, it correctly refers to the region/province for educational reasons. Rarelibra 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ï would support a move of "Trentino-South Tyrol" to "Trentino-Alto Adige" since the former is obviously not as widely used as the latter. But I propose to leave "South Tyrol" where it is, given the special status and history of the province (similar to the Aosta Valley). And it is more known in English as "South Tyrol" than as "Province of Bolzano". Rarelibra, please stop your repetitous insinuations about the motives of other users. I've seen your claims before, and I still don't believe them. Markussep 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Belief is a characterization based on your values. I never tried to change your belief in anything (and I honestly don't care). They aren't 'insinuations' - there are names repeating in such articles that are the only ones insisting upon incorrect usage. I'm telling you right now, as an English speaking (born and bred) user and member of the geographic community, "South Tyrol" is NOT "more known" in English. It is the translation of ONLY "Sudtirol" - which is incorrect to only translate this and not use the proper Italian name (since, after all, it IS in Italy). I would be the same way if part of my own country ended up changing hands to Canada or Mexico (or vice versa). We're not dwelling on clinging to some naming based on cultural bias - we're recognizing that when someone goes into Wikipedia and wants to, say, look up the administrative levels of a country (like Italy) - that they are steered correctly as per the naming convention and usage - not some "popularity" contest (which can be proven wrong as well). Rarelibra 15:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about your geographic community, but "South Tyrol" is well known in English, see for instance this Google Scholar search. In response to what you wrote on my talk page: it's true that it's always the same people involved in this Trentino-South Tyrol discussion. But I think it goes very far to accuse people of political bias etc., as you and Taalo have done quite often. From an objective point of view, you may be biased as well. All I want to say is: stop hammering about other people's biases. Markussep 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep it civil and do not make personal attacks or accusations. Thank you. Taalo 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
(to Markussep) Isn't it better to have a "Province of -" name to have consistency with the other articles about Italian provinces (like Province of Trento instead of Trentino, that is commonly known as Trentino)?--Supparluca 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Supparluca - that is one good point (for consistency). Markussep - As for your "Google Scholar" search, wiki rules advise strongly against using such as "proof" for naming conventions. As for "accusations" - you are accusing me of making accusations. I was making statements which I feel have validity. I admit I am biased - for the correct, official, and proper usage of naming conventions. I will hammer away to the end whenever I look at see such discrepancies. The moment that the Italian government changes the name to "Trentino-Sudtirol" and the province to "Sudtirol" I will stop my hammering (because then the title will fit a proper translation). However, I would still "hammer away" at the point that Supparluca makes - the name would still be "Province of South Tyrol" and not just "South Tyrol". Why it is so hard to see this, I don't know. It would make for very interesting discussion in person. Rarelibra 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To Supparluca: if the province of Trento is indeed better known under the name "Trentino", I think that would be a good reason to move it there. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I'm not 100% sure if the provinces of Bolzano and Trento are complete congruent with South Tyrol and Trentino resp., if they're not, it might be better to split the articles into one about the province administration, and one about the cultural region.
Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano are territorially congruent with Trentino and Alto Adige.--Supparluca 08:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
To Rarelibra: we're not obliged to use the official name for article title (see above), and in case of naming conflicts (as we have here obviously) Google tests are recommended, see Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Markussep 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A simple solution for the provinces is to have Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano. I see little need to have a Trentino article, but a South Tyrol (historical) could make sense. Once again, in any respectable English list of provinces of Italy, you have Rome, Milan, Trento, Bolzano, etc. I really find it hard to see what argument there is against these points. Also, as Rarelibra has shown, by far the English usage for the region is Trentino-Alto Adige. No one has to leave English Wikipedia if the page is moved back to what it was originally. In the body of the article we make sure to list all the different names, as is done on essentially every other similar article. I for one would strongly insist for this. The same goes for cities and rivers. They are in Italy, have them point to the Italian name unless there is a clear English usage (Brenner, for example). In the body of the text you list the different names used in the different languages/dialects. End of story, and we move on. I've said before that this argument about using German names itself is funny because words like Brenner, Meran, Bolzan/Bulsan, all have their origins in Italian languages (plural) and are in fact Italian (not in the literal sense of the language called Italian) words. Taalo 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should let the article title be decided by what looks nice in a list. The main difference between South Tyrol and other provinces IMO is that it is much more a distinctive area, as opposed to provinces like Province of Benevento, that share most of their culture and history with other provinces in the same region (here: Campania). You'll find that the article for the province of Benevento (like most other province articles) is much shorter than the one for South Tyrol, I think that says something. Noone (sensible) denies that South Tyrol is part of Italy, BTW. Markussep 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not move pages during mediation

  • Oi, and to add insult. [7] Markussep, we agreed not to move pages until a mediation by Lar is complete. I did enjoy the irony though of moving a 4,000 year old village's name to German though. Taalo 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My move was completely in line with the results of the survey about places in South Tyrol. If you want to see an insult in that, that's your point of view. Markussep 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't insult me, it is an insult to the overall process. We agreed that pages would not be moved during the mediation. I just don't see why you can't hold your horses until Lar helps us come up with a convention for all the towns, places, etc. of Trentino-Alto Adige. It would be the same if I started a survey tomorrow trying to move Trentino-South Tyrol to Trentino-Alto Adige, etc. But I personally will not do that. Do you understand my point? Taalo 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Markussep on this point. While I hope that Lar is mediating (and it seems to be taking a long time), from what I understand that the idea with the communes located in the province of Bolzano/Sudtirol is that the communes that are majority speaking German populations will retain the proper German name... while communes that are majority speaking Italian populations will retain the proper Italian name. I believe there is also guidance from the Italian government as far as the communes with the dual-name convention (such as Bolzano-Bozen). It's just too bad that others can't approach a middle ground with regards to the region and province names. Rarelibra 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I seem to remember there was an implicit agreement that the group of pages related to Trentino-Alto Adige would not be moved during mediation. Otherwise we just start to implement a particular convention or conventions. Taalo 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever mention that I am 50% German? My mother's maiden name was "Helrich" and that her side of my family is originally from Bayern? Just so no one thinks I don't have a perspective on this whole thing. Rarelibra 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here, I have relations to the Habsburgs for goodness sake! LOL Taalo 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

why erase the word South Tyrol?

What is this bizarre campaign to get rid of the word "South Tyrol" from the articles South Tyrol and Trentino-South Tyrol? The name is official and most commonly used in English, look up the official web pages. "Alto Adige" is Italian, not English, why is this so difficult to understand and accept? Gryffindor 12:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is not true. The most commonly used English name for this province is Alto Adige. Südtirol is used in German, Alto Adige in Italian and South Tyrol is sometimes used in English (and we could write this information in the articles).--Supparluca 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh my. "Bizarre campaign", you say? You if anyone should be famliar with who started this bizarre campaign Gryffindor [8]. :) There are a couple Wikipedia users who in the past year+ have taken it upon themselves to rename many of these articles, and not just in the English Wikipedia, I might add. Also, if you make an accusation please back it up. Who exactly is trying to "get rid of the word South Tyrol"? Has anyone said they want it wiped from Wikipedia? If anything, I think a good solution is to have Province of Bolzano and South Tyrol (historical). This, and pages such as Trentino-Alto Adige and Province of Bolzano should indeed welcome (if not require) listing of the various names. There was a campaign nearly 100 years ago to Italianize the province. Remember that also Germanization of this province happened before that. Latin and Germanic people both have a right to exist in this area. Lets be rigerous (use what is common English usage) and fair (include in the text all the different words used). Taalo 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh... gee, Gryffindor... you act so innocent when it comes to this whole talk. Why is it that YOU don't see that the proper translated name, from "Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol", would be "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol". You claim the proper translation, but is it a habit to drop part of the name when you translate? I think not. And do give proper respect where respect is due to the Italian government. After all, it IS the name that is designated to the region (and province). I mean, you can insist that we call this planet "Mars" but the rightful name is Earth, for God's sake. You see the analogy? Why is it so difficult for you to see the translation DOES include "Alto Adige" in the name? This isn't about holding a grudge because the area used to be part of Austria (and German speaking) and is now a part of Italy (and Italian speaking). The RIGHT thing to do, Gryffindor, is to show a neutral respect to both sides with the proper translation. This can also be such with the province (with the proper name being "Province of Bolzano/Sudtirol" - which, if translated, is "Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol"), with an article about the area for historic value. And the proper names of the communes would go to the majority of the population (majority German - would be a Germanic commune name, majority Italian - would be an Italian commune name). There really is an easy, neutral, and correct solution for all of this. You sound like the people from the "South" in the US that always say "the south will rise again and win". Sorry, the territory belongs to the Italians and has a proper Italian name that deserves the same respect in translation. Is THAT so hard to understand? Rarelibra 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Taalo, Rarelibra, show a little more respect for Gryffindor please. Supparluca, your ideas of what is commonly used in English are different from what I've seen in my Google tests. For instance Google Scholar: Alto-Adige 628, South Tyrol 1750, Province of Bolzano 236 (all excluding Trentino-Alto-Adige). For the region it's different: Trentino-Alto Adige 1300 vs. Trentino-South Tyrol 52. Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol looks a bit artificial to me, but if all else fails, it might be a reasonable compromise. Markussep 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Without checking the results for myself, I just remember you that the correct searches would be "Alto Adige" and "South Tyrol" (with quotation marks and without dashes), and I don't understand why you use google scholar instead of google and google news.--Supparluca 08:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Using dashes has the same effect and results in Google as using quotation marks, I think. Checked it, almost the same: Alto Adige 617, South Tyrol 1740, Province of Bolzano 236 (all excluding Trentino-Alto-Adige). I used Google Scholar because it's not so contaminated with commercial and amateuristic sites. I already did Google news (not so many hits for either name, see above under #the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige) and Google. If you're interested in optimizing Google searches, in the Brussels region survey we searched in restricted domains (.uk, .edu, .gov, .org and .net), and checked manually whether the sites were actually about the places. It's a lot of work, but I'm confident that it represents English usage better. Markussep 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a search that is a bit different from the one above. Alto Adige (without trentino, south tyrol, suedtirol and wikipedia) 1,220,000 and South Tyrol (without trentino, alto adige, suedtirol and wikipedia) 420,000 (google).--Supparluca 12:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Surreal. What are you now Markussup, Gryffindor's mum? :))) Respect is something that is earned. Listen, popping in and saying that we are on a bizarre campaign to erase South Tyrol is not showing respect to the truth. All one need is to browse the change histories... :))) Taalo 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Markussep - two things - one, you are not Gryffindor's hero, I didn't show ANY disrespect (because he has certainly participated in this before). No disrespect here - serious. I really think that you are someone I could sit down with in a cafe and really learn a lot from. Gryffindor as well - as long as we don't identify our 'alter egos' to each other ;). Two, as mentioned before, Wiki strongly advises against using web searches for naming such as this. I won't go into a 'naming dispute' on this - as we are pointing out, you (and others) are failing to recognize the proper name of the region and province - proper being the properly translated form. All you have to do is say you recognize that the properly translated form is "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" and "Province of Bolzano/South Tyrol" and we're all at a happy medium. That's all it takes. That is the PROPER translation - not scraping off/removing part of the name or trying to subterfuge the decision making process with some ill-advisable web searches or justifications (because "it's always been called that" doesn't cut it when the region and province were assigned names by the Italian government quite some time ago).

