Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Requested move

South Tyrol → Province of Bolzano — This area is shown on the majority of English maps and lists of provinces of Italy as Bolzano. This province in English is referred to as Bolzano, not South Tyrol. This can be shown by looking at any good quality reference. Also, this page should fit the convention where the provinces of Italy are listed as Province of Trento, Province of Rome, Province of Milan, Province of Venice, etc., etc. If there is a strong desire for a South Tyrol page, it should be moved to South Tyrol (historical). Taalo 10:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support Any basic list of provinces has Bolzano listed, as well as Trento, Rome, Verona, etc. This page should be moved to Province of Bolzano as this is what is used most often in English to refer to this province -- simple. South Tyrol, if kept, should be restarted as a South Tyrol (historical). An attempt to recast this province as South Tyrol is just complete partisan politics. If South Tyrol is used, why not Alto Adige or High Adige? Regardless, the point of en Wikipedia is to use what is commonly used in English, and again, any English list of Italian provinces has Bolzano, not South Tyrol. Taalo 10:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I completely agree with Taalo. I would prefer Autonomous Province of Bolzano, as Autonomous Province of Trento, but, anyway, this is better than the current title. --Checco 18:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support: it is the official name. And the problem of the biligusim is well described in the aricle..--Giovanni Giove 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support agree with checco Autonomous Province of Bolzano is best--Francomemoria 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support i agree with what was said above. --Fertuno 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - this is generally how article on Italian provinces are named. john k 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support and agree with John. For the record, Britannica uses Bolzano-Bozen provincia, while Columbia uses Bolzano province. I support a division of articles. Olessi 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I'm in favor of moving this page to Province of Bolzano-Bozen noclador 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I speak neither German nor Italian. As far as my colloquial usage is concerned, this area is known by me as the South Tyrol. What its official name is is of little concern to me - I'm quite used to official names of things being radically different to what everyone else calls it in everyday life. Officially, I live in London, but everyone round where I live knows full well we are in Middlesex. The inhabitants of the South Tyrol can call it whatever they like - as far as I'm concerned, the perfectly good English name is South Tyrol. I don't complain when non-natives call London Londres, Londra, Londen, Londyn, Lontoo, or even Λονδίνο. I suspect any English-speaking people with a passing knowledge of geography would have a better idea where the South Tyrol was rather than Bolzano. However, all of the above said, this is meant to be an encyclopædia, and I would suggest that the article should best be entitled by the South Tyrol's current official name, with a redirect or possibly a small article under South Tyrol explaining the historical and/or (English) colloquial usage. WLDtalk|edits 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support the most logical name.--Supparluca 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose. See all the discussions above. Markussep 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    What are your objections to using Province of Bolzano but then a South Tyrol (historical)? Then having South Tyrol redirect to the Bolzano page. In English, this province is referred to as Bolzano, just as we refer to the state of Maryland. The thing is that in Italian provinces, the names mirror the largest cities, so we need to differentiate by using Province of... explicitly in the page name. regards. Taalo 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Again as usual. Gryffindor 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose. If the article were essentialy about the province today then Autonomous Province of Bolzano would be my clear first choice. But the article is more generally about the area, currently in Italy, long known in English as South Tyrol. If people were prepared to do the writing, I would strongly support a split, with South Tyrol as the umbrella topic, including a brief section on the autonomous province and pointing to its main article. And vice versa. —Ian Spackman 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Split is in the proposal above. *thumbs up*. Taalo 17:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    You got it right. We probably need to split the article in two articles: one about the province, the other one about historical South Tyrol. --Checco 11:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    It is pretty straightforward really. South Tyrol -> Province of Bolzano and History of South Tyrol -> South Tyrol (Historical), with pointers back and forth as Ian suggests. Then have South Tyrol redirect to Province of Bolzano. This page has historical information, but in its core it is regarding this province. Every respectable English reference lists the provinces and includes Bolzano. Taalo 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, the article isn't about the province alone. Split would be an option. --Pjacobi 12:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Split is in the proposal above, so what is the opposition to? Taalo 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    --85.124.8.189 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. South Tyrol is the appropriate name, understood by everyone. Taalo, you needn't comment every opponent. --PhJ 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Though I'm free to, especially when you fail to make a comment that helps us move forward. It is an appropriate name, understood by everiyone? And? What about the English references? What about the real name of the province being Bolzano (Bozen)? What about South Tyrol being only a translation of the German name, and thereby not being a compromise what-so-ever? But again, I saw your posts about keep fighting.. *rolls eyes*. Taalo 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose In the german Wikipedia the article is called Südtirol and the correct translation is South Tyrol. Hence it is the appropriate name an as there is no official English name, the german one should be taken as a reference. --138.232.249.151 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    you wouldn't be from de.wikipedia by any chance now, would you? Note, en.wikipedia isn't a translation of de.wikipedia. thanks! Taalo 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    stop manipulating votes/opinions you don't like. --138.232.249.151 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    There's no manipulation, and things are under control. Chill. Rarelibra 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose See the reasons above. --Kl4Uz 17:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    No sockpuppets or single-use accounts please. --Checco 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    So I'm a sockpuppet? I don't think so. Check my contributions, this is not a single-use account. --Kl4Uz 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed I looked at them: don't be ridicolous. --Checco 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Have a look at this: Authoritarian_character. Who do you think you are? You have no right to delete votes. Better have a look at Wikipedia's rules. And stop vandalising this page. --Kl4Uz 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    See below, mr. Single-use Account. --Checco 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    Dito, [personal attack deleted]. --Kl4Uz 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    First: what's the meaning of "dito"? Second: stop offending me and the rules of Wikipedia. --Checco 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose The region is still called, in English, the South Tyrol, and has a long history before 1918. I would have no objection to a separate article about the provincial government, which should be called Province of Bolzano. "South Tyrol" is neither German nor Italian (Since Mets asks, I am neither German nor Italian.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Checco's objection to some of the oppose votes is probably justified; but this should not be done by striking them. Let the closing admin make up his own mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose The hystorical name in English is South Tyrol, Italian politics should be left out of wikipedia. Moreover, South Tyrol is explicitely used by the official server of Bozen county], as well as the obvious French and Lithuanian translations. Finally, this attempts to replace the native German names with their artificial Italian counterparts at English wikipedia looks like insisting on some kind of chauvinisme, the same one South Tyrol has been a victim of since first world war. I dare recalling that there are still in place some enrollments like We Latins taught the Germans arts and literarure, amongst the several hurts of this land. But this attitude is especially disruptive, since it only gives rise to ethnical-like conflicts. This is really not the point. Thank you.--Clamengh 19:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Holly jeez, who is the one bringing politics into this? If you havn't noticed, it takes two to debate. Also, who is replacing anything? Don't you think it would be just as bad to cover up the local Italian words as it is to cover up the local German words? You are the one who is actually generating ethnic conflict by even quoting sentences like this thing about Latins teaching Germans. o_O Are you actually trying to stir up things? This is just more of the same black-and-white group-think. Things are never so clear as you think, and consider that in the past there was a lot of imposing of one onto the other: The Romans onto the Rheatians, the Germans onto the Latins, etc, etc. Taalo 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    You missed completely the point, indeed we are talking about the fact that this is the only page about Italian provinces which has a title different from the form Province of XXXXX. --Checco 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Oh please Checco, spare us that bs. Just admit that you want to shape Wikipedia according to your [personal attack deleted] view of the world. --Kl4Uz 17:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    I am a Venetian independentist so your accusation is ridicolous. Anyway every user can look at your contributions and see that you are a single-use account and, probably, also a sockpuppet. I won't strike your vote anymore, but stop being ridicolous and stop insulting me. --Checco 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    I will strike your vote, Kl4Uz - you are single-use and your vote doesn't count as per wiki rules. Live with it. Rarelibra 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    Funny. My account was created in 2005 [personal attack deleted]. The degree of my activities here are none of your business. Show me the rule, before you vandalize again. --Kl4Uz 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed for the fact that it was created in 2005 and never used for 2 years are the best demonstration of you being a sockpuppet and a single-use account. --Checco 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Leave it for the closing admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - this is the English language edition of Wikipedia, and South Tyrol is the commonly used and understood name. "Province of Bolzano" means nothing to most English-speakers. -- Mais oui! 12:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    And what about all the other provinces: Province of Trento, Province of Milan, Province of Turin, Province of Venice, Province of Rome, Province of Naples, Province of Bari, Province of Palermo, etc. Why does this province deserve a different treatment from all the other 109 Provinces of Italy? --Checco 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Map from the Encyclopedia Britannica: [1]. Taalo 10:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Rarelibra. Taalo 10:45, 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)

I see this not so relevant list is used as "proof" again. See the comments and test results at Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol/name#the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige. Markussep 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Aren't bi-weekly move requests abuse? --Pjacobi 12:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Some editors propose to have an extra article about the "historical" South Tyrol in addition to one about the Province of Bolzano. This is illogical, because the two terms are equivalent. The term "South Tyrol" in the sense of the area of today's Province of Bolzano did not exist before 1919. Before that time, when Tyrol was still a unified territory, "Südtirol" denoted the part of Tyrol south of the Salurner Klause. From 1919 on Südtirol has been used for the part of Tyrol that was incorporated into Italy. So, there is nothing "historical" about South Tyrol, there is no "historical" South Tyrol.  Andreas  (T) 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So besides your critism of the proposed solution, what is your alternative? Is using something like Province of Bolzano (Bozen) and a redirect from South Tyrol to this page not sufficient then? Especially that you don't like a historical South Tyrol page? The simple fact is that lists of Italian provinces have Bolzano, and it is perfectly fine to add Bozen to that too. You do not find English lists of Italian provinces that have South Tyrol, Seudtirol, Bozen-Seudtirol. Besides, Bolzano (Bozen) is a compromise and includes both languages. I'd really like to see a few of the German folk compromise on this issue.. just a bit. It would make my German-side feel a lot better about itself! Taalo 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intepretation of the results so far

So fare we have 8 users out of 10 who dislike the current title of the article, 6 of them would accept Province of Bolzano and 2 would accept it, if the article is split in two: a article about the Province and an other one on the historical South Tyrol. We need a compromise solution, but what is sure is that we need to change the title to this page, as only 2 users out of 10 staunchly defend the status quo. --Checco 08:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. There are at least four defenders of the status quo, and the others have no real problem with the present title, except for Checco and Taalo. --PhJ 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And sadly the defenders are all German-speakers, so it is just degrading again into a POV battle. I saw what you wrote on Martin's page about keep fighting. Why don't you instead try to compromise. Every major English reference lists the provinces of Italy, including Bolzano. A compromise would be Province of Bolzano (Bozen). A non-compromise is South Tyrol which is an English translation of the German name for this region. Why don't you bring up an equal list of English references that list the provinces of Italy, and say South Tyrol? why? Because Wikipedia is based off English references, not having twenty of your friends some here and fight. Taalo 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to read, PhJ? I see 6 votes in support of the move and 5 votes against (of which 2 are in favour of a split of the article). This makes 8 against the status quo and 3 who defend it (there's one more tha before: you). I can't understand what you counted. --Checco 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And you folks need to stop making fun of users like PhJ and start respecting others, it's really sad how this discussion goes and how you try to superimpose Italian names at all costs. This is not some Italian nationalist irredentism you need to fight out here. Gryffindor 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Gryffindor, you have to be kidding. You accuse others of Italian nationalism when the names we have now soley support a German nationalism. You have Italian speakers that are largely looking for a compromise, but you are summoning German speakers to push for this status quo. You have grown a strong bias over this situation, that you think that you must protect the Germans? Why don't you look after everyone? Just remember, you initiated the move in the first place where you unilaterally decided to remove Alto Adige and put only South Tyrol. Its forgivable, and I hope your intentions were good, but we have to come up with a shared solution now. I've said before that the irony in pushing for "German" names like Meran, is that they are in fact the local Italian language/dialect words going back to even pre-German migration into the region. I'm not trying to say Roman > Germanic, I'm just saying it isn't so black and white as a lot of you would like to believe...Taalo 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could we go with?

Could everyone agree with Province of Bolzano (Bozen)? This satisfies 1) English usage of Bolzano for the province name 2) shares the Italian and German naming. I feel like I'm running a kindergarden! :}~~ Come on guys, compromise, none of this ridiculous keep fighting. Taalo 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like fights either, but this name simply won't do. The region is called "South Tyrol" and it's even part of the official name, check the homepage of the government of South Tyrol. Gryffindor 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
But every major English reference that lists provinces of Italy lists Bolzano. How do reconcile this? If you want to talk about the region then you have to say Alto Adige/South Tyrol as well. Anyway, the regional name is accounted for at what would be Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. The province pages can be Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano (Bozen) and we are done. We have proper English usage in the titles and we also have proper sharing of the names. Taalo 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the homepage in Italian, which is the official language in Italy and also in the Province of Bolzano. Did you know it? --Checco 16:49, 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 8 (included those 2 who support the split, which will be the next thing to do, IMO) users out of 11. --Checco 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone dislikes Alto Adige, some others South Tyrol... we need a compromise and what is better than sticking to the official name of the Province, called (Autonomous) Province of Bolzano in the Italian Constitution. Every Italian province is named Province of XXXX both by the Italian government and by en.Wikipedia (from Province of Sondrio to Province of Trapani). So what's the problem? --Checco 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not happy about it, but anything else than a single "Alto Adige" or "Upper Adige" solution can be acceptable for me. So after fighting there can be compromises. --PhJ 17:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, just the same I hope you should say "anything else than a single "Seudtirol" or "South Tyrol" as is the situation now. You can gain a lot by trying to protect both sides, you know? :} Anyway, the regional names can be perfectly captured in Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. This province in Italy is Bolzano (Bozen). It is official, and it is in every major English reference that lists Italian provinces. We can't just cover our eyes. Taalo 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that South Tyrol should be about a historic region, and Province of Bolzano or Province of Bolzano (Bozen) should be about the present day province. (We could make a similar distinction between Trentino and Province of Trento). john k 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, even though I think that using Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol holds the regional names very well right there. Then Province of Bolzano (Bozen) properly references the province. Bingo, done! Taalo 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions
  • Province of Bozen-South Tyrol
But all the major English references that list Italian provinces use Bolzano, so that is the English usage. There are none that use Bozen-South Tyrol. The official name of the province is Bolzano (aka Bozen). South Tyrol is now a name for the region, and which is included in the name Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. (i.e., we don't say Province of Trento-Trentino). They translate it this way on the BZ provincial website, but that page already has some unfortunate bias, and we shouldn't use one non-native English website as the beacon of truth. They could of just as well translated it as Province of Bolzano-Bozen. I would of had a much better impression had they done so! Taalo 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • HERE is a paper that shows the name as "Province of Bolzano/Bozen-South Tyrol" (this seems, again, very neutral and pleasing for all parties involved).
  • HERE is another that shows it as "Province of Bozen-Bolzano/South Tyrol" in English.
  • HERE is a website that shows it as "Province of Bozen (South Tyrol)".
  • HERE is a website that shows it as "Bozen-Bolzano (South Tyrol)".
  • HERE is a usage with "Province of Bolzano-Bozen - South Tyrol".
  • HERE is an EU report with the usage of "Province of Bolzano-Bozen (South Tyrol)".
  • HERE is an Italian (South Tyrol) website with the usage of "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol" (as the provincial government uses in English).
  • HERE is a source that shows the name as "Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol" (which I think is a great compromise and proper English translation). Rarelibra 19:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This shows an overwhelming presence of the use of "South Tyrol" appended to the provincial name (and the provincial government uses the translated English name of "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol"). Rarelibra 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather use true English references such as Britannica, Michelin, etc., than a few translations like this. You can indeed use Google to find many variations, but I don't know how it really helps. Like a few of these translations are from a .de or .at website, so that is how they translate into English. A simple solution is that the regional name contains all the historical names: Trentino, Alto Adige, South Tyrol. The province doesn't need to have Province of Bolzano (Bozen) - Alto Adige/South Tyrol. It is redundant, and no different than using Province of Trento-Trentino. Anyway, back to the references you found yourself (above). Major English references that have a list of provinces of Italy list Bolzano. Bolzano (Bozen) is a nice way to share. Taalo 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • South Tyrol