I all for a vote on change the region name to "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" with a whole section on the history and naming and current population makeup (with high regard and respect to the original Germanic population)... I also vote for the province to be called "Province of Bolzano/South Tyrol" - with the same regard. We can have all kinds of links to the various pages ("Bolzano" in Italian, "Bozen" in German, etc.) and then we can all go on to doing bigger and better contributions. Rarelibra 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can read at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns, Google searches are recommended as a tool to find the common English usage. Markussep 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, instead of Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, I would prefer Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. That is really a small issue though. The one I don't think I could agree with would be Province of Bolzano/South Tyrol, because in that case why not Province of Bolzano/Alto Adige/South Tyrol? Anyway, if I had it my way, I would do the following: Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Province of Bolzano-Bozen (with South Tyrol redirecting to this page), and a South Tyrol (historical). Then I'd prefer actually having all the cities with dual-naming: Bolzano-Bozen, Merano-Meran, Brennero-Brenner, as I'm used to seeing in the region actually. I know this will drive the anti-hyphenated-city-name people nuts though.. :))) Taalo 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

History Trentino-South Tyrol article

Since I was curious whether Gryffindor really moved the article from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol unilaterally and against consensus, I checked the history of the article, and the talk page/archive. This is what I found (discussions, move requests etc. in red text). I think it speaks for itself. Markussep 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Markessup - what is your point here? If you want, you can go back to EVERY instance of Trentino-Alto Adige and see that all such instances were unilaterally changed by Gryffindor around the same timeframe. That was done without consensus and agreement - and the attempts to rectify it ever since have been denied. The claim is "only show the Italian name" - well, that IS the name that the Italian government gave to the region. A compromise would have been to change it to "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" (in converting the Sudtirol to English), and none of these issues would have ever arisen. Instead, the current POV form violates the naming rule (which is to respect the proper name of the region, and if translated, translate the entire name and not truncations or shortened versions). Do I get the feeling that you agree on the possibility to change to Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol with proper referencing? Rarelibra 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Markessup, you really are bored, eh? :))) So what was your conclusion there Mr. Markessup? From what I gather, Gryfindor did indeed move the page from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol, and with no prior discussion or consensus. It didn't take me as long as you to find that out though!:)) Everything that came after this was really initiated by that behavior, and I think Rarelibra sums it up pretty well. It is funny you say, "I was curious whether Gryffindor really moved the article from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol unilaterally and against consensus". If this is so, and you are being completely veracious in your statement, why do you post all this additional stuff? Hmm, dubious... LOL Taalo 05:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, after an initial reading of the list of changes above, it seems to me the article was renamed without consensus at first, but that there have been at least a couple of polling sessions, with "no move" as a result... So the first change could be considered as approved after it had taken place... Am I wrong? --Adriano 13:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are. But for reasons which I do not wish to explain in an open forum. Besides, the issue isn't 'done' - it is in mediation. Rarelibra 13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

mmm... I am curious to know what are the motives -if any- which urge you, Rarelibra, not to explain openly the reasons supporting your assertion that I am wrong...
Besides, I have never said that the issue is 'done'... I wrote that it is, in my opinion, pointless, that we could spend our time in something more useful, but not that it is closed. I just wrote that, after a first reading of the list of changes above, consensus for the first name change may have come after it had taken place, through two polls.
Now everything is, of course, in mediation and there will be a solution, soon I hope. --Adriano 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Relax Adriano. :) Look, this discussion on "how it happened" only came up again because of Gryffindor's statement above and Markussep's "research". It can be kept in the past, but not if there is an attempt to rewrite the past. The main thing that should be learned from this is that someone does not go and move such pages without prior discussion or consensus. Any discussions after the fact do not justify what was done. If anything this should have required the page being moved back to Trentino-Alto Adige and a vote to find consensus to move the page. This is plain and simple. Why at least two admins were involved in this (Gryffindor; Nightstallion) and didn't take this action is just unfortunate. Also, with such politically-charged discussions there is always the strong possibility of these consensus polls just becoming political votes . Unless someone advocates using Wikipedia as a political tool, this just doesn't cut it, now does it? That is why I think the best way still is to have someone neutral like Lar to come up with a global naming solution. I have spoken with Lar and he is still very keen to help address the entire issue. Note that no one has asked for any names to be wiped off Wikipedia. Every valid name will be in the articles, and if anything the articles will be more encompassing than they have been in the past. Taalo 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Taalo, I am relaxed, just curious to see what Rarelibra will reply...
Dunno too much about Wikipedia policies but I personally would see these polls as a de facto consensus, even though after the move happened... Just like the act of law in Italy giving a de facto building permit to some houses which had been illegally built...
Of course, this is, as you say, a politically-charged discussion... I do not see any other solution other than consensus on this issue, although there is the risk of a political poll. It comes to common sense and to responsibility of each Wikipedian, to tell the difference between their political idea, which each of us is entitled to have, and a naming issue, which is something much, much less important. But, if this does not happen, then the consensus is not a viable way to solve the problem.
I had a look in the past months to the sources cited to support the use of Trentino Alto-Adige... They do not help too much on the issue; many of these do not translate the names of other Italian regions, thus casting a doubt on their reliability. Other (e.g. travel guides) seem to use local names for practical reasons. Official sources (in particular the UK government) seem to tend to use the Italian version of the name, although not consistently.
The end of the story: I do not see a clear solution to this problem. For this reason, I suggest that the article be moved under the neutral name Trentino-whatever and that all other word combinations be used to point at this article. No one will be completely satisfied, but then no one will be completely unhappy. Which makes this solution a fair one... --Adriano 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Adriano - I think that is pretty much the crux of the entire debate. Only the Germanic speaking translation is appeased at this point - whereas the proper entry of "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" is an appasement for all translation - being that it includes the proper name ("Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol") translated with the "South Tyrol" included. For some reason, however, the Germanic POV is that you drop the "Alto Adige" part and then only translate the Sudtirol part. This is completely unacceptable, as you have seen in your research of various sources. Even the Italian government recognizes the Germanic part with the official designation of "Sudtirol" being included. That is all the "other side" is asking, and would appease the greater masses - only the current hard-liners would be 'upset' - but that is what we have been trying to point out the whole time - a correct translation, followed up by proper reference (in the case of the article for the province, the name would be "Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol" to translate the Italian government name of "Province of Bolzano-Sudtirol", with proper reference to the historic area of "South Tyrol" - once part of the Austrian government). That is all that is asked.
On a personal note, I will not divulge my thoughts, they are way too politically charged at this point. Nor will I entice any negativity. I really wish to solve this and move on the the next examples that exist (as I have found 4 or 5 already). Rarelibra 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Adriano, please know that when I said "relax" I meant it in an entirely friendly way, which I know is difficult to translate in plain text. For any offense, I apologize. Anyway, I must point out one thing, simply because I'm seeing a misinterpretation of the past. A user moved the page from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol without prior discussion or consensus. This was actually part of a huge unilateral move done across Wikipedia. Then after the flags went up there was a vote for consensus after the fact. If you look at that poll there was no conclusion, the end result no consensus. I'm still perplexed how there were even admins involved in this, one that even flew the Austrian flag in his signature. Absolutely bizarre. :)) Everything after that has been arguing and a strong defense of this particular POV; and without even an inch given to compromise! How anyone can argue that this was just ok is beyond me, but sometimes people do try anything to justify their means... Taalo 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Taalo, I didn't feel offended, felt your friendly tone, so no apologies are needed... I too forgot to put smiles in my previous message :-)
Rarelibra, understood your personal point...
I am still supporting the Trentino-whatever solution... It's meant to be ironic, but still...
Regards with a smile (which make everybody's life easier...) :-) --Adriano 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Trentino-Sudtirolo in Italian