Markussep, you say the province is commonly known as South Tyrol in English. But are you a native English speaker? :} Can you show me common English-based references that list the provinces of Italy and just South Tyrol? The comprehensive lists that Rarelibra posted above show Verona, Trento, Bolzano, Milan, Rome, etc. Taalo 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not a native speaker, but I do read and speak English. I'm not going to answer the same question a zillion times. Take a look at Google Books, Google news and Google Scholar and tell me again that South Tyrol isn't used in English. Markussep 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL, come on, you are missing the boat here. :} The point is not if South Tyrol is or isn't used in English; and I definitely agree it is a proper translation of Seudtirol and is commonly used in English. The debate however is over how to name the provincial page in a way that uses English, but also is a compromise. Look, Province of Bolzano (South Tyrol); what is wrong with this? It's all English usage and it takes both sides into account. Your South Tyrol stays in the title, but others opinions on the matter are taken into account. We obviously need a compromise, simply because there is large dissatisfaction with having what many believe should be the Province of Bolzano only at South Tyrol. Taalo 21:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've said before what's wrong with it: the combination is not, or very rarely used in English. Take another look at WP:NCON, the title doesn't have to reflect all opinions. I'm very sure that "South Tyrol" is more used in English than "Province of Bolzano" (or whatever combination). Markussep 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, all of the other articles have "Province of (name)" in their format, so it only is logical to have the same for this province as well. Wiki does have rules regarding keeping standards and conventions the same. South Tyrol is not special in this case, either. Rarelibra 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First round poll


  • CHOICE A: move page, using some "Province of ..." designation:
    • current count: 10 votes

[edit] Province of Bolzano

  1. Support: As in the survey above. --Checco 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support: this is the translation of the official name "Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano" or german official name "Autonome Provinz Bozen" in English is "Autonomous Province of Bolzano". The use from provincial government of Alto Adige and Sudtirol names in not recognized from italian state--Francomemoria 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Note that I believe we could better argue that Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano + Autonome Provinz Bozen = Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen; which shortens to Province of Bolzano-Bozen. tada! :} Taalo 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support: it is the official name. And the problem of the biligusim is well described in the aricle..--Giovanni Giove 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support: - this is generally how article on Italian provinces are named. john k 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support: and agree with John. For the record, Britannica uses Bolzano-Bozen provincia, while Columbia uses Bolzano province. I support a division of articles. Olessi 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I speak neither German nor Italian. As far as my colloquial usage is concerned, this area is known by me as the South Tyrol. What its official name is is of little concern to me - I'm quite used to official names of things being radically different to what everyone else calls it in everyday life. Officially, I live in London, but everyone round where I live knows full well we are in Middlesex. The inhabitants of the South Tyrol can call it whatever they like - as far as I'm concerned, the perfectly good English name is South Tyrol. I don't complain when non-natives call London Londres, Londra, Londen, Londyn, Lontoo, or even Λονδίνο. I suspect any English-speaking people with a passing knowledge of geography would have a better idea where the South Tyrol was rather than Bolzano. However, all of the above said, this is meant to be an encyclopædia, and I would suggest that the article should best be entitled by the South Tyrol's current official name, with a redirect or possibly a small article under South Tyrol explaining the historical and/or (English) colloquial usage. WLDtalk|edits 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support the most logical name, according to this page.--Supparluca 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bolzano-Bozen

  1. Support: This title includes the most used English name for referring to the Italian province Bolzano (in English maps, encyclopedias, etc.). A basic compromise is listing Bolzano-Bozen, something which is done in the province itself and in many English references. Right now a page Province of Bolzano/Province of Bolzano-Bozen is glaringly absent from English Wikipedia. I will also support Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol if the other-side prefers South Tyrol over Bozen. The bottom line is that major references like this [2] can not simply be ignored in favour of one-sided nationalistic POV. . Taalo 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support noclador 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support: --Fertuno 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried this solution, for other articles of bilungual areas, they were deleted. I wuolud agree, but it seems is forbidden to introduce "long list of names".--Giovanni Giove 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bozen-South Tyrol

  1. Support - the translated name from the provincial government website into English is "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol". The Italian name is Bolzano, but the translated English name is Province of Bozen-South Tyrol (as the French, Ladin, and German names also differ slightly). This is English wiki, we should use the proper translated English name. Rarelibra 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is a solution that is entirely a German POV though, one that is likely based on a few people working in the provincial office. When I see most people refer to this province in English, it is simply province of Bolzano, or sometimes Bolzano (Bozen). Province of Bolzano (Bozen) captures both sides, like we are attempting to do on Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. I don't see how we can get anything but nationalistic backing for names like Province of Bozen (South Tyrol) and just South Tyrol. By rights we should just use Province of Bolzano, but I'd rather we come up with another shared solution. Just as Bolzano is the Italian name, Bozen is just the German name. Anyway, I can only back a solution that has both sides included: Province of Bolzano (Bozen), Province of Bolzano (South Tyrol), what have you. Taalo 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


  • CHOICE B: keep "as is":
    • current count: 14 votes

[edit] South Tyrol

(Note: this option includes no "Province of ..." designation).

  1. Support. Splitting this article doesn't make sense since South Tyrol only became a separate entity after WW1, at the same time it became a province of Italy. Between the Napoleonic wars and WW1, it was a part of the Austrian crown land Tyrol, and from the Middle Ages until the Napoleonic wars it was a patchwork of states within the Holy Roman Empire. The province is commonly known as South Tyrol in English. Markussep 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Markussep, you state "The province is commonly known as South Tyrol in English.". I really disagree with this, especially as a native English speaker. For example: [3]. Someone goes to this and sees Trentino-Alto Adige as the region and Bolzano-Bozen and Trento as the two provinces. This is plain and simple. Province of Bolzano-Bozen or Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol has both sides in the name. I fail to understand the lack of any desire for compromise. Taalo 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree, Markussep. I have shown above that the "common" English is a mixed form. Rarelibra 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    English-based lists of Italian provinces list Bolzano. You don't go to Rand McNally, Britannica, etc. and see South Tyrol as one of the provinces. It is really that simple. A compromise is Province of Bolzano (Bozen). I could possibly get behind Province of Bolzano/Bozen-South Tyrol, though it is really unnecessary in my opinion. The regional name contains all the traditional names, Trentino, Alto Adige, South Tyrol. Taalo 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Rarelibra, you have a funny idea about what's commonly used in English. Show me an English language newspaper that uses Province of Bolzano/South Tyrol or something similar. Taalo, please stop focusing on lists of provinces. This article is not just a list filler. Markussep 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    But Wikipedia requires us to base what we do on something tangible.. I'm basing it on what I know as a native English speaker, and what the vast majority of proper English references use. You are just stating that South Tyrol is what most people refer to this province to, but as a non-native speaker, how do you know? I just can't agree with having the Province of Bolzano instead be listed as just South Tyrol, that's all. I see the license plates have BZ. I go to maps that have Trento beside Bolzano (Bozen). There is simply no Province of South Tyrol -- not to mention that having the article here maintains no compromise what-so-ever. German POV all the way man. :} Taalo 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    The BZ license plate has nothing to do with what English-speakers call the region. By that argument, Switzerland would be retitled to Confoederatio Helvetica (CH). --SigPig |SEND - OVER 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree. When foreigners go to Switzerland they will want to find out what the CH means on the cars. Same thing with BZ on the cars in Bolzano (Bozen). I found many Americans who visited made that connection quite easily. By no means is BZ the end-all argument, but it is not frivolous. Taalo 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not too worried about Markussep. Let he think what he wants. The proof has been presented. He can deal with it in his own way. Rarelibra 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    You needn't worry about me, whatever you mean with that. Your proof is not convincing. I checked some of the links you gave under #Could we go with?. The first one only uses the (very) long name in the header. Everywhere else it's "South Tyrol" (e.g. first line: "The Provincial Government of South Tyrol has started..."). The second one only uses the long name in quotes, in the rest of the document it's "South Tyrol" or "Province of South Tyrol". The third one uses it only once, and it uses "Bundesland of Tyrol" for the Austrian state. I hope you're not suggesting that Tyrol (state) should be renamed. The fourth one is a copy an old version of the Wikipedia article on Schlanders. The fifth one is an online forum, those are not the most reliable sources of information. Your list of guidebooks and roadmaps has already been commented by Septentrionalis and myself at Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol/name#the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige. Markussep 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Markussep - I cannot spoonfeed you any more. If you didn't see in the one article where they said "hereafter referred to as 'South Tyrol'" - that is called a shortened name for replacement inside an article... so you don't have to continually type out the proper name. The list you mention is not of "guidebooks and roadmaps" - it is of major recognized and respected geographical knowledge centers - and we won't even talk about your comments or Pmanderson (the "Septentrionalis" real name). You can continue to be stubborn, but the rest of the world won't, plain and simple. Rarelibra 13:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    It is a list of travel guides and road maps (Michelin, Lonely Planet, Fodor's etc.), and as Septentrionalis pointed out, they tend to use local names because that's what you encounter when you're there. About shortened names, that's exactly like "French Republic" and "France", guess what's the article title. Please don't use patronizing expressions like "spoonfeed" and "stubborn". Markussep 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    You and I would be best to agree to disagree and move on, because as long as you patronize my input, I will patronize back. I am not one to stand and "take it" without dishing it out, period. Those companies are geographic experts (because I included others such as Rand McNally). As for shortened names, it is a difference to 'shorten' a name in usage, such as "South Korea" instead of the full name, as compared to using a name like "South Tyrol" as a substitute for the proper province name. This article is the only article that doesn't conform to the other "Province of (XXX)" articles (excluding, of course, Aosta, which is autonomous and a valley). It really does need to be changed. The proposals are incredibly sensitive and respectful - the naming such as "Province of Bozen-Bolzano (South Tyrol)" which is official and would designate the proper title. With some users attempting to remove it from Wikiproject Italy, it smacks of a desire to be 'special'. It is a diverse province, yes... but the focus is now on ensuring that correct naming is used. Period. Rarelibra 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. I fully agree with Markussep. --PhJ 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. I think it best to keep it under the most common name in this case. Anything about the administration and the local government can be integrated into the main article. Gryffindor 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Keep in mind that the article does not conform to the "Province of (XXX)" format that the other Provinces conform to. If a wikiproject has this as standard, then South Tyrol will have to conform as well. The naming from the provincial government is what is more/most popular, not just South Tyrol. I have shown many cases of this. One cannot assume that reference to "South Tyrol" means all in the same. Rarelibra 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Most common name under what grounds? In your mind? The vast majority of references that were posted originally by Rarelibra show maps, encyclopedias, etc., etc. that list Bolzano or Bolzano (Bozen). I'm fine to keep South Tyrol in the title, but the actual provincial name has to be there too.. i.e., Province of Bolzano (South Tyrol). Taalo 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support ack gryffindor--Martin Se 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Obviously. —Nightstallion (?) 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support, the article isn't about the province alone. Split would be an option. --Pjacobi 12:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC
    -Support, what else? Mai-Sachme 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)-
    no single-use accounts [4] or sock puppets please..... posted by 71.106.204.137 07:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Please, Taalo, sign with your proper username. PhJ 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, I'm not a sock puppet. Check it with Ripe [5]Mai-Sachme 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    But are you a single-use account? That would also be in violation. Rarelibra 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I affirm I'm not a single-use account. I'm just a new member and one of my main interests is obviously South Tyrol :-) Mai-Sachme 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Let Mai-Sachme vote, it is just better illustrating an interesting trend. :} welcome to en.wikipedia dude. Taalo 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. I know where South Tyrol was, I'd have had to search for "Province of Bolzano". Most common name in my idiolect. So it would be inconsistent. That's what we have redirects for. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I have to comment here. You know where South Tyrol is, but you apparently don't know where Bolzano (Bozen) is? I havn't seen a much more easy-to-understand province naming system than what is used in Italy. The provinces are almost always simply named after the largest city... i.e. Province of Trento, Province of Bolzano, Province of Verona, Province of Milan, etc., etc., etc. Taalo 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, albeit with disclaiming too much expertise. I'm an American English speaker, and all the references I've read have referred to the area as South Tyrol. Now, this is probably because the area is most notable during the WWI-WWII era and that would be the proper name around then; I claim no expertise about what is in common usage now. But, frankly, even if Bolzano is more common now, the area is still mostly famous for its tug-of-war back then. Just looking at the article as it stands right now, and almost all of it is on its history as South Tyrol, and the modern stuff seems to focus on relations with Austria and the like. Maybe this is a case of horribly misplaced focus, but as long as the region's history as "South Tyrol" overwhelms its modern status as Bolzano, that seems the proper title for the article. SnowFire 21:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    SupportIn the german Wikipedia the article is called Südtirol and the correct translation is South Tyrol. Hence it is the appropriate name an as there is no official English name, the german one should be taken as a reference. --138.232.249.151 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    welcome to en.wikipedia. did you hear about us on de.wikipedia by any chance? ^_- sorry though, no single-use accounts. Taalo 22:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support as above. The region is the "South Tyrol" in English; I continue to suggest a separate article on the modern provincial government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, the region is South Tyrol in English, but it is also Alto Adige in common English usage. Anyway, the voting is making it pretty clear we need a split -- as you suggest (and many others have as well): one page for the province of bz, one for the history of aa/st. I'll ask Mets501 to see what he recommends for us proceeding in this direction. Taalo 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Alto Adige is much less common. But why don't you just write the new article without waiting for Mets? All I could do would be to copy over the present section on Government and the links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    I don't agree Alto Adige is much less common, but fine.. agree to disagree, etc., etc. I don't think we need any unilateral moves like that at this point. I'd rather we have someone like Mets help decide step 2 rather than any of us (who are directly involved in this debate) making such a decision; you know what I mean? Also, we already have the History of South Tyrol page which more or less duplicates the history section of the province right now. Taalo 04:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support See the discussion above and the official server of Bozen county reporting, amongst others, the right English name.--Clamengh
    You know, don't you think it is kind of funny to point to a website that is named provincia.bz, explicitly mention the words "bozen county", and then after all this say that south tyrol is the "right" English name? :)))) In my opinion it is clear there are various correct names: one can refer to the region/area as Alto Adige or South Tyrol. The province is Bolzano/Bozen/BZ. my regards, Taalo 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Emes, what is this, remote control voting? :P [6] (yes, i am joking around :) Taalo 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Wikipedia is not about going on fitghting 1st world war or supporting fascist italianization of German speaking areas. The correct English name is the obvious translation of the (linguistically affine) German version. Regards--10caart 13:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, you are right, obviously using Province of Bolzano-Bozen is just a complete italianization. o_O congrats on bringing in the word fascist too. :} Taalo 15:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support If I am not wrong there's an official English name issued by the local institution, and this is South Tyrol.--OlBergomi 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Another user totally missing the point, anyway also Alto Adige is ufficial, but here we are talking about naming this article as all the other articles about Italian provinces are named. --Checco 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Whatever, Emes also put out the call to his Lombard Wikipedia friends (the last three votes). *sigh* Taalo 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - this is the English language edition of Wikipedia, and South Tyrol is the commonly used and understood name. "Province of Bolzano" means nothing to most English-speakers. -- Mais oui! 12:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. I stated my reasons before. --Kl4Uz 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support for South Tyrol. The English name has always been (and at present should be as well) the translation of the German one. This is an English encyclopedia and English culture shouldn't be decided by Italian politics. Thank you, --Coumh 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I guess you probably fail to understand how one-sided your comment just was. So English culture should be decided by German politics? Anyway, I'm assuming you are our fourth new friend from Lombard Wikipedia?  :-) Icsunonove 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    More... our new friend failed to understand that this is an article about a province named "Provincia di Bolzano" in Italian and "Provinz Bozen" in German. --Checco 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well put, and it is this new user who also attempts to keep things nasty for some reason. It gives the impression of someone who has been urged to come in and be aggressive, rather than offer some constructive discussion. The bottom line is both the terms Alto Adige and Südtirol/South Tyrol are new political terms. "The English name has always been" actually sounds silly. It is possible to just compromise and enjoy all the names. I'll remind again that this area was once also Germanized, so the wiser one will actually want to remove none of these names. But as Checco said, the core of this discussion is about having an article for the Province of BZ. Furthermore, if there is also a South Tyrol area page, it should be moved to Alto Adige/South Tyrol or Alto Adige/Südtirol, as was done with T-AA/ST. Icsunonove 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hmmmn…but new users have the great advantage of not being restricted by the kinds of compromises with recent tradition and unfortunate conventions which more experienced editors have had to make. Besides I think this looks like the right forum to recruit support for my personal (but utterly NPOV) campaign to move my birthplace Wiltshire to North Wessex. Like Südtirol it’s a wonderful place which you can get very attached to. But to be honest little of importance has happened there (with the obvious exception of Swindon Town’s victory over Arsenal at Wembley Stadium on the Ides of March 1969 [and I was there], and perhaps William Byrd’s dedication of a pavane to the Earl of Salisbury), since the fall of the Heptarchy and the Norman Conquest. Basically we are are a colony: oppressed by Viking-Norman-Hanoverian-Blairites. But in case you think that this a campaign too feeble to join—as too obviously just and easy to win—don’t imagine that we are going to stop there. Oh no! Once we have achieved the North Wessex consensus we will launch a new campaign against those Saxon invaders (or were they Angles or Jutes?) who contrived to efface our true Celtic heritage: that of the people who raised Avebury stone circle and Silbury Hill and were buried in long or round barrows (if they were rich enough). The only problem will to be discover what those true ‘Ur-Wiltshiremen’ called their ancestral lands. But we’ll find a way round that. —Ian Spackman 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support to keep South Tyrol. There's no need to raise conflicts. And the so called Lombard friends are here as English wikipedians (simply check their contributions). Moreover the will of changing this name is:
    • Ethnical like (Italianize)
    • Political
    • Anti German and, inasmuch as it doesn't keep into account the Ladin name, anti-Ladin and now,
    • Anti Lombard (new!): summing up, this looks like racism, which unfortunately I know well enough for personal experience. Thank you --Belinzona 09:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, racism now! The race card shows up finally. LOL I'm sorry my friend, but you fail to realize that pushing to only use South Tyrol, and implying that this is the province of South Tyrol, is what is political. South Tyrol doesn't account for the Ladin perspective either. Also, I think it is very irresponsible to throw out "anti-lombard" without backing that up. Since you have made so many accusations in a few short words, please explain a few things to all of us: 1) How is having a proper Province of BZ article hurting anyone? 2) Why is it fair to have an article that is only at South Tyrol, not Alto Adige/South Tyrol, etc., etc.? 3) This term Italianize itself is nonsense. Can you please point me to the location of the so-called "Italians" in Italy? 4) Speaking of -ize'ing places, it seems you fail to realize that there was also a Germanization that happened. The Ladin languages, variations of Latin spoken in this region, were originally here before German or the Standard Italian (simply Italy's national language). Should the Ladin-speakers then ask for everyone else to get out? This us-against-them attitude is utter nonsense. Icsunonove 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Belinzona, why is a name in English so anti-Lombard? And how does it give ethnical problems? And why is it anti German?
  • Is English anti-German when it uses Munich instead of München?
  • And is Italian anti German, as Augsburg is called Augusta in Italian?
  • Is German anti-Italian, as Trento is called Trient and Venezia is Venedig?
Don't think that there is so much in a name... But I may be wrong... --Adriano 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Adriano, you are absolutely right. Icsunonove 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Belinzona, simply you failed to understand what is the problem. This is an article about the Province of Bolzano, a province of Italy. It is named "Provincia autonoma di Bolzano" in Italian and "Autonome Provinz Bozen" in German. The English translation of both is "Province of Bolzano". There's no will of Italianize, but a desire to uniform the title to the other 109 articles about Italian Provinces, which are all named "Province of XXXXXX". There's nothing ideological in this. --Checco 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously we are naive to think that that everyone shares the idea that there is no ideology in this. Some users definitely have a political agenda, and it is getting very boring, especially when today even brings out claims of racism and anti-lombard! o_O Maybe it is best to just rename this page to the Free Republic of South Tyrol and go through and erase any Latin/Ladin/Italian words. *rolls eyes* Will have to come up with a new name for Meran though.. maybe Mieransburg. Surreal.. Icsunonove 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

A search with google USA today gives the following results:

  • "South Tyrol" 847,000 hits
  • "Province of Bolzano" 54,500 hits
  • "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" 14,800 hits
  • "Province of South Tyrol" 805 hits
  • "Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol" 354 hits
  • "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol" 148 hits

(Idea by user Taalo ) noclador 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A search with Google USA today gives the following results:

  • "Tirol" 22,400,000 hits
  • "Tyrol" 4,120,000 hits

A search with Google USA today gives the following results:

  • "South Tirol" 1,440,000 hits
  • "South Tyrol" 1,260,000 hits

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


  • LOL!! Noclador, your logic is a bit faulty. :} You have to compare apples to apples. You can't run a test with "Province of ..." and then with just a single phrase like South Tyrol. I'll continue the table for you below:
  • "Bolzano" 16,900,000 hits
  • "Bolzano-Bozen" 669,000 hits
  • "Bolzano-South Tyrol" 10,800 hits
  • "Bozen-South Tyrol" 695 hits
  • ...and so are you going to change your vote to Province of Bolzano since you appear to purely go by Google hits? Let me sell you the Bolzano-Bozen or Bolzano-South Tyrol instead. :} Taalo 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Taalo

  • Hmm,... the Province of Bolzano is surely known to most people as South Tyrol- I think that a vast majority of people don’t even know that the official name is different from the commonly known and used “South Tyrol”. I assume that most people come to this article by typing in “South Tyrol” and there is a redirect to this page. If this is indeed so, then I will put my support behind the official name “Province of Bolzano-Bozen”. noclador 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, don't let me twist your arm (*twists noclador's arm!*). :} Do consider that your assumption might come from your language/national background. Anyway, "Province of Bolzano" comes up most often and "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" comes second. I'm very willing to take one that measures less English usage but instead benefits everyone by a shared Italian/German naming (my same opinion on the region page). This and the province is shown on most English maps as Bolzano, Bolzano (Bozen), Bolzano-Bozen, etc. Anyway, so I don't have to hear again that I'm trying to delete the word South Tyrol from Earth, I'm perfectly fine with Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol as well... Taalo 03:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)



***Please note there is a similar poll at the regional page, currently at Trentino-South Tyrol***

  • How do you all reconcile your decision against fundamental English (and politically-neutral) references that show Province of Bolzano-Bozen? [7] Yes, I know they are listing many regions in English and provinces in Italian, but the fundamental point is the province is commonly known as Bolzano and/or Bolzano-Bozen. Isn't a basic compromise to use Province of Bolzano-Bozen or Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol? Or is it actually coming down to a simple fight to keep 100% instead of a shared solution? A 50/50 solution in a region that is fundamentally Roman/Italy and Germanic/Austrian. Taalo 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Google: "Province of Bolzano -wiki" (49,400 hits); "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" -wiki (11,900 hits); "Province of South Tyrol -wiki" (700 hits); "Province of Bolzano-South Tyrol -wiki" (353 hits); "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol -wiki" (128 hits) Taalo 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And South-Tyrol has 855.000 hits. 85.124.8.189 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • read above Anon. You can't compare "province of ..." to just a single phrase...

Well, this is your POV, and I say we can compare it..."South Tyrol" and "Provinca of..." are synonyms. Mai-Sachme 17:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You are way wrong, Mai-Sachme. One is a proper title, the other is a common name usage. They are NOT synonymous. Rarelibra 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if we are talking about Google-hits, you can't say, we count only "Province of South Tyrol". If you're checking, how many Google-hits has Italy, you don't count only hits for "Italian Republic", which is the proper title of the country, or not? Mai-Sachme 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The name is incorrect and not in keeping with the "Province of (XXX)" title that is used by all the other articles. The point in the hits is not to use common usage, otherwise we can check other common usage and the number hits will greatly vary by name. Truly, your assessment of a 'synonym' is incorrect. Rarelibra 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And who says that we must use a "Province of XXX" title? Aren't we looking for the most common used English name for this province? Wikipedia does not use everywhere the official titles... And by the way: Synonyms are different words with an identical or very similar meaning, so South Tyrol and Province of South Tyrol are obviously synonyms, because both of them descrive the same geografical region in northern Italy. 85.124.8.189 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First - you missed the point, so I will help you. The title "Province of South Tyrol" is still incorrect, as it doesn't reflect the real name translated into English (which is "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol", if you didn't know). Also, in keeping with consistency (which wikipedia suggests), the "Province of (XXX)" is a standard to use because the others conform this way... otherwise, it makes this province seem 'special' when it isn't (as an administrative unit of Italy, that is - don't twist my words). Also, do not confuse long names to official titles, either. And geographical region is quite different than administrative province. It really seems like we need a split for the article - one article for the geographical region of South Tyrol, the other for the administrative province of Italy. Rarelibra 18:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :-) Yes I confused the long term with the official title. But my opinion is still, that we should use the most common name for this specific region, which is without doubts South Tyrol, so I can't agree in this point. But could you define the difference between the region and the administrative province? Mai-Sachme 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but you are one of the many who appear to be shrouded in the past tense. It doesn't matter what it was called up until WWI. The fact of the matter is, the modern-day present has it a part of the Italian government and assigned a proper name by such government. It is like saying that Wrocŀaw, Poland should be called "Breslau" because it once held that name for many years. Fact of the matter is, the name changed because of historical events. As far as the 'region' you keep referring to, the 'region' of Tyrol (or, properly, "Tirol") is one that encompassed what is now part of Austria and part of Italy. The geographical 'region' includes three "sub-regions" (or individual named 'regions') of South Tyrol, North Tyrol, and East Tyrol. The province is defined by administrative boundary and governmental definition, and viewed differently by the historical population that resides in the 'region'. This is the case in Liberia, Africa (and many other places). Governments went in and "drew a line in the sand" to define an administrative entity, which is wholly different than the region known to the populace. In Liberia, for example, there are tribal "regions" whose boundaries fall over those of the administrative boundaries (and those of the surrounding countries).
So there is a difference in referring to the region of South Tyrol and the province of Bozen-South Tyrol (or Bolzano in Italian, etc). There is also NO historical reference that would create a valid naming convention such as "it was called that up until WWI." Otherwise, most of Europe could still be called "Rome", right? ;) Rarelibra 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

Is the above a straw poll, in that we add our choices, or is it similar to where you only offer support for one choice? Rarelibra 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems at this point we have a much wider set of bounds than we have on the regional page. It seems there we have been able to narrow down quite a bit. The province page is still in a bit of a flux. :} Taalo 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Italy

I would very much appreciate if Martin Se would stop deleting the WikiProject Italy header. This is the second time already. Taalo 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin Se has been warned on his talk page. Even by deleting the warning, he is recognizing that he has read the content and understood - whether he chooses to abide by it or not. If he continues, he will be reported to an admin and will quite possibly be blocked for his vandalism. Rarelibra 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please release South Tyrol from WP Italy

The Lemma will never improve while it is part of wikiproject italy--Martin Se 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As You See I choose an other way (I took WP Italy away only one time)--Martin Se 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin Se - deal with the fact that this province is a part of Italy, thus, a part of Wikiproject Italy. Rarelibra 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As taalo sugested earlier, we could rate it also as Part of Wp austria
Maybe we could improve the Article (internationally Lemma) together--Martin Se 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it may qualify for Wikiproject Austria - a very weak qualification, mind you. This is a province, and it is a part of the country of Italy and the region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. It is very much a part of qualifying for Wikiproject Italy. Based on the history with Austria, if you wish to elect it for Wikiproject Austria, then take the initiative. Just don't go around removing tags because of some obsession you have. Period. Rarelibra 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
How about leaving it in both projects, maybe that could satisfy both sides? Gryffindor 21:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Gryffindor - I never had (have) a problem with it being in both... just in the removal of the one flag that was quite apparent. Rarelibra 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. It matches my user page now.. LOL. I'd suggest not doing this on Province of Trento and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol though. That would probably be stretching things a bit, and maybe a bit provocative as well... hah! and wow, Gryffindor is keen on satisfying both sides. I'm proud of you, and I'm not being (that) sarcastic. ^_- Taalo 22:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, the Austrian flag is bigger than the Italian flag! $@#$!%!@#!$&*&@@! and @$@)(*$)!@*!!! Taalo 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA. Jeez. Now that's good humor. :) Rarelibra 22:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this is NOT the way to do things

for a user to go to the German wikipedia and try to get people to come over and stuff the ballot box is just completely wrong [8]. This is simply adding bias on top of bias and is completely against the spirit of trying to work together to find a compromise.