I just found some interesting information. Apparently the word "Trentino-Sudtirolo" exists in Italian as well. See this speech by former president of the Italian Republic Carlo Azeglio Ciampi on the website of the presidential Quirinale Palace. A Google search reveals further results, such as the Lega Nord website, History museum of Trento, etc, etc. The assumption that only "Trentino-Alto Adige" is Italian seems to be wrong, the article intro needs to be corrected accordingly. Gryffindor 09:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting even more is that I brought this up MONTHS ago, and was told by native Italians in the area that the word "Sudtirolo" wasn't used. By only finding a few sources, however, shows that the use of "Sudtirolo" is, in fact, rather weak. I don't get where your logic ties in the use of "Sudtirolo" and the statement you make of "Trentino-Alto Adige" being Italian to be 'wrong'? Where, in fact, is your source proving it to be wrong, other than a few quoted off-hand sources of the use of "Sudtirolo"? If anything, BOTH are used - one officially (Trentino-Alto Adige), the other unofficially/regionally (Trentino-Sudtirolo). Rarelibra 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahm, read the links that are provided. The president of Italy Ciampi himself used the word "Sudtirolo". cheers Gryffindor 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
By that right, then, North Korea is definitely a member of the "Axis of Evil". After all, that is what the President of the United States himself said. False logic. Rarelibra 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor is merely stating that Sudtirolo is synonim with Alto Adige. It's true. There's a slight political colour to it: Sudtirolo is meant to be a nod to the German group; conversely, in some nationalist Italian circles Alto Adige is anathema. Tridentinus 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tridentinus - I understand, however the whole point here is the translation of the proper name of the region (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol) and the province (Bolzano/Südtirol). Sudtirolo is an unofficial nod to the German group (a good thing), but it doesn't rest the article well. That has been the debate for some time now. Rarelibra 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. In fact, the more I think of your proposed "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol", the more I like it. Single names aren't that elegant, but if it accommodates everyone (except for diehards, but that's their problem), then why not? (Minor correction to Gryffindor: your third link is not the History Museum of Trento, it's from the website of the Parma section of the Communist party). Tridentinus 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To add up another point of view, here's a link to the De Mauro dictionnary of Italian: [9] where we find the adjective "sudtirolese" (i.e. inhabitant of South Tyrol). On the other side there is also the word "altoatesino" (i.e. inhabitant of Alto Adige)[10]. I think that the latter is more widespread.
I have also found another speech [11] by Ciampi, where we find both Trentino Alto Adige and Trentino Sud Tirol, as the double name of this region, although Alto Adige seems to be most widely used in this speech and in the whole of the website of the Quirinale.
To Rarelibra, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi is different from the President of the United States, and I bet the former knows Italian better than the latter knows English, which, along with his education, gives Ciampi a wider credibility on the words definitions he uses.
Finally, we are bringing examples in the Italian language. Please bear in mind that the discussion is on the English name. --Adriano 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Trentino-Sudtirolo" is even more absurd in Italian than "Sudtirolo" alone.--Supparluca 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Supparluca,
In my previous post there are links to official speeches in Italian where "Trentino Sud Tirol" is used. I agree that this seems to be quite a rare usage, but you do not bring any proof to support your assertion, nor do you contest with argumentations the proofs which are brought. Don't you think that a dictionary and several speeches by a President of the Italian Republic would count more than your, mine, or anyone else's opinion?
I would suggest to add "Trentino Sud Tirolo" as a form which is more rarely used in Italian.
Regards --Adriano 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Added, and it will remain as a valid yet rare form. Gryffindor has provided sources that serve as proof. Supparluca - please do not change this, consensus is that this form is rare but valid. Rarelibra 01:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The region's official name is "Trentino-Alto Adige". "Trentino-Sudtirol" is also official but it used only by South Tyroleans and was added in the Constitution in 2001, as a second name. I have anything against them, but I would prefer "Trentino-Alto Adige" as name of the article 'cos this is the principal name of the region. --Checco 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In it.Wiki the page is called it:Trentino-Alto Adige. It is true that in Italian also the word "Sudtirolo" exists, but it is not used so much and it is not the translation of "Alto Adige". So, I can't understand why the page has not the same name in Italian. More coordination between Wikipedia would be good. --Checco 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Checco, I think you misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. The only question was whether "Trentino-Sudtirolo" is used in the Italian language. The title of this article is the subject of another discussion, see above (anything with "mediation" in it). Italian official use is not so relevant for an English encyclopedia, e.g. the article about the country is at "Italy". Markussep 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Markussep - he is able to comment, as it is interesting that the growing consensus is to have the proper name, not a German-English derivative. Rarelibra 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Rarelibra, my comment was to explain why I changed the title of this section back to what it was. This section is not a discussion about the name of the article. Of course Checco is welcome to comment, I never suggested otherwise. Markussep 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for my misuderstanding. Anyway I remark my opinion about the name of the article: I would prefer "Trentino-Alto Adige" instead of "Trentino-South Tyrol". What is sure is that I never heard using "Trentino-Sudtirolo" in Italian.

In any case I want to correct what I wrote before. In the Italian Constitution (art. 116) it is mentioned "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol", so that "Südtirol" in German is used as an alternative name for "Alto Adige". --Checco 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


I have found in Italian "Trentino Sud Tirolo", and not "Trentino Sudtirolo". Any instances of the latter? --Adriano 12:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes - HERE, where Gryffindor pointed out in the first place. Rarelibra 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I had missed that...--Adriano 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding Gryffindor's links:

"Questa è l'esperienza dell'Italia nel Trentino-Sud Tirol: questa è l'esperienza che mettiamo a disposizione dell'Europa e della Croazia"

"Trentino-Südtirol", do you understand? It is the German name of the region. It has nothing to do with the absurd "Trentino-Sudtirolo" name. The fact that it is written wrong (two words and without the Umlaut) means just that that site isn't very reliable.

Regarding the two political websites, they are political websites, and so they use that name for political reasons ("By that right, then, North Korea is definitely a member of the "Axis of Evil". After all, that is what the President of the United States himself said. False logic.").

  • Regarding Adriano's links:

Regarding the link to the De Mauro dictionary, it just shows that "sudtirolese" (=Southtyrolean) means "del Sudtirolo" (=regarding South Tyrol), and not -for example- "dell' Afghanistan" (=regarding Afghanistan). But this is obvious, and it doesn't show that the absurd "Sudtirolo" name is a synonym of "Alto Adige".

For the link to the speech by Ciampi, see above, it's the same error.

Now that I contested with argumentations the absurd proofs that were brought, I remove the absurd "Trentino-Sudtirolo" name.

I repeat and confirm that the absurd "Trentino-Sudtirolo" name isn't used in Italian to denote Trentino-Alto Adige. I don't understand why it should be a terrible problem for some people, but this is the situation: it isn't used.--Supparluca 11:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up some things here. Since it's used in an Italian dictionary definition, it's safe to say that "Sud Tirolo" is used in Italian. If the name "Sud Tirolo" wouldn't exist, I suppose another definition had been given, e.g. "del sud del Tirolo". No need to remove it from the "South Tyrol" entry. I don't understand your Afghanistan example. I agree that it doesn't say that "Trentino-Sud Tirolo" is also used in Italian, that's another problem. Markussep 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Markussep. Why "Trentino-Sudtirolo" is "absurd" eludes me... Gryffindor 19:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I wrote two things in that sentence, and then I joined them. FIRST: it is not used in Italian. SECOND: it is not used to denote Trentino-Alto Adige. This means that the first part alone isn't necessarily true (for example, one can think that regarding to the historic Tyrol region, the southern part could be called Sudtirolo, though I think that really it is never used in Italian), and that the second part alone isn't necessarily true (for example, one can think that some people in the world say Trentino-Sudtirolo to denote Trentino-Alto Adige). If you join the two parts, you obtain a sentence that is absolutely true. Consequently, when you use the name Trentino-Sudtirolo, there are two possibilities: 1)you are not talking about the Trentino-Alto Adige region of Italy, or 2)you are not talking in Italian (you are talking in Itagerman, or Gertalian, I don't know).