wieder ärger in en.wikipedia [Bearbeiten] Diesmal soll en:Trentino-South Tyrol umbenannt werden, bitte beteiligt euch an der Abstimmung--Martin Se !? 12:35, 5. Mär. 2007 (CET)

annoyance again in en.wikipedia. they want to change the name of trentino-south tyrol again. please go and take part in the poll.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Emes posted by 71.106.204.137 08:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What Martin Se has done is very much political. Because of this, I have chosen to extend the same invitation to users within the Italian wiki. We will have to allow this time during the week for any and all interested to respond. Rarelibra 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. An edit war between the Italian wiki and the German wiki on how we name things on the English wiki. There must have been another way to handle it, such as informing an admin here and at German Wikipedia and having the offending user(s) blocked. What you've done is escalate the war of words here. This is ALSO not the way we do things here. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
If you follow it on BOTH pages, you'll see it was removed from both German and Italian wiki. There doesn't seem to be control (esp. with Martin Se) - but please, don't attempt to tell me what to do. What I attempted to do (and has been changed) is not canvassing or as you stated "escalate the war of words" - if we have one side of the playing field, we will have the other, plain and simple. Rarelibra 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
What is political to ask his friends to help if needed?--Martin Se 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Martin, I guess if we need to explain this to you, we sure are not going to make any progress anytime this year... Taalo 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
100% in favour of Taalo this time. I have friends too (if that doesn’t sound too Malvolio-ish! And I suppose you, User:Emes, do have enough English to get the reference…). But I wouldn’t dream of trying to persuade them to join up to en.wikipedia in order to support me on some half-arsed naming dispute. And quite frankly your record on putting any work into improving the English-language version of the encyclopedia is not very impressive. So I think you should apologise for your behaviour. And very clearly. Alternatively find a friendly admin to get me banned for making a personal attack. —Ian Spackman 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I Now know who Malvolio is, but I'd like to explain my Idea of political action: including Nones dialect as Nones language in raeto romance ([9])
Chancing order of Names saying that ladin was spoken there earlier ([10]; Talk - and what with Meranum and Bauzanum)
according to this we shut move this page to Land an der Etsch und im Gebirge--Martin Se 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess you are missing the point Emes. If we want to come up with the order I-D-L, that is fine. It can't be only the way you all want it, just as it can't be only the way I want it. One user attempted to make it D-I-L on some pages, and I wonder where he got his consensus for that. He was very quick to call other's edits vandalism though. Anyway, you should probably be aware that one of the original languages of the region was this provincial so-called Latin of the Alps (i.e. the languages like Ladin, Nones, etc., which are a conservative form of Latin according to researchers). These predate German, and of course Standard Italian (Tuscan-based) in the region. I really find it a bit difficult to understand why you have attempted to delete Nones and Solardo from the list of Italian languages. Taalo 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic, Emes, since you don't seem to understand - what you did by trying to post only on German wiki is to "tip the scale" politically and selfishly to ensure that your POV stands in the voting/polls. This is unethical and against wiki rules. If I were an admin, you would already have been blocked to think about your actions. Rarelibra 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

May not be worth the time to explain; see mine and Ian's comments above. Taalo 16:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Since my language is German & I am an editor of the german wikipedia and co-superviser of Wp:South Tyrol I have answered questions asked there
Nones is not yet a recognized language but a dialect (someone ist trying to say nones is a ladin dialect)
Of solarno I've never heard (Do You know how to spell it in italian?)
de:Italien#Sprachen gives you a bether idea of languages in Italy and it:Lingue parlate in Italia does'nt mention nones; It:Nones gives You a good idea:
Il Nones (Nònes) o Noneso è, secondo alcuni, una variante della lingua ladina
 appartenente al gruppo reto-romanzo della famiglia delle lingue indoeuropee.
--Martin Se 11:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Martin, I'm not a linguist, so I really do not fully understand the exact differences of a dialect versus a language. Some professors I spoke with said Nones is a language and a variant of Rhaeto-Romance. Maybe Nones is a dialect of Ladin, maybe Ladin is a dialect of Nones. boh! :-) Regardless, I just really like how these set of languages sound. I believe the spelling is Solandro, and it is the language of Val di Sole. But you are correct, neither Solandro or Nones has any official status in Trentino --- as enjoyed by Ladin in BZ. It makes me curious now if other Italian languages/dialects such as Pietmontese, Calabrian, etc. have any official status. Anyway, take a drive sometime up to the Val di Non and Val di Sole and see how the languages match up. :} I seem to remember being able to understand the Romansh in CH quite well. regards, Taalo 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... interesting. You are "co-supervisor" of an article on wiki, huh? Since when did those titles become available? Did you crown yourself with this title? You see - that is probably the most pompous thing I have ever heard someone say on wiki. Co-supervisor... right. Emes - NO ONE is a 'supervisor' of a wiki article... Rarelibra 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
don't know if this is the same in en, but in de every Portal and Project has one or two people who supervise new article concerning a project or portal, answer to question at the project /portal we call the person Betreuer (supervisor) de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Portale/N-Z and de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Wartung--Martin Se 17:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Names

[edit] Take a break

And watch THIS VIDEO if you haven't had a chance. Interesting concept on the Freedom of Speech in the Tirolean region of Austria. Taalo - if you watch this and apply the thought process, you will understand more the single-minded approach of members of the community, and why it is more difficult to accept a neutral solution. There is nothing wrong with this approach at all - it is a result of single-minded teaching of history to the point of the mentioned "status quo majority". Rarelibra 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really think he is overly harsh singling out the Austrian (by the way, did he mention Tyrol??) people like that, but making this point about humanity in general, what he says is of course dead on. Also the whole concept of how the majority of people process what is true or false, what is right or wrong, is definitely the single-minded approach which causes most of the problems in our world. It leads up perfectly to the organized religion bit. I think he doesn't make it clear though that he dislikes the organized part, not the religions themselves (or at least I hope so). I find no real problem of religion, but it is definitely the humans who take control and impose their own ideas of what God wants, which cause all the problems. Did you mean to post this on my talk page rarelibra, because I'm imaginging a giant WTF from everyone very soon. LOL. Taalo 04:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
for naming discussions see also (official tourism site)--Martin Se 11:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
He quite directly busted on both Austrians and Tirol itself. BUT the point I was making is that he mentions that in Austria only one form is history is allowed to be taught (the Austrian-approved history)... and I was attempting to point out part of the reason that some of the users may be single-minded in their approach. It helps me understand those users more - and part of the reason why I am trying to approach things with a neutral and acceptable viewpoint. I am pleased for the consensus on the region page - and hope the same can be accomplished in other pages. Rarelibra 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so because the region has no importance and cities and South Tyrol are other things
I don't look youtube videos and don't think that this video pictures the reality--Martin Se 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In what way is Christopher Hitchens's speech helpful for this discussion? I don't support censorship and political imprisonment either (even though David Irving is a Nazi supporter). But what does that matter for naming this article? Btw, imho Taalo is not less single-minded than his opponents. Actually single-mindedness can be a good trait, but trying to achieve one's aims by offending other people is bad. I hope we agree on that. -- PhJ 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually if someone has even somewhat of an open mind, the video Rarelibra posted is extremely useful with regards to these discussions. It seems you can't hold that thought very long though before deciding to dig into me again on the talk page, eh? :} Hey, at least I feel I'm one that can be open to changing my opinion; are you? I hope you realize that in your own paragraph you have just chosen to make this particular discussion personal by explicitly bringing my name into it. You have just attempted to offend me to achieve your own aim. One might call that hypocritical. I'll just echo what Rarelibra said: relax dude. :} Taalo 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not so familiar with David Irving except from what I read on BBC. Is he actually a supporter of Nazis; or is that being implied because he doesn't believe in the scope of the holocaust? Just curious. Taalo 21:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is only implied. Rarelibra 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, David Irving was accused of denying the Holocaust, which is a criminal offence in Austria (like in several other European countries, see Holocaust denial#Laws against Holocaust denial). The incidents leading to his imprisonement took place years ago. Irving gave several lectures to some far right student fraternities, where he denied the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz etc. His claims don't make him a Nazi supporter by itself, however to judge this question is not within the scope of the law, which was introduced in 1947. In general, there seems to be a tendency in Europe to introduce similar kind of laws (France and Switzerland introduced "Armenian genocide denial laws", a Turkish politician was convicted by a Swiss court some days ago), therefore I think it was a bit unfair of Hitchens to single out Austria. Gugganij 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As you can see by the title, it says "take a break". Chill. The relevance to the article? To show that single-minded focus is sometimes from the programming of upbringing. And you are so far off by assuming that I was inferring to Taalo as the one being single-minded. Next time when you are confused, just ask... I'll gladly explain. Rarelibra 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If there had been Nazi-fascism in the United States of America, they would probably understand why Democracy needs to be protected. And Democracy can only be granted if those, that already proved they are able to gain power, drag the World into war and kill millions of humans, are silenced and aren't granted the right of free speech on that matter. --Kl4Uz 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me, but is this how we are going to do things?

It literally took months to push people into a compromise, and then you read stuff like this?? [11]

Hi, here (unfortunately) I am afraid it looks like the question has been settled. However, I think it will need to be soon posed again towards the contrary move. Now I will lobby a bit for South Tyrol. See you soon, --Clamengh 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

can you people not get it into your skulls to compromise/share? This isn't a continous battle to grab everything for one side. Surreal :( Taalo 06:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, why not? Wikipedians engaging in debates is an essential part of wikipedia's culture, so, there's nothing bad in this. Thank you --OlBergomi 09:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Assembly/Parliament

Our Sepp Kusstatscher article states that he was a "Member (SVP), South Tyrol Regional Assembly" between 1988-1993. And the South Tyrolean People's Party article refers to a "regional parliament".

What is the actual name (in German and/or Italian) of the body being referred to here, and why on earth is there zero mention of it in this article?!? It seems like fairly fundamental information that this area has its own democratically-elected assmbly/parliament. N'est ce pas? -- Mais oui! 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Province of Bolzano is a Province and, like all the other provinces in Italy, it has a Provincial Council. The members of the Provincial Council of Bolzano (35 members), together with the members of the Provincial Council of Trento (35 members), form the Regional Council (70 members) of Trentino-Alto Adige Region, as all the Italian regions have an elected Regional Council. These Regional Councils are named "Regional Council", but there are some regions which have different names for it, but this is not the case of T-AA region, whose specificity is of having only one election (for the Provincial Councils and the Regional Council), while all the other Regions have separate elections for Provincial Councils and Regional Councils. This is because T-AA is a region different from the others and most powers are given to the Autonmous Provinces of Bolzano and Trento. --Checco 10:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Errr... ta, I think. I note that you are using the term "Province of Bolzano" as a synonym for South Tyrol. That is just bound to confuse people.
So why is none of that (fairly important) information in the article? -- Mais oui! 11:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
First the official name of the province is "Autonomous Province of Bolzano", sometimes extended in "Autonomous Provincia di Bolzano - Alto Adige/Südtirol", second this information is not "fairly important", beacuse it is the same for all the Provinces of Italy. --Checco 11:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... why are you so keen to exclude this elementary information? And as you have already stated yourself, it is not exactly the same as the rest of Italy. This looks increasingly like an intentional attempt to exclude fundamental encyclopaedic information, rather than the oversight which it could have been. I am attaching the POV tab to the article until this glaring gap is remedied. -- Mais oui! 11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not the only editor in Wikipedia. If you want to add information, add it. Anyway there are two things you didn't notice: 1) it is the regional institutions which are differently elected from the other regions, but here we are talking about the provincial insititutions, which are elected similarly to all the other 109 provinces of Italy; 2) I would find strange to add information about the provincial institutions in a page which has a different name from the Province itself (see the names of Provinces of Italy, all are named "Province of XXXXX"). --Checco 11:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Province of Bolzano redirects to this article. They are exactly the same thing. -- Mais oui! 11:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I know this, but I think that if this article is to speak about the Province needs to be named "Province of Bolzano", with "South Tyrol" as a different page (see discussions above) or as a redirect. --Checco 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope. That would be a crystal clear breach of Wikipedia:Content forking. -- Mais oui! 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. See discussions above. Many people talked about splitting the article. --Checco 12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because "many people" want to create a massive content fork, that does not mean it will happen. If you do split the article you will very likely end up at ANI. -- Mais oui! 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you tolerate a different opinion from yours? --Checco 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can. But what I utterly reject is the blatant political POV going on at this article. Stop playing games, and start actually improving the article. The reason I came here at all was because our coverage of this topic was woefully inadequate. I daresay that that suits some people just fine. Goodbye. -- Mais oui! 12:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Presume good faith, indeed I'm here in order to improve the article and the section about Provinces of Italy. As all the articles relating Italian Provinces, are named "Province of XXXXX", I entered this talk in order to bring uniformity also to this article. I think that it will be an improvement. A person that is searching for Italian Provinces might be confused by the fact that this province is named differently from the other ones and to think (as you maybe did) that this is one of the Regions of Italy not a Province. --Checco 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the official name (in Italian) is "Provincia di Bolzano", however, the official provincial government website has the official name, translated into English, as "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol". That is pretty clear to me... and I have a hard time understanding why others cannot see the complexity of multiple names. Rarelibra 13:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. --Checco 13:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to display on this talk page, these are the official names, translated by the provincial government:

  • English - Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol
  • German - Autonomen Provinz Bozen - Südtirol
  • Italian - Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano - Alto Adige
  • Ladin - Provinzia Autonòma de Balsan - Südtirol
  • French - Province Autonome du Bozen - Tyrol du Sud