By the way, even if you think that Trentino-Sudtirolo is used in Italian to denote Trentino-Alto Adige, it is so rare that it is not appropriate to write something like "(Italian: Trentino-Alto Adige or Trentino-Sudtirolo)".--Supparluca 11:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Supparluca
You are saying that the former President of Italy's Republic has repeated the same mistake in Italian - his mother tongue - in several official speeches.
You also say that a dictionary like De Mauro is no proof o the correct usage of "Sud Tirolo", which you name as absurd...
One question: are you better qualified than a dictionary and a former Italian President?
If it's the case, please say so. If not, please bring proof of what you say.
BTW, De Mauro dictionary says that "sudtirolese" means "del Sud Tirolo". If it were not correct, it would have said "dell'Alto Adige". Regards --Adriano 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you don't think that that two sites were written personally by Ciampi. I said that in that dictionary you found that "Sudtirolese" means "del Sudtirolo", but you didn't find that "Alto Adige" is also called "Sudtirolo" in Italian (and it wouldn't be enough to write "Sudtirolo" as a significant variant of "Alto Adige" in Italian, anyway). Check the articles in the Italian wikipedia: you don't find "Sudtirolo" in the first sentence as an alternative name.--Supparluca 11:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No matter who wrote Ciampi's speeches, if they were correctly reported on the Quirnale's official website (and I ask you to bring proof that this is not the case...), then one of Italy's Presidents has officially used in Italian "Sud Tirolo" as a variant of "Alto Adige" (check examples of speeches linked in previous posts).
Which is a proof against the your second point: "Sud Tirolo" in Italian is a synonym of "Alto Adige". Of course you won't find this stated on De Mauro's dictionary, as this is no encyclopaedia. On the Italian wikipedia, both "Sud Tirolo", "Sudtirolo" and "Alto Adige" redirect to the same page "Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano". Another proof in favour to the fact that these words have the same meaning.
Finally, in the speeches mentioned above, there are examples of the expression "Trentino Sud Tirolo" being used in Italian. For this reason this should be included in the list of alternative names in the Italian article "Trentino Alto Adige".
Once more, if you are better qualified than a dictionary and a former Italian President, please say so. In any case, please bring proof of what you say. --Adriano 10:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


If you think a page should be moved, but don't yet know what name it should be given, you can use {{moveoptions}} instead to indicate that there are several options to discuss.

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was speedy no move. I think we can all see where this is going. Voting is not going to help. —METS501 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Trentino-South Tyrol to Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol

Trentino-South Tyrol → Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol – Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol is the correct name of the Region, as everyone can read in Italian Constitution (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol). At least, if the proposed title is too long, we can rename the article Trentino-Alto Adige. Checco 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

  1. Support, as explained above and below. --Checco 12:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, this would seem better than the current title, although Trentino-Alto Adige would be simpler. john k 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I proposed Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol in order to not offend neither Italian-speaking Altoatesini nor German-speaking Tyroleans. --Checco 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose see below, this has been talked over and over again. Gryffindor 13:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. If this is going to be moved, then to "Trentino-Alto Adige", which seems to be the most used name in English (see my google and encyclopedia searches under #the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige). Markussep 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with you: Trentino-Alto Adige is probably better, but also Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol is better than Trentino-South Tyrol. --Checco 15:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Trentino-Alto Adige is not better, because it violates the policy on Wikipedia of using English. Gryffindor 15:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I think English usage for the region is by an overwhelming majority "Trentino-Alto Adige", so that wouldn't violate policy. For the province it's different: my preference for "Trentino-Alto Adige" doesn't imply that "South Tyrol" should be "Alto Adige". Markussep 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    So what can I do? Is it possible to start a votation in which anyone indicates his favourite name? --Checco 17:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, we've been there before. —Nightstallion (?) 17:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Why not Trentino/Trentin-Südtirol/Sidtiroul/Sudtirolo/Tirol del Sud/Tirol dal Süd/Alto Adige/Tiroler Etschland/you can stop reading now... to avoid the slightest possibility of offending anyone? Otherwise, Trentino-Alto Adige would work too. —  AjaxSmack  09:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I notice that Markusseup, AjaxSmack, John k and me are in favour of changing the name into Trentino-Alto Adige. Do we need to start another survey? --Checco 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm neutral on such a move and it was already tried pretty recently. However, I'm against stroke/slash titles as with the current move proposal. —  AjaxSmack  10:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

This would the the.... fourth vote on this issue? See the discussion above Talk:Trentino-South_Tyrol#Requested_move on the same name just 5 months ago. Checco please read upon Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol/name archives, we can't keep on running around in circles all the time. Gryffindor 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but this is not a good reason for maintaining a wrong title to an article. See art. 116 of Italian Constitution. --Checco 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
...and it will be strange to have all the articles about Italian provinces named Province of XXXXX and the Province of Bolzano with another name. Very strange. --Checco 10:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
gryffindor, we've been running around in circles, since 1918 on this issue and we will keep running :-( the naming game is one of our favourites in this area. a quick google will bring up total opposite (mainly right-wing) POV :
http://www.schuetzen.com/html/faschismus/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=25
http://www.unionfs.com/12d2449.html
http://www.destra.bz.it/it/impegni/toponomastica/index.php
http://www.unitalia-movimento.it/comunicati-stampa.dhtml?id=44&pag=12
http://omnibus.grueneverdi.bz.it/nr/de/171/#Thema_7
this sort of move-request will pop-up time and again. quite sad that wiki has become a some sort of outsourced battlefield but you'll have to deal with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.162.110.138 (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

It is true: this subject is very delicate and controversial. Thus, if we don't want to make ideology, we need to be equally distant from the two ideological factions. The name of the Region in question is Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, as anyone can read in the Italian Constitution, art. 116. A good and balanced translation would be Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol (we don't translate Trentino and Alto Adige because there are non correct translations in English, anyway Alto Adige means Upper Adige and Adige is a river). To leave Trentino-South Tyrol is not NPOV 'cos it is like saying that right-wing German-speaking Tyroleans are right and that Italian-speaking Altoatesini are wrong. In Wikipedia we need to be NPOV. --Checco 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that the term "Tyroleans" is right-wing is utterly false and insulting to the people who live there and identify themselves as such. Gryffindor 13:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said this. I said only that there are right-wing German-speaking Tyroleans who use the term South Tyrol for ideological purposes, exactly as there are many Italian-speaking Altoatesini (most of them vote for the right-wing National Alliance party) who use the term Alto Adige for ideological purposes. For this reason in the Constitution both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are mentioned. --Checco 13:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
More, I don't think that "right-wing" (nor "left-wing") is an insult. --Checco 13:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There are South Tyroleans who gladly call themselves that without an inkling of any ideological purpose. Or is someone calling him or herself "South Korean" a right-winger, I don't understand? And yes, I do think that being associated with the right-wing is repulsive. Gryffindor 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Two things: 1) I never said that all South Tyroleans are right-wingers. 2) Yes, most of them vote for conservative parties, but I do not consider this as a problem: everyone is free to be left-wing or right-wing. --Checco 15:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Move options