Rarelibra 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The English official name should be Autonomous Province of Bolzano - Alto Adige/South Tyrol. --Checco 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Checco, I don't think it's up to wikipedia to decide what's the official name of the province. An official name is a name given by an authority or public body. Not us. Rarelibra, there are some strange things about the "official" names you gave, e.g. French wouldn't capitalize "autonome" (probably same for Italian), and "du" suggests that Bolzano is "le Bozen" in French, which is wrong. "Autonomen" in German is 2nd or 3rd case feminine, not the nominative ("autonome"). Where did you get this from? Markussep 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Markussep - I'll go ahead and hold your hand while I walk you HERE to the website of the provincial government, as is referenced on the main page of this very article. Go ahead and lecture them on their use of languages, not me. Rarelibra 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, this explains the 2nd case in the German text ("Offizieller Server der Autonomen Provinz Bozen - Südtirol"). The French version of the page is very rudimentary, so I'm not surprised by these mistakes, I don't think a professional translator (or native speaker) was involved. Markussep 19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my fellow MBA students is from Veneto. I was discussing the whole 'controversy' of naming with him. When I referred to the province, he said "ah, yes - Bolzano, or Südtirol". He speaks both German and Italian (his mother being Austrian). We discussed how the region was passed over to Italy and how the extremists later tried to revolt to have it rejoin under Austria (as annotated in the history section of the article). He said even to this day, the Austrian-descent residents will claim that they are Austrian (not Italian), and only use an Austrian passport, etc. But interestingly enough, he tells me that the region is one of the best in Italy - low unemployment, prosperous, good services, etc. When I asked about the Bozen name, he said "yes, because the region is dual-lingual, both languages are used." So it is suffice to say the English-translated name is "Bozen - South Tyrol" while the Italian name is "Bolzano - Alto Adige" and the German name is "Südtirol". Rarelibra 20:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But this is politics... anyway the province will continue to be part of Italy for two reasons: 1) it has a 30% of Italians which does not favor independence or annexion by Austria; 2) the province has so much privileges that also the remaining 70% prefers to status quo. Ok, this is just politics, sorry... --Checco 21:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway I'll get out at least for a while from this discussion. There's too much ideology and I can't understand why people reject a neutral solution for the title, as the "Province of XXXXX" one, as all the other articles about Provinces of Italy. --Checco 21:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, remember: the Province of Bolzano is a province, not a region. Bye, bye. --Checco 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Referred to your "politics": 1) less than 30% are italians 2) an opinion poll has shown that 54% of the "other" would like to be reunificated with Austria (understandable by watching the Italian behaviour there in the last months) 3) the South Tyrolean population has got the right (part of the UN-People's Right) to claim for self-determination and decide for a reunification every moment it wants to. The status quo is so far not sure. -- I.P. 82.54.69.74, 23 March 2007, 15:52 (UTC)

  • I have two questions for you and then a comment. 1) What do you mean when you say, "understandable by watching the Italian behaviour there in the last months"? That statement is rather vague and a bit crude. 2) Who do you define as "Italians"? The Ladin speakers are argueably Italian people, and as well, all German-speakers are not necessarily Germanic. Now to my comment: Lets look at your numbers for a second. 69% are German speakers. 54% of those (apparently) would like to join Austria. So multiplying 69% by 54% gives us roughly 37%. That means almost twice the amount of people (63%) do not favour joining Austria. Regardless, it looks like the extremists still exist in this region. Unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.186.171 (talk • contribs)
I agree with you, indeed Italian population is probably the 20-25% of the total, anyway there's the problem that it is concentrated in Bolzano (65-70% Italians), in the centre of the province. Anyway even I defenitely support South Tyrol's independence, but this is again politics... --Checco 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Irony is that the province is already autonomous and prosperous, and you still have these angry and extreme people. My hope is these individuals are in the minority and simply use Wikipedia as their puplit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.186.171 (talk • contribs)
In order to be more precise, the 2001 census gave these figures for German-speaking South Tyroleans: 70% in the whole Province (330,000 out of 475,000), 23% in Bolzano. --Checco 17:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • According to the UN people's right charta, the Italians in this province are not allowed to take part at a such referendum, and neither the government of Rome, nor the Austrian one is allowed to interfere. And with the "behaviour" I meant the continuous agitations by the italian right-wing-parties and the deep hate against the german-speaking population. For example, watch this on youtube. Then, you called me an extremist? An extremist doesn't care about rights and democracy. Listen, you surely have your own nation, a country were you belong to - they not. How might you understand, how people there feel? Also Italians has long time fought for their independence, for to have their own state. And so, it was their right. Why shouldn't the South Tyroleans have a country where they belong to?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.69.74 (talk • contribs)
Are you talking with me? I'm definitely in favour of independence of South Tyrol and I don't have a country I belong to, indeed I'm a Venetian independentist. My opinion is that South Tyrol won't have independence 'cos South Tyroleans have so much privileges in Italy (for example the State spends for health care in the Province three times the money that spends for Veneto) that they won't renounce easily to them. Anyway I repeat it: I'm strongly in favour of South Tyrol's independece, strongly in favour. Definitely. But this is politics... the reality is that both South Tyrol (which is not a region but a province, named "Province of Bolzano") and Veneto are part of Italy. --Checco 10:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, this doesn't sound right to me, this "According to the UN people's right charta". How could it possibly be correct to allow a referendum that only allows so-called "Germans" to take part? Only 100% "pure" German? Only ones that can trace their family back four generations? Five generations? Then the other people who live in BZ/AA/ST have no rights or chance to participate in this democracy? That would be extreme, I'm sorry to say -- and so I don't quite believe this is true. Do you see the irony then in your statement. If you care yourself about rights and democracy, would you want a referendum done in such a way? Anyway, I'll have to check out the youtube video when I get home, but I don't put too much into what tiny groups of small-minded people do (no matter they be German, Italian, etc.). By the way, do you believe it is only Italian right-wing parties that have a deep hatred? You don't think the opposite also happens? i.e., there are two sides to every coin. Anyway, in some ways I do not understand the whole "independence" mentality. I would think humans would want to work to be together (EU, etc.). If the other side is to "be independent", where does it stop? To every town, neighborhood, house? I think the situation in the EU, Italy, etc. is pretty darn good actually. People seem to become too bored and easily forget how bad things really can be. Icsunonove 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I had a chance to watch the video. While I feel it is quite immature and nonsense what these hooligans do, I have to say this: it all unfortunately reminds me how I have not recently felt so ashamed as after I witnessed how the German press and people belittled Italy and Italians prior to the match against Italy in the 2006 WC. It was profound racism, racism from a country and people who should know a lot better after what happened in the 20th century. That popular attitude can hardly be compared to a bunch of idiot right-wing football hooligans jumping around like clowns in Bolzano/Bozen, and note that the worse thing I hear them say is, "if you are not German, jump". Well, I don't think many Germans in BZ support the Azzurri... hah. man, relax people... Icsunonove 06:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [12] my God there are some bored people in the mountains. *rolls eyes* All I see is more of the same as above; people continuously trying all they can do to keep hate alive, "us" against "them", right? I guess that puts a bit of meaning into little peoples lives...... shameful. Icsunonove 06:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
To the anonymous commentator: could you please state where you found this information on a UN document? Thanks... --Adriano 11:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also I tried to find it, but I had no results. I add my signature to the question of Adriano. --Checco 11:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to discuss with you. Hopefully it will go on - without anger asf. Firstly, I'm not interested in such a referendum. I have only said, that there would be the possibility. If you want, I have some of the texts by the UN, but I found them only in German. Secondly, these were not only hooligans; this is the classical situation in South Tyrol/Alto Adige. I confess, I'm a South Tyrolean - no extremist! -, and I have to say that I'm afraid of the next football games etc. Every time somebody was insulted or injured. "Germans", also if they support the Azzurri, don't dare to leave their homes. Thirdly, to Icsunonove: Approximately every South Tyrolean supports the Azzurri. Whom should they otherwise support? Don't speak about Germany! We have nothing to do with them. And please, don't play down the racism by the Italians. It hurts me. No "German" one has ever dared to say similar things against Italians. Fourthly, it was not "if you are not German, jump", but "Who doesn't jump is a German/Tyrolean". Whom, do you think, they adressed? Immagine somebody would say, "who doesn't jump is a negro". Maybe now you understand, what's racist. Somebody has asked me, what I meant with the "behaviour" This was an example. It's not the topic we're discussing on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.69.74 (talk • contribs)

Hello Anon, first you should register an account, and second, welcome to the discussion (hopefully you don't regret it :-). I agree that all of these discussions should be without anger. It really hurts me personally to think that the "Germans" in AA/ST hate the "Italians"; or visa versa. I don't get a good feeling when I see that music video on Youtube, anymore than the video you posted. About football, come on, I even know people in Trentino who support the German team before they support the Azzurri. It is hard for me to believe everyone in AA/ST supports the Italian team, but I'll still trust your opinion, I guess. hah. It shouldn't matter though, someone in T-AA/ST should be able to support Holland if they choose! :-) Anyway, I do not attempt to play down racism by anyone. Look, you say "No German one has ever dared to say similar things against "Italians" -- that could be seen as "playing down". :-) Like I said, I was quite ashamed by a lot of the "German" attitude I saw during the WC2006. I've said many times that I am part German, so I think I have the tiny right to self-complain. I don't like this "who doesn't jump is a German", but for football hooligans this is a small reaction, that is all I was trying to say. Regardless, again, I do not like it! Sorry if you misinterpreted my feelings on the situation. It is not the easiest to get the point across always when typing text. I am very glad to meet anyone from TN and BZ on here, and most of all I hope at least in this little world of Wikipedia we can realize we are all humans from this beautiful region. I didn't grow up there, but it is still the most favourite area for me. Most of all I despise the idea of forming groups just to hate other groups. regards. Icsunonove 01:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Anon, if you have UN documents on this matter, please post a link to them, even if they are in German... As English is one of the UN main languages, it should not be too complicated a version in the latter language... Regards. --Adriano 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name of this province

Hmm, I don't think the name Province of Bozen - South Tyrol has been decided yet as being official; also there has been no consensus yet, right? If we go by common English usage the majority of encyclopedias and maps will show either Bolzano or Bolzano-Bozen as the name of this province. I've never seen one that shows Bozen-South Tyrol, much less Province of South Tyrol. I understand the argument that the provincial website shows Bozen-South Tyrol as their English translation on the actual HTML. However, on English translations of official government documents posted on the page in (PDF) it shows Province of Bolzano. I don't really see how we can pick-and-choose here. My opinion would be to use Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen, because: 1) It is common English usage (Brittanica, etc., etc.) 2) It already has dual-naming included which should help circumvent the name-wars (yeah, right :) Icsunonove 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally with your proposal and your arguments. --Checco 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the problem is the official name, at least the one I have seen on road signs. It is "Provincia di Bolzano - Alto Adige" in Italian, and "Provinz von Bozen - Süd Tirol" in German (not too sure on the spelling of the latter, though)... Does not bode well.... --Adriano 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I obviously haven't had the chance to travel back enough recently! :)) ...or I've just missed or not payed attention to the appending of Alto Adige/Südtirol. I guess I can imagine this being done, just as I suppose one could do "Provincia di Trento - Trentino". I still don't quite buy the idea it is official though.. it looks more like aesthetics, like making signs State of Washington - Pacific Northwest. boh. :-) Icsunonove 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It goes back to what I said before. The provincial website (official provincial government) states the translation, in English, as "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol." This does NOT take away from the Italian name, but simply put for English wiki use, should be as such. Rarelibra 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a strong argument Rarelibra, seeing the darn thing smack on the front of the bz.it website, but my argument is that on the same website they have translations of official government documents that say Province of Bolzano (and note, not with any Alto Adige/SüdTirol/South Tyrol/Happy Land :). Above all, I thought we are supposed to go with common English usage? It is hard for me to get around the fact that opening up Brittanica (etc., etc.) shows Trento and Bolzano-Bozen. This and doing a simple search on Google with "Bozen-South Tyrol" turns up almost zilch. Icsunonove 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the line of thought of Rarelibra, it sounds sensible to me. Gryffindor 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So, if we have to consider the two names in each language, how should the name be? "Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige/Bozen-South Tyrol"? Or "Province of Bolzano/Bozen - Alto Adige/South Tyrol"? Or, of course, the same combinations but with the German version first? Mmm... Time for another mediation? --Adriano 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As much as I would love to see the page be at Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen - Alto Adige/Südtirol (hah!), I think more mediation sounds fun. Just kidding! :-) Icsunonove 23:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Or Autonomous Province of Bozen-Bolzano - Südtirol-Alto Adige-South Tyrol :-) --Adriano 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, there's no official name in English. I don't fell surprised by the fact that in the official site in English we can read "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol", indeed the site is written by those who control the provincial government. --Checco 08:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it about time to close the poll? It's been running for 3 weeks now. The current #Requested move result is 9 support vs. 10 oppose, and the #First round poll has 10 "votes" for new names and 15 for the current name. No consensus for moving the article I'd say. Markussep 09:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Checco. The provincial government is recognized/answers to the regional and federal government of Italy. So that name is official, and is a proper English translation. That is the name we should go with, along with all the proper references to the naming in Italian, etc. Rarelibra 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand your argument: a site is not an official document and probably the province has no official name in English. --Checco 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway "Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol" is obviously a better name for this page than the current "South Tyrol". --Checco 12:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A site from an official government is official enough. As I pointed out, they have five various translations into German, Italian, English, Ladin, and French. Rarelibra 12:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you about the officiality of a government site (at least in Italy), but I underline the fact that it is better to give to this article a name containing "Province of Bolzano", which is undoubley the official name given to this province both in Italian and in German. --Checco 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect, Checco. The official name in German is Provinz Bozen - Südtirol. I don't see "Bolzano" anywhere in there. ;) Rarelibra 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Bozen" is the German translation for "Bolzano". --Checco 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And the translation they have into English is "Bozen-South Tyrol", legitimate in all cases. Rarelibra 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I can agree with about this, but why can't we agree in naming the page "Province of Bolzano", "Province of Bozen", "Province of Bolzano - Alto Adige/Südtirol", "Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol" or "Province of Bozen - Südtirol"? I agree with all these options. --Checco 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think we can reach a consensus if approached correctly. Even Gryffindor would agree upon naming it "Province of Bozen - Südtirol", but I ask why would it not be feasible to follow suit with the provincial government with "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol" (in English)? The biggest thing I see is this - "South Tyrol" is officially included (and recognized) as part of the name (translated from the inclusion of "Südtirol"), so it is important to include it and give justice to this article. Having a "South Tyrol (historical)" page could help with the history of the region of South Tyrol (as included in the whole of "Tirol" - North, South, and East). Rarelibra 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Rarelibra, I don't think you addressed my point yet that even though the website says Province of Bozen-South Tyrol, English translations of official government documents on the website show Province of Bolzano. I'd tend to give more weight to official documents than websites. Also, there is again the issue of common English usage. Google doesn't bring up this name you suggest, nor is it shown in core English references. What is the problem with Province of Bolzano-Bozen? Icsunonove 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the South Tyrol (historical) part too, though it is funny that at Province of Trento Gryffindor is attempting to throw in a quick poll to change it to Trentino; of course I'm sure for the best of intentions. :-) I'd like a Trentino page as well, but not as a replacement for the Province of Trento page. Same for this article. Icsunonove 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I can live with "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol" (but it would be slightly better "Province of Bozen - Sütirol"). --Checco 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Just to add a bit more fuel to this discussion:
- The official website of this province ([13]) uses the name "Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol". Please note that the website's address follows the general rule of all Italy's official websites of provinces: provincia.(acronym formerly used for license plates).it . As it is managed by an institution it can IMHO be considered as official source.
- The English version of the Statute ([14]) says "Province of Bolzano"
- Another document ([15]) is published on the English version of this website. It written by Professor Antony Alcock from the University of Ulster (probably an English mothe tongue) and is titled "The South Tyrol Autonomy". A paragraph at page 11 is dedicated to the province's name. Here is a quotation. I highlighted the most interesting parts in bold:

They did not obtain the break up of the Region and the elevation of the Province of Bozen/Bolzano into a Region in its own right. (...) after fifty years the name of their homeland could officially be called “South Tyrol”.