I would like both Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol and Trentino-Alto Adige, but I prefer the first. --Checco 12:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there are three problems with Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Although I am not all generally opposed to slashed article titles—they are often the best titles for articles about things with two names—I worry that most or many readers won’t know whether ‘South Tyrol’ is an alternative to ‘Alto Adige’ or to ‘Trentino-Alto Adige’. (Or perhaps even whether the choice is ‘Adige’/‘South’.) My second problem is that it reads rather absurdly as being only half translated into English. (This, of course, accentuates the alternation parsing problem: ‘South Tyrol’ reads as a translation of ‘Trentino-Alto Adige’. But the sheer ugliness of it, as with Trentino-South Tyrol, is my biggest problem.) My third concern is that it doesn’t explicitly acknowledge the German language heritage of the area as the Italian Constitution does and as, at least ideally, we should. So I see no perfect solution. But on balance I tend to favour ‘Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol’. —Ian Spackman 13:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you use "Trentino-Alto Adige", you would be using Italian, not English. Slashes are not normally used in the English Wikipedia. The article that is relevant to this region is called "South Tyrol", and not "Alto Adige", so it only logical to have "Trentino-South Tyrol". And having votes is dangerous because there could be a flood of Italian users who will simply outvote anyone who would be for the true local name. Read through the previous discussions on this topic, it's all been explained before. Gryffindor 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Gryffindor, how can I explain you that South Tyrol is not the English translation for Alto Adige? It seems that you don't want to understand that Alto Adige (no trnslation) and Südtirol (translation: South Tyrol) are alternative names, and it is most used in Italy the first. In the Italian Constitution (art. 116) the region is named Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. This is the complete name. If you don't want slashes, it is Südirol that you have to ignore, not Alto Adige which is the first name used. --Checco 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Some remarks about Checco's latest post: this is English wikipedia, so what's most used in Italy is irrelevant here. I don't see the point/difference about South Tyrol not being a translation of Alto Adige. They refer to the same area, don't they? Although I agree with Gryffindor that South Tyrol is the most common English name for the area, more so than Alto Adige or Province of Bolzano or Bozen, English usage of the combination "Trentino-South Tyrol" is limited IMO. But it may be increasing, I don't know. Markussep 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that two names refer to the same area does not make them translations. At any rate, I think the best name is Trentino-Alto Adige. This is the name used by my atlas, for instance. 72.78.146.54 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Alto Adige means Upper Adige, Südtirol means South Tyrol. They are two alternative names (for cultural and historical reasons) of the same area. In Italy it is Alto Adige which is most used, as everyone can notice in the name of the Region (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Alto Adige first), so it is impossible to exclude Alto Adige from the name of this Region. As Alto Adige has no good translations in English (Upper Adige is ridicolous), we must use it in Italian. Remember: English whenever possible. Here it seems to me that it is not possible. --Checco 18:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Alto Adige is another Italian word for South Tyrol, right? And if the Italian word "Sudtirolo" or "Sud Tirolo" exists, how would you translate that? or are you denying the existence of that word? Gryffindor 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I would translate it with South Tyrol, while Alto Adige has no current translation in English. What is important is that we don't confuse the two expressions and that we use both, 'cos they have equal importance, even if Alto Adige is more used and more official (in the name of the Region it is used first, Sütirol second). --Checco 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, ‘Upper Adige’ is a perfect translation of ‘Alto Adige’, just as ‘Pink mountain’ is a perfect translation of ‘Monte Rosa’. But they are equally absurd as article titles in an English reference work. I just wish that people here whose first language is English could get the wax syringed from their ears and notice that ‘Trentino-South Tyrol’, and ‘Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol’ are abominations! I also wish that everyone could admit that there is no perfect solution and then negotiate sensibly a least bad one. But, from the history of this page, it seems unlikely that that will happen. So I guess that the best thing is to leave it to stew for a few decades or more. In the meantime noone will do much to improve the (pretty crap) article, any more than they will have done to improve the one on the National Portrait Gallery in London, which was piss-poor the last time I looked, but whose naming has exerted the minds of more editors-with-an-agenda than you could possibly believe. Meanwhile Derry/Londonderry (a much livelier and horribly violent conflict than these) resolved itself by a sleight of hand which both sides certainly recognized as a bit fraudulent, but which they accepted because most of us are trying to make an encyclopedia. Bye bye! —Ian Spackman 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Not again! You want me to leave en.wikipedia for ever (and not only) --Martin Se 23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh Martin, cut it out. :P Taalo 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Your blackmail is less important to me than having a POV Wikipedia. --Checco 08:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If we all agree (except Gryffindor) that "Trentino-Alto Adige" is more commonly used in English than "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol", "Trentino-Südtirol", "Trentino-South Tyrol", "Trentino-Upper Adige", "Trentino-Sudtirolo", etc., why it is so difficult to move this page according to the conventions?--Supparluca 11:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics my friend, politics. :-) Taalo 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please rank what you favour with a brief (not cryptic) explanation why. Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd choice: Because it is most commonly used in English. Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice: Because it is most commonly used in Italian and English. --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Because the whole idea here is that it is more respectful to the bilingual elements of the region to use the "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" name or translate it to "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol". This would be swinging the pendulum to the opposite side instead of stopping it on middle ground. Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3rd choice: Because it is most commonly used in English and Italian.--Francomemoria 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice: This is the most commonly used name in English. Outside wikipedia, possibly the only name used in English. john k 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice: It is idiomatically English. (Without having an English word in it!) But it fails to acknowledge the Geman language heritage of the region. I think that is a shame. —Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice. Most used in English (773,000 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: reasons have been given above Gryffindor 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: 3 languages, 3 names: I am from "South Tyrol", Io vengo dal' "Alto Adige", Ich bin aus "Südtirol". Fantasy 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Will all due respect Fantasy, the English one is not just South Tyrol. I can just as well say, "I am from Alto Adige. That is exactly the purpose to put Alto Adige/South Tyrol. South Tyrol -is not- the sole English translation/usage of this area. Alto Adige is used in English, South Tyrol is used in English. Taalo 08:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: 3 languages, 3 names: I am from "South Tyrol", Io vengo dal' "Alto Adige", Ich bin aus "Südtirol". --Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice: Because it is translation of the official name. --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice: Because it is the proper translation of the official name. Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice: Because it is the proper translation of the official name--Francomemoria 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with this: I'm fine with this as well, but didn't you guys notice the poll above where it was trampled on? The German speakers do not appear to like it, nor do the anti-slashers. Taalo 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice: Better than the current version, but still very lame. No usage to support it. john k 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: The half-translated version seems grotesque to me. Simply as a matter of English style. —Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice This is the most adequate name, referencing both the Italian and German names for the region.--Húsönd 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support. Looks very artificial, virtually no use in English (124 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: 3 languages, 3 names: I am from "South Tyrol", Io vengo dal' "Alto Adige", Ich bin aus "Südtirol". Fantasy 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
last choice--Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice: Because it is the official name; it shares both the Italian and German naming, it contains "Trentino-Alto Adige" which is commonly used in English. Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice: Because it is not only the official name, but it shares respect for both the bilingual influences of the region, and is utilized by the various governments involved at various admin levels. Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice: Because it is the official name, not translate--Francomemoria 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3rd choice: Very lame, but still better than the current situation. john k 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice: It is the constitutional name; it respects both German and Italian linguistic and cultural heritages; it isn’t silly in English. —Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice Official name, although I prefer "South Tirol" due to WP:UE.--Húsönd 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support. Apparently the official name, virtually no use in English (410 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
hm... could be something to think about. Gryffindor 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice: It is used in the constitution, sounds reasonable to me :-) Fantasy 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice --Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
3rd choice: Same as first choice but all "translated" into English. Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Bad translation. --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Very bad translation. Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: this is not the translation (wiki not support new works)--Francomemoria 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: This translation is not used in English.Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support. Looks very artificial, not used in English (0 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support Gryffindor 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support (ack Markussep)--Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
4th choice: This is probably the more correct English translation because it fits with the French as well, [12]. Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Bad translation. --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Very bad translation. Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: this is not the translation (wiki not support new works)--Francomemoria 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: This translation is not used in English. john k 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: This translation is not used in English.Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support. Looks very artificial, little use in English (11,300 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support Gryffindor 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support (ack Markussep)--Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • come on guys, there must be a translation of Alto Adige that is not 'bad' or 'very bad'. The French is Haut Adige. The word Alto means high. The River Adige is just that. So Alto Adige = High Adige, no? If this translation is so bad, please someone come up with the best they can. Not for inventing things, but just for the curiosity of the Italian language! thanks. Taalo 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    In the geographical sense alto usually ends up in English as upper. Alto/Basso Monferrrato as Upper/Lower Montferrat. As a writer I prefer high: but it comes over as slightly dramatic for an encyclopedia. —Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
5th choice: Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Bad translation. --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Very bad translation Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: this is not the translation (wiki not support new works)--Francomemoria 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Thhis translation is not used in English. john k 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Good translations, but not used in English. —Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support. Looks very artificial, not used in English (0 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support Gryffindor 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support (ack Markussep)--Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
6th choice: Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Bad translation. --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Very bad translation. Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: this is not the translation (wiki not support new works)--Francomemoria 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: This translation is not used in English. john k 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Silly. (Ex-County of of Trent-Upper Adige would be better. But even sillier;) —Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support. Looks very artificial, virtually no use in English (57 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support Gryffindor 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support (ack Markussep)--Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: this is just enforcing a strictly German POV, in what is Italy. Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: It would be absurd not to have Alto Adige in the title. --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: This is a biased, one-sided translation that leaves out the official "Alto Adige" name. Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: this is not the name of region--Francomemoria 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Alto-Adige should clearly be in the title. john k 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: The half-translated version is grotesque English. —Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd choice. Second most used in English (65,400 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am really quite interested to know how much Wikipedia (through its users) has influenced the propagation of the term "Trentino-South Tyrol" though. Anyway, thanks Markussep for the Google research. Taalo 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice also used on the government website. Gryffindor 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice 3 languages, 3 names: I am from "South Tyrol", Io vengo dal' "Alto Adige", Ich bin aus "Südtirol". Fantasy 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
1st choice (ack gryffindor)--Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: this is just enforcing a strictly German POV, in what is Italy. Taalo 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: It would be absurd not to have Alto Adige in the title. --Checco 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: This is an alternate name and should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article. Rarelibra 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: this is not the name of region--Francomemoria 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Would there be anybody who would support this one? john k 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support: Even though it is how I personally think of the region;)—Ian Spackman 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not support. Only used in German language context? (12,600 Google hits). Markussep 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3rd choice--Martin Se 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to move the page to Trentino-Alto Adige