Which is the best source? I would personally trust the latter. It is not official, but is was written by an (apparently) English mother tongue academic. It is a reliable, real-life source, and not a translation. In this document "South Tyrol" is widely used to indicate this province, although the use is not consistent.
Please note that, in the same paper, the expression Trentino South-Tyrol and the combination Bozen/Bolzano are widely used.
Enjoy! --Adriano 09:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your sources. I definitely support the "Province of XXXXX" solution. --Checco 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As well as I. You have to see what Gryffindor is attempting to force through on Province of Trento though. It is really funny actually -- and telling. Icsunonove 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Stick to the topic of discussion on this talk page! :) Rarelibra 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok, I just wanted to point it out. As we are here trying to discuss things that are along similar lines, another discussion was blanked and a move request put in. :-) I think the discussions have to be joined to some extent, because both of these provinces overlay areas. I think the best way may be to do what they appear to do on IT wikipedia. Have a Province of X page and also an area page and have them interlink. Icsunonove 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Good argument. --Checco 21:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The official name is totally unimportant in Wikipedia. Just look at the articles on Italy, Germany, Austria and so on. If the official name was so important, the should be named Italian Republic, Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of Austria, but they are not. The name that is chosen, is the most common one for historic, geographic and political reasons. E.g. Austria has never been just Austria. And the same goes for almost every other state or county or province in the world. There's usually some official affix indicating the governmental form etc. But obviously it doesn't matter in Wikipedia. Accept it. --Kl4Uz 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"The name that is chosen, is the most common one for historic, geographic and political reasons." is completely your point of view. Most common English references show this as an Italian province named Bolzano or Bolzano-Bozen.
Historically and geographically the name South Tyrol could be regarded as the most common one, the political side is more complex... I also think a difference should be made between "common usage" and usage in "common references", the two things are not identical. A Google-search for South Tyrol returns 1.680.000 hits, one for "province of Bolzano" a mere 68.700, so as far as common usage goes, I think South Tyrol can be regarded as the most frequent name. This probably is due to the fact that the region is known because of its tourism industry, which generally prefers "South Tyrol" to the unattractive "province of Bolzano". Pcassitti 21:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my first hint to you: you can not compare "South Tyrol" to "Province of Bolzano" in a search. You would have to compare either "South Tyrol" vs. "Bolzano" (which then you might of course get references to the city, province or even someone's surname), or you would have to compare "Province of South Tyrol" vs. "Province of Bolzano". Since the latter is less prone to error, lets see what we get: Province of ST: 755; Province of BZ: 65,800 -- two orders of magnitude. Now, if you can provide a reference like Brittanica that lists South Tyrol as a province of Italy instead of Bolzano-Bozen, please do! Lastly, your comment about "unattractive province of Bolzano" is completely your point of view. Also, aside from the name of the province, in English the province is also very commonly referred to as Alto Adige. In the US this has a lot to do with wine and cuisine that we get that says from Alto Adige. I've only once seen an item in the US that says South Tyrol | BZ | Italy. That said, I think it makes perfect sense to somehow have a Alto Adige/South Tyrol (yes, with both names) page, but there should be a Province of XXXXX page as well. Icsunonove 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I can only agree with Icsunonove. --Checco 07:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"in English the province is also very commonly referred to as Alto Adige. In the US this has a lot to do with wine and cuisine that we get that says from Alto Adige. I've only once seen an item in the US that says South Tyrol | BZ | Italy."
This is the most intelligent thing I have read here. I think it should be really confusing for an English speaker to come here and see South Tyrol when he knows this province as Alto Adige and Bolzano.--Supparluca 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, Pcassitti's assertion that the name "Province of Bolzano"is unattractive has to be regarded tourismwise. It is true that the combination "Province of xxx" can be misleading to tourists and, thus, it rarely used to advertise an area touristically.
For the same reason the "Province of Trento" is advertised as Trentino, the "Province of Aosta" as Valle D'Aosta and the "Province of Sondrio" as Valtellina. Roughly the same difference as between trade name an company name.
Of course the correct name for these provinces is not necessarily the name used to advertise them... --Adriano 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That is correct, I meant the touristic attractiveness of the name. And since it is through tourism that most english speakers will come to know the area, it seems reasonable (and I admit this is an assumption on my part) that "South Tyrol" would be a fairly common and relatively well-known name, as compared to "province of Bolzano". In my opinion the purpose of the title is to help people find what they want easily, and the official names are not always helpful. For the same reason I don't see why the article about the province of Trento shouldn't be named "Trentino", or the one about province of Aosta "Valle d' Aosta", if, of course, those names are indeed the most commonly known and used ones. The official name is included in the article anyway. Pcassitti 06:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not confuse regions with provinces... anyway do we need to move Province of Sondrio to Valtellina, Province of Treviso to Marca, Province of Rovigo to Polesine and so on? As you can see, both "Valtellina" and "Polesine" have their own articles, reason why I would prefer two separate articles: one named "Province of Bolzano" and another one "South Tyrol". --Checco 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The area of Polesine is not exactly the same as that of the province of Rovigo according to the it: article. Valtellina may be a better example, although I don't think that Chiavenna and surroundings (northwestern part of the province of Sondrio) are generally regarded as part of Valtellina. AFAIK South Tyrol and the province of Bolzano are completely congruent/interchangeable, which makes it less desirable to create two articles. Markussep 13:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
To help people find things easily, as Pcassitti says, there are re-directs.
Markussep, it is true that geographically Valchiavenna is not part of Valtellina, but turistically it is! Have a look at Valchiavenna's touristic website, [16] where you can find Valtellina's logo, on the right.
And Valtellina's official website [17] covers Valchiavenna too. But no-one would ever dream rename Province of Sondrio's article with Valtellina... --Adriano 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The site you linked is Valtellina's touristic website, not its official one. The official one is [18], which refers to the area in question as provincia di Sondrio. Whereas in the official homepage of South Tyrol the official term used is "Provincia di Bolzano - Alto Adige". The name Alto Adige-Südtirol is officially used by the provincial administration and, when referring to the region Trentino-Alto Adige-Südtirol, also by the Italian state. Pcassitti 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't confuse the region with the province. In the constiutution the province is named as Autonomous Province of Bolzano, while the region is called Trentino-Alto Adige (first)-Südtirol (second!). --Checco 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The region is named after its two parts: 1. Trentino = Province of Trento, 2. Alto Adige/Südtirol = Province of Bolzano. Südtirol is not the region, it is a synonym for the province. The german name of the region is Trentino-Südtirol.  Andreas  (T) 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed... this is the correct explanation. --Checco 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed the opening paragraph accordingly, and someone should move this page to Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Alto Adige/Sudtirol is an acceptable name too, but using only South Tyrol is political and crude.
Isn't it a political statement to call the use of "South Tyrol" political and crude? That is how this area is known in English. Markussep Talk 09:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrongly known, indeed. In Italy many people use the term England to speak of the whole Britain, but this doesn't mean that this is correct. --Checco 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You are a native speaker of English Markussep? An English speaker speaking for everyone else? Or not a native English speaker at all? :) My first tongue and that of the country I live is definitely English and I've rarely, if ever, heard this usage "South Tyrol", but that is speaking just for myself. Indeed most often I see the usage Alto Adige in the English-speaking World (Wines from Alto Adige, Cooking from Alto Adige, Visit Alto Adige, etc.). The push to primarily define this area as only Seudtirol/South Tyrol/Zuid-Tirol is politics, crude and simple. It is funny few can actually see this. Of course calling this page the Province of Bolzano or Bolzano/Bozen is logical and neutral. Adding a reference to the names Alto Adige and Seudtirol is also logical and neutral. Persisting on trying to name this region primarily Sxxxx Tirol across Wikipedia is just.. shameful. What else can be said really? Just reading the pro-South Tyrol rhetoric above in those votes should make a lot of Germans cringe. SHOULD is the word here.


Pcassitti, Yes, I have linked the touristic website and not the official one, as I said that Valchiavenna touristically belongs to Valtellina. That was my point. --Adriano 10:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is trying to erase who?

Marling (Marlengo) train station renovation [19]. Italian removed, only German kept. So much for bilingual, eh? Note the names of the town used centuries ago were, Marnea, Marniga, Merniga, Marlinga, Marninga. Both Marling and Marlengo are valid names for the town. It is unfortunate if you look at the history of many of the names in BZ, it was the German colonists pushing out the original Roman/Latin/Italian names. So I hope all you self-righteous people can get it through your heads that it isn't a one way street, and if you look at current pushing of Germans on here and German speakers in BZ, it is quite disgusting to say the very least. Emes and Fantasy have said before many times to not let the Italians erase the German names. That is denying the true facts as seen clearly in that picture above. Go pretend that one away..

[edit] "Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol"

According to the "autonomy statute" featured on the official website of the province, the English name of the province is Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol. They made this compromise for everyone's convenience, and if there ever is another proposal to move the article to another name, this is the only plausible alternative I see. The name "Alto Adige/Südtirol" appears to be used only in conjunction with the region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. —AldeBaer (c) 03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so clear: [20] Official translation of the constitution. Britannica shows Bolzano-Bozen [21]; as well is it has already been determined that Bolzano is the most common usage in English. Welcome to the fun. :-)
Ok, in that document they exclusively use South Tyrol as sufficient short hand for the official name. I just thought I'd note the official compromise here for future reference. On the official site of the PROVINCIAL STATISTICS INSTITUTE, they use the term "Province of South Tyrol". But I agree that "Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol" sounds more correct. Now all we need is an official source for that, shouldn't be hard to find... :D —AldeBaer (c) 04:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The autonomy statute PDF appears to use the terms "Province of Trento" and "Province of Bolzano" in a administration-oriented fashion. I believe the widespread term South Tyrol, or maybe "Autonomous Province of Bozen (or Bolzano) - South Tyrol" will serve us good for the time being. At any rate, "Bozen/Bolzano" alone will only confuse readers. And if anyone is interested to learn more about the province, its governance etc, they will come to this article and everything regarding the names should be mentioned here, neutral and well-referenced, as usual. —AldeBaer (c) 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just gone through and added some references; it is unclear what is the widespread term in English. Alto Adige is often used in the US, I do not know about the UK. There are many English versions that have been found: one way could be Autonomous Province of Bolzano (or Bozen) -- Alto Adige/South Tyrol (or Südtirol) -- ad nauseum. hehe Icsunonove 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the naming conventions, we aren't interested in official names, and the funny "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol" name isn't official by the way.--Supparluca 07:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the best title for this article is "Province of Bolzano", in order to conform this article with all the articles about Italian Provinces, which all have a title in the "Province of XXXXX" format. --Checco 10:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not meant to be funny, it's simply a compromise they chose. What then, in your opinion is the widely accepted English name? Province of Bolzano? Bolzano province? Alto Adige? And what is so wrong with "South Tyrol"?
For the Google fetishists, bolzano province -wiki produces 175,000 English pages, whereas "south tyrol" -wiki produces 431,000 English pages.
Here are the Google news searches for bolzano province, for "south tyrol" -"alto adige", and for Alto Adige -sudtirol -südtirol -trentino -"south tyrol". I wouldn't read too much into that, but so far as Google can serve as a measure for general usage, I'd try that searches. —AldeBaer (c) 11:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added some more of the references and cleaned up the two intro paragraphs. I think I'm going to carry on this format over at the province of Trento page since it is the other side of trentino-alto adige. Icsunonove 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The official name from the provincial website (which IS official) - translated to English - is "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol". They have 5 official translations on that page - I think that is best used. Rarelibra 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, no: [22].--Supparluca 07:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Supparluca. Also the "translations" given are not even correct in most instances, where the French definitely use Haut Adige, not Tyrol du Sud, and certainly the French and English do not use Bozen, but instead Bolzano. If it were correct it would be English: Bolzano-Alto Adige; French: Bolzano-Haut Adige. Also the truly official name has no Alto Adige, South Tyrol, etc. appended. Get your head out of that biased and sad excuse for a provincial website and use English-based references, not politically motivated translations from the Südtiroler Volkspartei. This one-man insistence for this Bozen-South Tyrol is getting old. It has zero consensus and zero usage in English. This is Wikipedia not Rarelibrapedia.

[edit] Why bother?

It's just funny to see that this discussion comes out every now and then, just like a recurrent disease... :-) No offence intended, of course!

Seriously speaking, I do not know -and I still cannot understand- why a name is so important, and I would like that all of you explain this point -to me and to yourself. As long as we use one of the names (in this case South Tyrol. I'd rather use the Province of XXXX version, but there are redirects and so I don't care) and as long as there are proper redirects from the other options, why bother? A brief explanation on the first line, saying that "South Tyrol, also known as Province of Bolzano etc." would serve to the point, wouldn't it? Does it really make sense to spend time and energy on a trivial issue, such as what should be the main article and what should be a redirect?

OK, then someone would say, "But the right version is...", citing proofs supporting their idea, etc. as happened several times in Wikipedia. Fine, but let's be practical. We could underline the different opinions in a paragraph inside the article, something like "there is non consensus on the name of this province in English. South Tyrol seems to be more widely used, although the official name seems to be Province of Bolzano/Bozen, following the general rule for Italian provinces etc." Then, if it really is the case (but I don't think so), search terms could be monitored in order to see after some time which version is the most widely used by English speaking people using Wikipedia.

Once more, I do not intend to offend anyone. All opinions are worth to be respected; but why don't we simply use what I call common sense and solve this -and other- disputes in a time-saving, stress-saving matter, being then free to concentrate on contents?

Adriano, you forgot to sign. :-) I think the point is that it isn't the case that South Tyrol is more widely used. I usually see Alto Adige used in an English context when referring to the region, and Bolzano for the province. Using South Tyrol has the location of this page will forever cement one particular point of view. I believe something like Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Alto Adige/South Tyrol, or Alto Adige/Südtirol is more fair. Note that if there had been a basic compromise before with something like Province of Bolzano-Bozen which comes straight of Encyclopedia Brittanica, reflects modern reality, and is also a shared Italian-German name (as used in the region), this debate would of ended a long time ago. Icsunonove 01:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Oups, right, forgot to sign... :-) Thanks for the message, Icsunove!