I'd like to carry on the straw poll above, but you know what, I think it is time to actually move this page back to where it originally was. As can be found above in the talk history, the page was originally at Trentino-Alto Adige. A user (now an admin) moved the page without consensus to Trentino-South Tyrol. A large poll was taken after the fact to move the page back to Trentino-Alto Adige. No consensus was found. There was at least one active admin involved at the time. I believe any un-biased admin should of put the page back to what it was originally and then had a vote for consensus to change the home of the page. We are at a place for many months now that we were brought to by what was breaking Wikipedia convention. Sorry to be blunt, but how this began is clear as day... Taalo 10:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Trentino-South Tyrol → Trentino-Alto Adige — This region is shown on the majority of English maps and lists of regions of Italy as Trentino-Alto Adige. This can be shown by looking at any good quality reference. Huge issue with this page is what I describe above. It was moved without consensus or discussion. A vote was done after the fact to move it back, and no consensus was reached. Admins were involved who should of put the page back to what it was first and then had a vote. Taalo 10:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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.
  • A reminder here of the sentence above. This is not a vote. If you support or oppose please give a clear reason, references, etc.
  • Please read: This page has seen tons of votes regarding it's name. Basically all of the comments have been German speakers vs Italian speakers, who are indisputably influenced by their personal opinion. Since I really think that this poll might work, I would like to ask (if you will) if you have an inherent bias as a German- or Italian-speaker that you please identify that somewhere in your comment. This is not mandatory, but would help a lot. I would like to remain neutral in this dispute and hopefully I can try to keep things under control. Thank you. —METS501 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please cast your vote also in the straw poll above. --Checco 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support my recommendation is to move this page back to Trentino-Alto Adige. This will right a wrong on how the page was originally moved. Most importantly however is it is by far the most common usage in English, which is goal one on en Wikipedia. Not much more to say! Taalo 10:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. I don't agree with your interpretation of the moves history, but the Italian name is much more commonly used in English than Trentino-South Tyrol. BTW you forgot to announce this move request on WP:RM. Markussep 14:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Fine, we don't have agree with the interpretation of the move history, though I think it is pretty clear. :P Yes, thanks for pointing out the move request on WP:RM. I'm going to add it later so we have some time to get everyone's opinions. Taalo 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. At least it is better than the current title, as I explained above. --Checco 18:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. We must use the official name of the region, not a rough transation of the German name. --Giovanni Giove 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    "South Tyrol" is an exact translation of the German "Südtirol." It's hard to get a more exact translation. That doesn't mean the article should be where it is, but the case should not be overstated. john k 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. I checked a few English sources (see underneath), they all use TAA. This has nothing to do with me being Italian. Cruccone 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    and this sums it up very well. It is what is used, and we have already said that for this region we will insist to keep the content fair for all language speakers of the region. Taalo 02:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. This appears to be the name used by most English language sources. john k 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support (but i would prefer Trentino Alto Adige/South Tyrol)--Francomemoria 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. i would personally prefer ‘Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol’. But the evidence given for widespread usage in appropriate English-language publications is compelling; and the current title seems to this mother-tongue English speaker (I have smatterings of both German and Italian) odd and contrived. —Ian Spackman 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. I agree, the Italian name is by far more common in the English speaking world. --Fertuno 15:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I'm in favor of moving this page back to Trentino-Alto Adige noclador 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose. There have been discussions and votes. It has been decided that "Trentino-Alto Adige" is an Italian word, not English, see archived discussions. Gryffindor 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Absolute nonsense. Nothing has been "decided". You know what you did pal. :-) Taalo 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Taalo - please don't resort to verbage that can be taken as insult. Keep it on the straight and professional. :) Rarelibra 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed; you are correct. Though some of the statements that are being made again and again are getting a bit old at this point. Assume good faith, Assume good faith... :-) Taalo 21:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Just make a test what sounds more English: "Alto Adige" or "South Tyrol"? However, I am not an English native speaker and - secondly - if you want to have the Italian name in your English Wikipedia, "Trentino-Alto Adige" will be fine. --Roland2 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    I am a native English speaker first of all, and Trentino-Alto Adige is what is used in English. It is beside the point that South Tyrol sounds more English than Alto Adige, largely because of the word South. :) Taalo 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed "South Tyrol" is the English translation for "Südtirol", which is the German alternative name for the more used "Alto Adige". Unfortunately "Alto Adige" has no English translation. --Checco 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Just because it does not have a proper translation (in fact, it does!) doesn't mean you don't use it. Using the translation of ONLY "Sudtirol" doesn't make it right. Rarelibra 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    No need to argue about Checco, you will soon see a strong opposition from speakers of a particular language. :) Taalo 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Martin Se 11:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (see statement in my userspace)
  4. Well, using an italian name for an italian region does seem sensible at first sight. But in fact, Alto Adige (upper Adige/Etsch) is an ahistoric name used by Mussonili's fascist government to hide the ethnic character of the region (as described in this article's #History chapter). In today's democratic Italy, the region has three official languages and thus three official names. Today, nobody denies that the province is part of Tyrol as a historical region, and even in italian, Tirolo del Sud is not uncommon. English wikipedia uses english place names, so South Tyrol as used in the article's title would be the appropriate name. We also use english names for other european regions where the local language is different from national language (Aosta Valley, Catalonia, Brittany). --Magadan ?! 12:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Do not believe everything you read. The term Alto Adige was around well before Fascism. My first choice would be Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol, but because there is a strong rejection of using slashes in the names, Trentino-Alto Adige seems the only name that people can accept. That, and most importantly, it is what is used in English references. This comment was posted by Taalo 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, but Alto Adige is the English name for Alto Adige as there is no translation of it, exactly as Adige is the English name for Adige river, while South Tyrol is the translation of Südtirol, not of Alto Adige. --Checco 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Why is every 'oppose' vote going to be commented? Because it is the 'wrong' opinion? --Magadan ?! 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Also known as trolling... Gryffindor 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Gryffindor, "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors". There is nothing wrong in one editor engaging another editor his/her opinion. Any editor is perfectly free to reply or ignore, it is totally up to them. It is not a deliberate or intentional attempt to disrupt Wikipedia for that editor. It is really not proper to try and brand people on here as trolls and/or trolling. Taalo 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    And you need to tone down the way you communicate with other users and quit referring to anyone who disagrees with you as "Germans". You take everything extremely personal and do not shy to get personal as well. It really does not speak well for you and your behaviour, hopefully you will change and modify yourself. Gryffindor 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    LOL. Thanks for the lecture Gryffi. Are you maybe diverting a bit from the topic of your accusation of 'trolling' because you didn't really have much to rebuttal with? :} Your statement that I simply call everyone who disagrees with me "German" is ridiculous and shameful; but it does demonstrate quite well the extent of your skill for debate. :} What you are implying is quite the personal attack though; second one in a row! hah. As someone who has German ancestry, I have plenty of right to self critisize the culture, and I certainly won't have you tell me to quit. I said nothing derogatory, and I will not jump onto the bandwagon of only being a patriot if he/she is not critical. Maybe I have more right to reflect on the culture than you do, since you are apparently not German in the first place? I never went and deleted the German language box from my user page like you did [13]-- and for whatever odd reason. o_O I think it is you who perhaps takes things extremely personal Gryffi. But if so, that is good, since you got us where we are now in the first place. Don't worry though, we'll sort it out. Maybe that is what really bothers you so much -- because we are not going to let the farce go on? :-) Anyway, just don't expect to dish it out, and not get it right back. :} my very best regards pal! Taalo 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    --85.124.8.189 13:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose All proposals that do not include Trentino-Alto Adige AND South Tirol.--Húsönd 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    mah, where were you last week? :P~~ Taalo 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Hey I can't be everywhere all the time. :P --Húsönd 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose the proper name needs to include the bilingual content of the region - it should be "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" or, if tranlsated, "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol". Rarelibra 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Dear Husond and Rarelibra, I can agree with you on principle, but here we are deciding between Trentino-South Tyrol and Trentino-Alto Adige. The second is definitely better because at least it is the principal and most used name for the region. I hope that you would think about changing your votes. --Checco 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Checco - I cannot change my vote, because I support a vote for "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" as properly translated. Rarelibra 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    More, why don't you cast your votes in the straw poll above? --Checco 15:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose; we've been there before, "South Tyrol" is the neutral translation of "Alto Adige/Südtirol". —Nightstallion (?) 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Nightstallion - there is no "been there before", as proper evidence has been presented. And "South Tyrol" is both far from "neutral" nor a translation of "Alto Adige". The proper translation is "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol". What was done was to drop the "Alto Adige" part and to translate the "Sudtirol" part. This is both half-baked and incorrect. Rarelibra 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    In fact it is the natural translation of Südtirol alone. --Checco 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    And so obviously neutral, can't you see it Checco? I agree with the part that we've been here before though..... *sigh* Taalo 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'd really be curious to see a rigorous explanation to go along with your statement, especially as you have been one of the key players in getting us to the point we are at now. How is taking "Alto Adige/Südtirol", deleting Alto Adige and going with only the translation of Südtirol, possibly neutral in any shape or form? Also, you fail to take into consideration that the majority of English references use Trentino-Alto Adige, a key criteria to English Wikipedia. By attempting to circumvent this criteria, while also attempting to remove Alto Adige and enforce a German POV, just screams of bias. Please refer to the comments at the end of the page on incredibly annoying... Taalo 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. The present Trentino-South Tyrol is a fine solution, because it is neither Italian nor German, but English, and it is understood by everyone. By the way, the English translation of "Alto Adige" would be "Upper Adige" or "Upper Etsch", not just "Alto Adige". -- PhJ 15:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Of course I will assume the language you speak leads to no bias in your opposition. :} Why it isn't a fine solution is because South Tyrol is a translation of only Seudtirol. Another reason why it is not a fine solution is that the vast majority of English references use Trentino-Alto Adige. A compromise is Trentino-Alto Adige/Suedtirol or Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Taalo 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose: Why should we use italian names instead of english ones in the english Wikipedia? Fantasy 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. No way I'm supporting an entry name erasing the name Tyrol. Tridentinus 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - don't know / don't care

  1. don't know / don't care. For the following reasons:
- There is an ongoing mediation, so I'd rather wait for it to come to an end;
- This decision should be left to real English mother-tongue speakers; I am not one, as many others who would like to decide on this matter;
- Much of this discussion is, in my opinion, politically biased.
- IMHO as long as the page can be reached from any version of the disputed name, any choice will do;
- English language sources on this matter are not unanimous (see, if you really care, all examples in this discussion page);
- All this energy on what I consider a trivial point could be used for improving wikipedia;
So, to sum it up, I do not really care. If you wish to find a compromise, why not considering a new name, such as Trentino-Whatever, so that everybody will be not really happy, but not really unhappy either.... --Adriano 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
My cynical friend Adriano. :-) I am considering adding such a redirect.. LOL. Anyway, my mother-tongue is English. Trentino-Alto Adige, Trento, and Bolzano are what is used. Same thing in any major reference (Britannica, etc.). Taalo 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do I seem cynical, or am I just too down-to-earth? You, Taalo, could be one of the few native English speakers... I would suggest that all those who write on this specific matter (i.e. English name of this Trentino-whatever) state their mother-tongue... It could be really funny, I daresay!!!
As of Trentino-whatever, it should not be just a redirect, but the main title!! :-) . --Adriano 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hah, well I'd like to hope we get support from a wide community, not just an Italian speakers vs. German speakers vote. I did make the page, but john k saved me from my moment of madness. :-) Taalo 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that Adriano - you are using something that can be taken as offensive. This matters much not to just toss it off nonchalantly as "Whatever". Rarelibra 15:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is Adriano though, he means no harm. :-) Taalo 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"Whatever" as "whatever you want", so that everybody can choose what to add after Trentino. Of course no offence intended, and, as far as I can see, no-one was offended.
You are right Rarelibra, this matters much to many people. The question is: why? --Adriano 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Map from the Encyclopedia Britannica: [14]. Taalo 10:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So I did some research and checked with some pretty credible sources as to what they print, in ENGLISH, for the name of this region (and province) in Italy.

  • Fodor's - a well recognized and respected name (and expert guide) has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Michelin - also expert in travel guides - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bozen".
  • Rand McNally (name speaks for itself) has world, regional, and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Streetwise Map's regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Dorling Kindersley or "DK" - by far, probably the best travel guides available - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Lonely Planet (the self-proclaimed largest independently-owned travel guide) regional, and local publications show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".
  • Hammond Map - a subsidiary of Langenscheidt Publishing Group (a privately-held German publishing company) - has regional and local publications that show the region and local names of "Trentino-Alto Adige", "Alto Adige", and "Bolzano".

As far as proof, I am quite sure that the above sources are credible enough, especially in the sense of geographical knowledge, expertise, and English-translation. Rarelibra 03:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

see also the previous comments to this (not so relevant) list under #the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige. Markussep 16:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I checked a few sources: Britannica, Chambers encyclopedia, Times atlas, Philip's atlas, Oxford - Hammond atlas, they all use Trentino-Alto Adige. Cruccone 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
and this really should sum things up. I hope everyone can base their recommendations on what are reliable references (to say the least), and not on national opinions... Taalo 08:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all incredibly annoying. The current title is simply unacceptable. It seems pretty noncontroversial to me that Trentino-Alto Adige is the name which is more used in English. But we can't get a move, not because very many people actually support the current title, but because some people don't want to have the title ignore "South Tyrol" entirely, and other people hate the slash. Incredibly annoying. john k 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly annoying, I agree with you. And it is also said that sometimes even in Wikipedia ideology risks to be more important than truth. --Checco 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
John K - the official title includes the Sudtirol, so we need to include this correctly. Ignore any complaints about the slash - that is simply someone getting in the way of progress. Rarelibra 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to know also. In the end of this poll, Admins can decide also what is correct, no? I've seen situations where everyone opposes, but the one support gets the move because their argument is valid. I do hope that a few Admins who are native English speakers can help in the end come up with something valid. In my opinion, the three valid names are Trentino-Alto Adige, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, and Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. As far as annoying -- my God yes.. Taalo 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with Taalo: the three valid names are definitely Trentino-Alto Adige, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, and Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. --Checco 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No, in fact, we do not "need to include" Südtirol. Wikipedia does not operate on the principal of using the "official name." We use the name most commonly used in English. This is clearly Trentino-Alto Adige. john k 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, John K - you'll see HERE at the bottom of the page the official address of the region is at the name Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol - that would mean the official name IS "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Just so you know. Rarelibra 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe john is arguing the point of majority English usage, which has been clearly shown by numerous references to be Trentino-Alto Adige. I think that combining this information with what we know is the official name and history of the region, and using this to bring us to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol or Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, would be a very good compromise. It is one where I don't see how anyone can really argue about, and maybe everyone might even be happy? Maybe Martin can even stay in English Wikipedia!? :-) Nonetheless, I fear that us debating so much amongst these three alternatives just keeps this wrong situation going on forever -- and I guess this is something the POV pushers must like to see... : \ Taalo 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not dispute what the official name is. I dispute that we have to use the official name. We do not. We have to use the name most commonly used in English. That is Trentino-Alto Adige, whatever the official name may be. john k 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the sensitive dual-lingual nature of the region, the best possible solution is the most neutral and most correct. This isn't a popularity contest, John K. Rarelibra 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "popularity contest." It's applying a pretty universal wikipedia naming rule, to use the name most commonly used in English. john k 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll results thus far -- interpretation

So from the Straw Poll above, it looks like the majority of people agree with using one of the three: Trentino-Alto Adige, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, or Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. I see plenty of editors who might oppose using Trentino-Alto Adige, which otherwise support one of the two other names. Also, it seems that many comments point to a consensus that Trentino-South Tyrol is just flat out wrong and not-neutral. Furthermore, it looks like alternative English translations (I was just trying to enumerate :) are getting the general *boot*. So can we find a way to incorporate the ideas from the move vote and the straw poll, to somehow find the most favorable name to move to? Otherwise we are going to be having these votes forever. Taalo 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    • I would close the above move debate, and just open one for that move. I know it's another poll, but perhaps if we open that and get consensus, we can call it quits on these debates. —METS501 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Huh? Just as many people accepted Trentino-Alto Adige, and fewer people have said "Do not support" to it. john k 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • By all means correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going completely mad with all this stuff. :} Anyway, I agree that Trentino-Alto Adige is most used in English, though I would really prefer a compromise solution; mostly because I do not want to be someone that does just the same thing as others have done up to until now!! Taalo 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need a compromise solution. What is clear is that at least 11 users out of 16 dislike the current title of the article. Maybe we can decide between the three most accepted versions: Trentino-Alto Adige, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, or Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Probably we won't get a majority, so we will chose between the two most liked versions of the three. It would take some days, but at least we will get a result after this long annyoing discussion. --Checco 08:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the straw poll and the three possibilities, can we get input to see which one is most desired? Or to do the right thing and be most neutral we should use the actual, official title with "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" (which includes the translation for the fact that this is English wiki). Rarelibra 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's not choose an artificial name like "Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" that isn't used outside wikipedia (Google says 773000 against 124), just because some of us think it's neutral and/or close to the official name. I agree with John, and I've said this before at Talk:South Tyrol, that we don't have to use official names here. We write for our readers, not for the Italian government. We should use what's most easily recognized by the reader (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)). What's more, Wikipedia:Naming conflict states: "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;". I think that leaves us with "Trentino-Alto Adige". Markussep 14:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is what Wiki says about naming:
A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:
Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)
Markussep, I must point you HERE at the bottom of the page the official address of the region is at the name Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol - that would mean the official name IS "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol". Just so you know. Thus, the guidance from Wiki regarding the official current name - as well as the name used by the subject to describe itself, would be the proper name to use. As Gryffindor mentions below, this is an area that is dual lingual and diverse in nature, and that is why the Italian government itself both allowed an automony to the region and the naming convention to include the Germanic naming. It is our responsibility to ensure that not only a correction occurs, but the proper correction that includes BOTH aspects - and to also ensure that the "South Tyrol" article be properly located with respect to the historic region that it is about (instead of the province proper). That is MHO. Rarelibra 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Rarelibra, this so-called official name (which is actually a translation of an official name) is certainly not in common use in English. No matter how many links to Italian sites you produce. "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;" That's pretty clear I'd say. Markussep 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, again, there is no doubt that Trentino-Alto Adige is what is most used in English. I think the point is that we want to come to a long-term compromise solution that has everyone satisfied. We do not want to impose a one-sided POV solution as was done in the past with Trentino-South Tyrol. Taalo 16:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And I respectfully disagree because this matter is far more complex than meets the eye. Besides, wasn't there a mediation offer by User:Lar? We should be sticking to that instead of fighting off some voting test of strength, because results will always be different, see the previous votes. Gryffindor 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is definitely more complex than meets the eye. :} There was an offer for Lar for a global solution, and that is still on the table. However, it would be nice to at least have a couple pages like this one corrected -- since the majority appear to agree that Trentino-South Tyrol is just wrong. Not to mention, a huge list of English references have been presented that show what is used in English, which is the primary consideration actually. Taalo 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've dropped the ball, is about the best I can say, on trying to move the global mediation along. If this poll discussion results in a consensus it might be a good place to restart the rest of the discussion using this consensus as a basis... I am very sorry that I've failed to move this along. I can't believe that it's been months and months! I don't know that it's fair to say "no moves at all during the mediation" if the mediation isn't going anywhere... I think I bit off more than I can chew. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we go with?