My point is not on what is -or is not- fair. My proposal is just to use whichever reasonable (eg. Burkina Faso wouldn't suit this article!! :-) ) name as main entry, acknowledging other versions and use redirects. IMO nothing will cement, as things change and one name could disappear either officially or through usage. We are not changing the world - we are just recording it...

It's just a practical way to solve the issue, without addressing the matter of the right name - a process which lasts forever (see endless discussions here and in other articles).

Once again, no offence intended

BTW, Icsunove, you didn't answer to the question: why is a name so important? (eager to read your -and everybody's- opinion) Regards. --Adriano 01:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll fancy a guess to why the name South Tyrol is so important to some. It is a matter of stating the land is, and is only, Südtirol/South Tyrol/Austrian Tirol. I remember people saying, "why do you all want to get rid of the name Südtirol?". But the case really is: why are these very same people the ones who are apparently trying to remove the name Alto Adige from Wikipedia? Remember when it was only Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol and basically all references to Alto Adige replaced with links to South Tyrol? You can see many pages where the same users have listed South Tyrol almost as its own Republic, along with Austria, Luxembourg, etc. There is a political agenda there. My opinion is this sort of push is just really sad. It is just ironic that you have users who say that Italians are trying to erase the Germans from BZ, but the truth is that it is the other way around and has been for a long time. Bottom line, the game has gotten old. Using the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, or my preference of Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen reflects reality. It reflects what you find in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It follows along the lines of how every Province of xxxx in Italy is named (after the major town). It also gets away from the debate of what is used more in English: Alto Adige or South Tyrol (where the former actually is..hah! :). You said it best, we are merely recording, and recording based on reality and proper English-based references. I can't be the only one that has smelled something pretty fishy with the whole South Tyrol/Südtirol/Zuid-Tirol/Tyrol du Sud everywhere on Wikipedia, and the deletion of any name that is equivalent to Alto Adige/High Adige.. and even the Province of BZ. It is surreal really... and I really pity people who must do such a thing to validate themselves, or whatever. So, there ya go. :-) Icsunonove 01:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I do think that "Province of Bolzano" is simly more precise, goes well both with those supporting "South Tyrol" and those supporting "Alto Adige", and is coherent with the titles of all the other 109 Provinces of Italy. --Checco 07:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
What about Aosta Valley / it:Valle d'Aosta? —AldeBaer (c) 12:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Aosta Valley isn't one of the 109 provinces of Italy--Supparluca 12:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Aosta Valley is both a Province and a Region, but actually a Region composed of only one Province. Anyway Aosta Valley has a regional government but not a provincial one, so it is more a Region than a Province. --Checco 12:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? On my encyclopedia it is explicitly written that Aosta Valley isn't a province, and if you count it as a province, you obtain 110 provinces instead of 109.--Supparluca 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed they're 110, but as the Province of Aosta has no provincial administration and it is in fact the same thing of the Aosta Valley Region, we should consider it primarily as a Region. --Checco 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I was asking because it appears in Provinces_of_Italy. —AldeBaer (c) 14:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Because as Province of Aosta = Aosta Valley Region, we have one article about it. Aosta Valley is both a region and a province. --Checco 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Icsunove says there is a political agenda behind this name-war... Would a change in the name of an article on a free encyclopaedia be so decisive for people who
- feel they live under the control of a foreign country, or
- want to become independent from the country they truly belong to (have your choice! :-) )?
I do not think so... so why is a name so important? And why bother?
As of the Province of Aosta, it seems from this document from the Italian Parliament that it ceased to exist in 1945 ([23]). So any reference to the province of Aosta or of Valle d'Aosta seems to be wrong. --Adriano 15:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation requested by 32X

All the articles about the provinces of Italy are named "Province of [English name of the capital city]", so the title of this article should be "Province of Bolzano", otherwise it's POV, also considering that "South Tyrol" isn't the name usually used by reliable sources.--Supparluca 09:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In order of rank, common English usage is 1) Alto Adige, 2) South Tyrol, and 3) Province of Bolzano and/or Province of Bolzano-Bozen. However, it is difficult to really measure 3 because of the "Province of" part. People may be using only the word Bolzano to refer to the province or the city of Bolzano. People have claimed that South Tyrol is "English" but that Alto Adige is not English, but Italian. This is simply not the case, just as Los Angeles and San Francisco are technically Spanish, but they are also certainly the English name for these cities (we do not use The Angels or Saint Francis). Anyway, viable options for this page would be Alto Adige, Alto Adige/Südtirol, Alto Adige/South Tyrol, Province of Bolzano, Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Only listing South Tyrol, when it is only one of the valid English names, and not even the most common, is just wrong. My recommendation is still to use Province of Bolzano-Bozen, as cited through Encyclopedia Brittanica on the main page, so that we then match all the other 109 provinces of Italy. Icsunonove 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not either factor out the section on the government of the Province to be Province of Bolzano, or put the categories on the redirect? Either will work fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is not a bad idea, and this has been brought up before (Ian just mentioned it too :). We could finally do this split and have Trentino and Alto Adige/Südtirol focus more on history (as they are historical terms really). Then have the Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano-Bozen pages. This is what they do on Italian Wikipedia to some extend, and I've seen it on other Wikipedias as well. The thing though, if we do this split, the historical page for AA/ST can not just be South Tyrol anymore. It really has to be either the most common English term, Alto Adige, both English names Alto Adige/South Tyrol, or what we've done for T-AA/ST: Alto Adige/Südtirol. I prefer the last one because then we have pages for Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Trentino, Alto Adige/Südtirol, Province of Trento (TN), and Province of Bolzano-Bozen (BZ). Everything fits very nicely then and there is no term missing as well. :-) Icsunonove 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that Alto Adige is most common, especially in historical terms; and I object, as always, to double names. But please do make the article about the government of the Province. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I also oppose the use of double names.--Supparluca 12:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is a matter of debate, definitely. In the US I see Alto Adige used much more often. In fact, the only time I've ever seen the words South Tyrol used were on a bag of Loacker Quadratini. :-) Also, if I do an English-only Google search, taking out Wikipedia, I usually get a factor of 2-4x more Alto Adige hits than South Tyrol. The bottom line is both of these historical names are of relatively recent use as far as describing a territory; we should be able to at least be able to agree that they are both frequency used in English. Anyway, I know you don't like the double names, but we did it for T-AA/ST, lets just do it once more..hah. Icsunonove 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[Edit conflict: I hadn’t read the last three comments] I’d support the factoring-out approach. Administratively Italy is divided up very precisely into regions, provinces and communes and we need an article on each. But these aren’t always the best way to treat matters of history, geography or cultural affinity. The quattro province straddle also four regions. The territory of the contemporary Province of Alessandria is historically less of a coherent unit than a site of contest between the Empire and the Lombard League. The Province of Milan article is not the Duchy of Milan article. What we mean by Liguria or Calabria depends on which period of history we are talking about. Indeed the same applies to Italy itself—now, where was Garibaldi born?! —Ian Spackman 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely agree. So if we make historical Trentino and AA/ST pages. What is the preferred name? Lets see: Alto Adige/Südtirol or Alto Adige/South Tyrol? :) Icsunonove 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
On putting the category on the redirect. This is very ugly, actually. Certainly you could get a link called Province of Bolzano from the category Category:Provinces of Italy by putting it on the redirect page. But the category wouldn’t show up on the main page (South Tyrol, for the sake of argument). Bad. So you would have to categorise South Tyrol also as a province of Italy. And both would turn up in the category. Very confusing to our readers. (There is an example of this at the river Soča / Isonzo and its double existence in Category:Rivers of Italy.) —Ian Spackman 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I too endorse outfactoring of the governmental aspects. Also, I don't believe Alto Adige / ST counts as a double name, because it is officially being used (New York/Big Apple would be an example of a double name, or Germany/Deutschland, as those would be double names entirely of our own making). Why would we override the term when it was installed from the official side as a viable compromise? For that matter, I'd rather have Alto Adige/Südtirol than AA/South Tyrol, as South Tyrol seems to be less used in the English speaking world and simply because of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. It seems like a good compromise to refer to the (geographical) region. Btw: If I understand this correctly, the idea is to make a seperate article on the political entity "Province of Bolzano-Bozen", right? —AldeBaer (c) 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "Province of Trento" - "Trentino" and "Province of Bolzano" - "Alto Adige" (formerly "South Tyrol") are exaclty the same things, so what could you write in one article that you don't write in the other? Also, neither the Italian nor the German wikipedias have separate articles for this two provinces, what wikipedias were you referring to?--Supparluca 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really not that important how other projects present the subject. Wrt to splitting the article (which I endorse), wouldn't you agree that the Italian province and the historical geographical region can arguably be treated as two different subjects? We could of course keep it the way it is, but our primary goal is to get over with this time-consuming debate and build consensus. Your idea of keeping the article as one and renaming it to "Province of Bolzano" has (i) apparently no consensus, and (ii) would, in my opinion, not eliminate what you call POV but instead simply turn it 180 degrees. —AldeBaer (c) 12:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the two articles would have the same content with different names, but it's just my opinion. What is not an opinion is that the name "Province of Bolzano" isn't POV, because it reflects the reality and is English.--Supparluca 12:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
One article is for the political entity, the other for the geographical region. "Province of Bolzano" is not the commonly used English name, both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are far more common. —AldeBaer (c) 12:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC) -- And no, it does not reflect reality, it merely is the English name of a political entity, and it would be the perfect title for an article on that political entity, but here it appears to not have consensus for a variety of reasons.
I mean, "Province of Bolzano" reflects the reality because it is an Italian province; "South Tyrol" doesn't because it is not part of the Austrian state of Tyrol.--Supparluca 08:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
South Tyrol is not a historical region. South Tyrol as we know it today is a result of the partition of the Austrian state of Tyrol (Kronland Tirol) in 1919. There was no "South Tyrol" before that event, the German word "Südtirol" was colloquially referring to the southernmost part of Tyrol, south of Bozen. Therefore, South Tyrol, Alto Adige and the Province of Bolzano are synonyms, denoting exactly the same territory and political entity. To have two articles would be content forking that is not permitted in Wikipedia.  Andreas  (T) 21:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andreas. A couple questions for you. You mentioned "the German word "Südtirol" was colloquially referring to the southernmost part of Tyrol". Wasn't the southernmost part of Tyrol: Trentino (i.e. Welschtirol)? I don't know for sure, but it makes more sense to me that the colloquial term of Südtirol would of come out after the partition of the County of Tyrol in the early 1900s. The use of Alto Adige to refer to a territory, in an official sense, dates back to the early 1800s (during a brief control under France), right? Of course it is difficult to ascertain how far back its use goes colloquially. Anyway, I don't think we are saying Alto Adige and South Tyrol are historical regions, but saying they are historical terms for this territory (like Trentino is a historical name for the Province of Trento). In that sense, having a Trentino page and a Alto Adige/Südtirol that spend some time on history, while a Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano-Bozen page that concentrate on the modern provinces, tourism, economics, etc.. makes some sense. If you are really convinced this is still content forking (because of all these terms certainly still being used today) then we'd have to just have Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, because these are the actual names of these two modern-day provinces. ps. where we have some real content forking seems to be at History of South Tyrol. :) Icsunonove 23:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point wrt History of South Tyrol! As far as I'm concerned, it's a killer argument for having two articles as there's much useful material in that page. Why not simply rename that article to AA/ST and merge info not related to governance (particularly the material on historical and geographical aspects) into that page; then we could peacefully set up and move the ST article as an article on the political entity Province of Bozen-Bolzano (or "Province of Bolzano", in case people think that's the better name). What's funny is that right now different people are opposing the (already existing) split over diametrically opposed reasons... —AldeBaer (c) 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Not to mention this page is currently so bogged down with "history", it gives the readers almost no impression of the wonderful area TN and BZ really are! Icsunonove 00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
To bring up the only categorical alternative I see, I'd like to know if those who expressed their opposition wrt a split would, following the same logic, argue merging History of South Tyrol into this article? —AldeBaer (c) 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. By the way, maybe it's too strong to say that I oppose the proposed splitting; I just don't like the idea and I think that it would be difficult to create two articles that will not be proposed for merging.--Supparluca 08:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I used the word "oppose" for greater clarity only. You realise of course that if that's your opinion, you would logically have to nominate History of South Tyrol to be merged into this article? I'm asking because I believe that it's the basic question that needs consensus: Whether we keep the two existing articles and maybe re-organise them, or whether we want to merge. As I said above, I'd prefer Icsunove's proposal, but I'd like to know whether it has conensus. Since two articles already exist, it's the call of the people "opposed" to a two-article-solution to propose a merge. —AldeBaer (c) 09:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History content fork

The "History" article is indeed a content fork. It would not be a content fork if the main article (under whatever name) contained only a backbone of history and a reference {{main|History of ...}}. This is done for other geographical atricles, too. So either merge the history article, or radically reduce the Histroy section of the main article.  Andreas  (T) 13:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the question, yes. Which solution would you prefer? Would you propose the merge or could you agree to Icsunove's two-article-solution? —AldeBaer (c) 14:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The History section is long enough that it merits an own article. But then, the History section of the main article should be merged into the History article. And the History article should have a title that conforms with that of the main article.  Andreas  (T) 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I merged the History section into the History article. Needs some proofreading.  Andreas  (T) 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Good deal, I'm on it. —AldeBaer (c) 08:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
We can do something similar on the Province of Trento page (i.e., a History of Trentino). This really helped clean up the BZ page a lot! Icsunonove 23:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious need for split