Could everyone agree with Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol? This satisfies 1) English usage of Trentino-Alto Adige for the regional name 2) shares the Italian and German (with an English translation) naming. I feel like I'm running a kindergarden! :}~~ Come on guys, compromise, none of this ridiculous keep fighting. Taalo 16:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support It is a compromise solution which doesn't make everybody totally happy, but at least is better than the current title (I think that most you you will agree with me), which is contested by 11 users out of 17. --Checco 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is no solution, it's an artefact. Markussep 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Explain the use of "artifact" please. Rarelibra 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. It is a neutral, correct, viable solution that appeases both the Italian and German translation, and is the official and accepted usage by the region government. It follows convention and is within wiki guidance. Rarelibra 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And what is the resonance with the official name "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol"? Would that be ok Markussep? Gryffindor 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Gryffindor - as you even pointed out, we should use the correctly translated form because this is English wiki. :) Rarelibra 17:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Such a translation would be Trentino-Upper Adige/South Tyrol. :) --PhJ 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No, actually the translation is on the region website, in English. Do not attempt to deviate with an incorrect translation. Rarelibra 17:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support As I've said before, this is by far the best name.--Húsönd 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

There's like 12 different votes going on on this page. The current state of the page is such that I can't really see anything decided here being seen as conclusive. john k 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolute chaos. But somehow I think we are getting somewhere, at least more than I've ever seen in the past. *Taalo hands john a large pint of Newcastle* :} Taalo 18:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Requested moves are being unilaterally opened and closed within days of each other. From WP:RM: "Page moves usually take place after five days, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged". Discussions must be allowed to run their course for several days until a consensus is found to move forward in one direction or another. The above discussions are difficult to follow and out of process; I feel sorry for someone new trying to follow the discussion. Taalo, slow down. Olessi 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for my impatience. Its the Italian side running mad. :} Can you and john help do a bit of an archive? We could just stick with these polls which are hopefully going to help narrow down to a good solution. Taalo 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Information has been archived to the present polling/discussions. We will allow this poll to breathe until after the weekend to have a proper conclusion. Rarelibra 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks rarelibra, do you mind to help out on the South Tyrol page as well? *^_^* Taalo 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this topic is way too sensitive to be decided upon by a marathon of voting/straw polls/referendum/whatever until everyone is too tired of it they'll agree to anything. I would also like to hear some opinions of users who are actually really from that region. I suggest a time-out from this whole voting because it really is becoming ridiculous. (I am sure I will get another battery of responses to my posting, but try to save your breath, I am not trying to offend anyone by simply voicing my opinion.) Gryffindor 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in that we cannot rush this. We have a good start, let's allow the straw polls and such to breathe more, and open up to get more opinions. I don't think, however, that it is too sensitive to be decided upon as we are gaining good traction towards a happy (neutral?) ending for all. We have some good, active, valuable input this time... from all sides. Rarelibra 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the opinions of locals are any more relevant than the opinions of people in, say, Tashkent. The issue is simple: what is the most commonly used name in English for this area? That should be the page name. I think it is clearly Trentino-Alto Adige, certainly in written references, and I suspect South Tyrol is a respectable second where it comes to spoken references. Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol is an abortion of a phrase, and I would be surprised if it has ever actually been said out loud. We are not here to keep Italian and German speakers happy, but to relect current usage in English, however offensive/ignorant/inappropriate/imperialist that may be.--Triglyph2 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So vote for the proposal you like most. --Checco 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
@john k: This was ridulous in the beginning--Martin Se 23:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL, when exactly was the beginning? Taalo 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep calm! Our discussion has taken a logical path. First we noticed that there was no consensus on the current title, then we started to decide what would be the best title between the 3 most supported ones in the straw poll. I think that we need to keep calm and let time have its way: the first round of the 3-way referendum needs to last for 2 or 3 days more, then, say on Saturday (or Friday, if you prefer, but not before), we'll have the second round between the 2 most voted titles in the first round. Then, say on Tuesday 13, we'll have the new title. I think that this is a correct and democratic parth: we need to follow it without other harsh discussions. --Checco 08:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The first round is going very well (13 users cast their votes so far), I think that we can start the second round between the two most voted options (so far as now they are Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol and Trentino-Alto Adige, but things can change) on Friday 9, 19:00. Do you all agree or do we need to wait until Saturday 10? --Checco 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Checco, We have 4 for Trentino-Alto Adige, 6 for Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol and 3 for Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. So there is kind of a T-AA camp and a T-AA/ST camp. So the T-AA camp has 4 votes and the T-AA/ST camp has 9 votes (and somewhere there is the two T-ST holdouts :). It seems most people want a dual-naming. So in that case should the final vote be between the South Tyrol and Südtirol? Or maybe your way is fine, because implicitly already most people in the T-AA/ST camp seem to prefer the English translation. Or is even this current vote actually enough? I'm just asking. :-) ps. maybe we can let it go past the weekend? Taalo 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it definitely needs to breathe over the weekend. And I am all in favor of presenting a poll for a decision between the two dual-naming conventions (South Tyrol vs. Sudtirol). What do you think, Gryffindor? Markussep? Rarelibra 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we obviously need a poll to decide how to conduct the next poll. Can someone set that up please? Run it over the weekend -- I'm going to the ocean. :} Taalo 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about running the poll over the weekend and to start the second round on Monday 12. At that time results will be stabilized, at this point all possibilities are open, even that Trentino-South Tyrol will get an outright majority (in this case we won't need a second round). --Checco 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that most user prefer a title including both Alto Adige and Südtirol/South Tyrol. I think it is time to start a second round between Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. --Checco 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Checco - I agree. Do you want to initiate it? Rarelibra 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I started it but nobody casts his vote... --Checco 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I will not cast a vote in the second round as it is presently defined, because I think both options violate good Wikipedia practice and naming conventions. Some relevant citations from the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline:
"A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy."
"Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy."
The whole paragraph Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns is particularly applicable, some citations:
"The most common use of a name takes precedence"
"Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include [a.o.] Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?"
"Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Markussep 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Vell, I think maybe Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol might be a bit debatable as an invention, but I don't see how Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is. Checco, I just havn't decided which way to vote yet. Aesthetically, I prefer the latter. The former seems more technically correct with the English usage of Südtirol. Taalo 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Both options are very rarely used in English according to Google, see my results under #Straw Poll. The name Trentino-Alto Adige is 6234 times more used than Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. If you check the hits for Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, you'll see that many are wikipedia links or clones, or constructions like Trentino-Alto Adige (South Tyrol). Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is only used in Italian apparently [15]. Your idea of sharing and compromising is nice, but it's out of place in an encyclopedic article title. Markussep 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Any thoughts on how to proceed with the South Tyrol poll? The Province of BZ and ST sides are pretty much dead even now. The last two English-language posters, who support a South Tyrol page, make mention especially to the history section. This together with the 10 to 9 voting, does this point to the need of a page split? This is something quite a few people have mentioned: one for the Province of BZ and one for the History of South Tyrol. Taalo 17:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war about placement of names

Too ridiculous, even my edits respecting numbers of speakers (Italian - German - Ladin) and frequency of use of placenames (Sudtirol - "Trentino-Alter Ades" in Ladin) are reverted. Please stop that unreasonable edit war. Otherwise a straw poll will be necessary, but, please, let's avoid it. --PhJ 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rarelibra here. There is no need to put in words like rarely, especially when it is based on no reference. Taalo 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
PhJ - there is no need to do such changes in re-arranging the languages. Also, the word "rarely" is not necessary as well - whether or not it is used rarely is not the focus of the definition of the name. Rarelibra 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trentino-Alto_Adige/Südtirol/Archive_2&oldid=1137266834"