There is an obvious need for splitting the articles into two - one for the Province, one for the historical region. Who is going to do it? I don't mind taking the lead in this muck, if it will please most. They did it for a district in Turkey that the people kept warring over, and it works. I know they can do it with this one as well. The only thing is this - there are some still pushing POV. POV is one thing, official naming is another. The provincial website translates the name into English as "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol". That is how it should be. The links to the other wikis will have the various names in other languages (like "Bolzano" in Italian). That is how it should be. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, for God's sake - for people to LEARN, not to go around and continually push to change names back and forth. If you want to spend your time that way, than do so - but realize it's a waste of talent. I, for one, will continue to trudge and map where no maps have gone before. Happy editing. Rarelibra 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, no: [24].--Supparluca 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ehm, yes: Official site of the Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol (taken from the provincial website). Good day. Rarelibra 15:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually Rarelibra, you are pushing quite a bit for a name that basically no other editor agrees with. :-) Look, even at http://www.provincia.bz.it/english/default.htm it says at the bottom of the page in clear English: "Description of the autonomous legislative and administrative powers of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen.". Supparluca pointed out the official translation of the autonomy laws says Province of Bolzano, again in clear English. You have gotten yourself locked onto only what is on that splash page, which has many errors. As the Anon editor mentioned above, the translations given on this website on the splash page are almost all incorrect. The French don't use the Germanic word Bozen, and they definitely use the term Haut Adige to describe this region. This is a strong example of it being necessary to go by what is English-usage (i.e., my English-based reference from EB). We have actually already split the page if you hadn't noticed, and that is what was discussed above. One page for Province of Bolzano (or Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Province of Bolzano/Bozen, whatever).. and we split of the History of AA/ST page just a few weeks ago. Icsunonove 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Call me "basically no other" then. The webpage you cite says South Tyrol about ten times, only once Bolzano, and at the very bottom - "Official site of the Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol -- © 1995-2005 Südtiroler Informatik AG". The autonomy statute talks about Provinces of Trento and Bolzano as the Italian name, introduced and confirmed by the Fascists, is still the only legal one. Double naming is only make-up for the public, sadly, to be shown on signs and webpages. As there was no Entnazifizierung, Fascism is still alive in Italy. It should not be allowed to creep into English Wikipedia. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
"The Italian name is the only legal one". This is interesting, because all this discussion (double names, names of the speaking majority, ...) started because there wasn't a clear preference for the names of many places in this province, and that both the Italian and German names were equally official, so you couldn't apply the "use the current local name" convention. But if what you say is correct, then there's really "nothing left to discuss": just apply the naming conventions and use the Italian (English) names.--Supparluca 08:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Matthead, if you really want to have a discussion about this, feel free to drop by my talk page. Regarding your last couple statements... absolute nonsense. It is completely opposite of what has happened on English Wikipedia. Icsunonove 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Split

As discussed previously, the idea we came up with was to split the page into a provincial article and historical article. AndreasJS and AldeBaer helped move the historical section over to History of AA/ST. What is left in the current article focuses on the modern province of BZ. So the idea is to pick the name to locate the page at now. The choices that have been floated most often are (and I'll include my pal Rarelibra's as well) :) Icsunonove 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bolzano

(+2 + -2 = 0 pts)
Probably most common usage in English and used in the official translation of the autonomy statute from the provincial website

  • weak support Icsunonove 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • strong oppose It's obvious that the name includes both "Bozen" and "South Tyrol" in common English usages. Rarelibra 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support definitely. If we have Bolzano for the city, there's no doubt about the name of the province. Also, double names were clearly rejected here for example.--Supparluca 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose What I proposed was moving the government article to this name, as I have now done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bolzano-Bozen

(+1 + -2 = -1 pts)
Used in English-based references like Encyclopedia Brittanica

  • support because it is referenced in a popular English-based work such as EB and is multilingual, which keeps that nationalism at bay. :-) Icsunonove 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose it needs to include the "South Tyrol" name. Rarelibra 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose double names, which fail to keep nationalism at bay; see the WP:LAME entry on this conflict.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    It is from Encyclopedia Brittanica and the Provincial website.. can you LAME them please. :P Icsunonove 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    The Britannica doesn't have editors who want to move this to Bozen-Bolzano and back; fortunate lucky people that they are.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, and that is why we should of been using references like Britannica from the beginning and not pander to the nationalism in the first place. That is why I support Bolzano-Bozen the most, because you open up EB and there it is.. full stop, end of story. All these crazy methods like majority mother-language and rivers, etc. has actually been a phenomenal waste of time -- all with the purpose of having English Wikipedia mirror German Wikipedia. That game has got to end. Icsunonove 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bolzano/Bozen

(+1 + -2 = -1 pts)
Basically similar to the previous name, but is used on the main English page of the provincial website

[edit] Province of Bozen-South Tyrol

(+1 + -3 = -2 pts)
Used on the splash page of the provincial website, though shows almost no English usage using Google, etc. Looking at other discussions, it is doubtful that appending the regional name is actually official

  • oppose Essentially no English usage, and dubious if appending AA or ST is indeed constitutionally officlal. Icsunonove 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • strong support English usage as per the official provincial website. Rarelibra 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose but it would be funny.--Supparluca 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose: it's either Province of Bozen or South Tyrol, not both.  Andreas  (T) 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bolzano/Bozen-Alto Adige/South Tyrol

(+0 + -3 = -3 pts)
Just for grins...

  • neutral Icsunonove 17:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • strong oppose this is just nonsense for a name. Rarelibra 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose The title should be short, that's why we have disanbig pages.  Andreas  (T) 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Who can be neutral to this atrocity? Strongly oppose.ROTFLMAO. This is the absurdum, the others the reductio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    well, at least you got the joke.. i think. :> Icsunonove 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Rarelibra, check this out. Google English search of "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol -wiki" [25]. All of 111 hits! Come on now... :)) Also, you find your Province of Bozen-South Tyrol here [26], but on the same page it shows Province of Bolzano/Bozen [27] and in the Autonomy Statute shows Province of Bolzano [28]. You are picking from a page that has already at least THREE versions. :P I don't see how you can oppose something which is listed in Encyclopedia Brittanica. We are above all supposed to use English-based citations. Icsunonove 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • just because we love Google searches, especially Septentrionalis, just a quick run down from Google with an English Pages search. I know this isn't a perfect methodology, but I think in this case it really shows quite an order of magnitude difference in usage. Icsunonove 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Province of Bolzano": 47,000 pages [29]
"Province of Bolzano-Bozen": 20,600 pages [30]
"Province of Bozen": 2,330 pages [31]
"Province of Alto Adige": 915 pages [32]
"Province of South Tyrol": 532 pages [33]
"Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige": 148 pages [34]
"Province of Bozen-South Tyrol": 110 pages [35]
"Bolzano Province": 13,700 pages [36]
"South Tyrol Province": 672 pages [37]
"Alto Adige Province": 421 pages [38]
"Bozen Province": 301 pages [39]
"Bolzano-Bozen Province": 104 pages [40]
"Bolzano-Alto Adige Province": 1 page [41]
"Bozen-South Tyrol Province: 0 pages [42]
I trust this is irony. I strongly object to raw google, as should be well known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm joking with you to some extent. But on the other hand, when you have an order of magnitude of 100, 1000, you are probably pretty safe with "raw google". Icsunonove 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait

We were going to have Province of Bolzano and History of South Tyrol, but obviously without a South Tyrol article! It doesn't make any sense to have two names for the same article, South Tyrol should be redirected to Province of Bolzano or History of South Tyrol, or even Tyrol or Austria.--Supparluca 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the region; Province of Bolzano is the provincial government, duly catted into Category:Provinces of Italy; and History of South Tyrol is the history. Three subjects, three articles. We can merge some of the history back, if you like; it's unbalanced towards the twentieth century as it stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Three articles now? *shock* Then we also need three for Trentino, and should we start multiplying the other provinces? :P At this rate we will have Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Alto Adige/South Tyrol (because both are valid English terms), and History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Then Province of Trento, Trentino, and History of Trentino?? The idea we had above was a Province of TN and Province of BZ page and then a History of TN and History of AA/ST page going over the history of the regions. The content in this page now is perfectly valid for the Province of Bolzano..... Icsunonove 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You have an article, under the name you wanted, in the cat you want. And you revert it. Ingratitude, thy name is... :-<. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
But it's a bit like having an article named Merano and another named Meran, it isn't a real solution. This area was South Tyrol in the past, now it's an Italian province, we could have South Tyrol (historical) instead of History of South Tyrol, or something like that.--Supparluca 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • lol, you have my gratitude Septentrionalis, but we can't go around moving stuff during a discussion. plus.. three pages...... Icsunonove 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"it's unbalanced towards the twentieth century": there was no South Tyrol or Province of Bolzano before 1919. What was before is found at Tyrol. The history of South Tyrol is identical to that of the Province of Bolzano or that of Alto Adige or of Tiroler Etschland. (For comparison: the History of the German Democratic Republic starts in 1945 and ends in 1990.)  Andreas  (T) 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I think we had a nice idea with the History of XX pages. The current Province of TN and BZ pages look actually organized now with respect to the modern day provinces. The history pages can go to the pre-20th century and the province pages can discuss the government, economy, tourism, etc., etc. Icsunonove 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Then, where is the History of East Germany? Andreas  (T) 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

this was a Wikipedia:content fork and against WP guidelines. Don't try to solve political controversies in this manner, the naming dispute is real. See also: Talk:Republic of Macedonia#FYROM.  Andreas  (T) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that Province of BZ, South Tyrol, Alto Adige are just different names for the same thing, a political entity that did not exist before 1919. The controversy about the name (and the reason why the name of this entity has changed during its history) is political and originates in an ethnic conflict. Each of these names has an ethnic connotation and is therefore rejected by a part of the inhabitants. We at Wikipedia cannot change this. As so many other of these conflicts, the dispute can go on forever. (Another example: the existence or non-existence of a Moldovan language, the discussion fills 12 archives). The reason why I supported a separate history article has nothing to do with the name, and it does not solve the name controversy (History of what?).  Andreas  (T) 22:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No they're not the same thing. The South Tyrol did not come into existence in 1919; the 1911 Britannica had an article on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. What did the article say?  Andreas  (T) 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) WHy can't I find it here? Maybe you have a better source.  Andreas  (T) 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Icsunonove 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I get for typing from memory; but these 600 hits from before 1900 may console you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to look at these right now, but just off hand I feel a bit strange that there is a book on the first page from 1809 with a preview that says "South Tyrol and the Provinces of Trent and Belluno were occupied by the Germans, who were already in Rome, whither they had been summoned by Italy as her". I'm so confused. Anyway, when the area was part of the empire, and part of the the County of Tyrol, it really would make more sense that South Tyrol was just referring to the southern portion of Tyrol. (i.e. the area surrounding Trento and Bolzano/Bozen). Afterall, the County of Tyrol spread all the way down to the northern portion of Lake Garda. Was that Southerer-Tyrol? Icsunonove 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Southern Tyrol": 626 hits[43]
  • "West Tyrol": 50 hits[44]
  • "East Germany": 632 hits[45]
  • "computer": 21,292 hits[46]
    • Yes, there are some false positives, although a complaint about false positives from someone who uses raw google is a little -er- odd. But if you actually read the results, ignoring magazines, you will find many books, such as A Text-book of Geology by Archibald Geikie (1893, which use South Tyrol. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Oi! I don't mind using "raw" Google, when there is an order of magnitude of 102 :P Icsunonove 06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Google Books lists magazines according to the publication date of the first issue. Andreas  (T) 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And taking a few obvious precautions to cut out magazines (and some books) leaves us with these 300 hits; including, you will notice, the 1890 Britannica (article on Alps). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you read that article, it isn't really talking of South Tyrol in the same context that it has been used post WWII. Actually that EB article seems sort of like casual babbling. :-) Oh, kind of like our talk page. ^_^ Interesting stuff though, thanks. Icsunonove 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, if you use Southern Tyrol, you get as many hits. Before 1919, "South Tyrol" meant the same as "Southern Tyrol", i.e. the southern Part of Tyrol, it was not a term per se. See also Northern Ireland (did not exist before 1921, still 889 hits). South England (all times) gives over 700 hits. So "South Tyrol" (or "Northern Ireland" or "East Germany") as terms did not exist before partition. Therefore, the idea to have an article about the "historical region of South Tyrol" does not make sense. What is sensible, however, is an article about the history of the political entity that is called "South Tyrol" or "Province of BZ" or whatever.  Andreas  (T) 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two-article solution?

I’ve voted before on South Tyrol name changes but have no dog in this fight; I’m only here because articles I edit frequently get links to South Tyrol anonymously changed to various combinations of Province of Bolzano-Bozen-South Tyrol-Alto Adige.

I can say that an article split here is, to a degree, a content fork. However, both “Province of Bolzano-Bozen” (or whatever) and “South Tyrol” are legitimately the proper English titles for particular aspects of the topic. If done well, the content of each article can justify the existence of two or more articles. “Province of Bolzano-Bozen” can deal with the administrative elements and other mechanics of the current Italian province with header links to historical and ethnic content at “History of South Tyrol.”

Having a third aticle at “South Tyrol” might be excessive and, if created, should be limited in scope to elements not dealt with in “Province of Bolzano-Bozen.” Based on the current content of the two articles, a solution might be to move “History of South Tyrol” to “South Tyrol” since the ”Today” section is not strictly history anyway. The “South Tyrol” article could cover both the history and the current ethnic and independentist issues. Many articles without “history” in the title are largely historical in scope (e.g, Hertza region)

(Another possibility is maintaining articles for “Province of Bolzano-Bozen” and “History of South Tyrol” but creating a South Tyrol section at “Tyrol” and having South Tyrol redirect there.)

I generally agree with what you said, but this proposal in particular is practically the perfect solution! (without that double name as always)--Supparluca 07:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is precedence for these types of splits. For example, Hertza region and Hertsaivskyi Raion have two separate articles. A header at the top of the latter reads "This article is about the administrative district in Ukraine. For the territorial controversy, see Hertza region." Contemporary (but not historical) Republic of China and Taiwan are largely coincidental and yet retain two articles (and two history articles).

—  AjaxSmack  02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ajax, thanks for contributing. I basically agree with your opinions. The only thing I do want to point however though is when you are mentioning South Tyrol, Alto Adige should also be kept in mind as a commonly used term in English. Speaking of Taiwan, there is a subset of this political argument that is very similar to what goes on in Taiwan -- but that is another topic. :-) Icsunonove 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to ignore Alto Adige but "South Tyrol" connotes ethnic and independentist issues in a way that Alto Adige does not. Alto Adige in English (to me, anyway) is more of an administrative term (e.g. Trentino-Alto Adige). —  AjaxSmack  08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Alto Adige also connotes ethnic ("annexationist") issues. Don't shy away from the facts, none of the names are neutral, else we wouldn't have this controversy here. The administrative term is Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol' (s:Constitution of Italy#Art. 116, s:it:Italia, Repubblica - Costituzione#Art. 116.  Andreas  (T) 13:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
How could "annexationism" exist in this case? This province is part of Italy in the real world, it isn't the hope of some people. So "Alto Adige" is just a normal name, it can't mean anything else.--Supparluca 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You should ask some German-speaking South Tyrolers about this[47][48]. Justified or not (a matter of opinion), resentment against the name "Alto Adige" exists, as does resentment against the annexation. Andreas  (T) 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this s clear.--Supparluca 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, including the people who are part of the unionfs. However, to put things into context we should remember that this party is a "vocal minority" belonging to a far-right ideology that also calls for expelling all "foreigners" (I assume people from East Europe, Africa, and Asia), including all "Italians" (who ever these mythical Italians may be :). They also have some bizarre campaign to force speakers of the Italian language to use "Sudtirolo" and forever forget the term Alto Adige exists; perhaps forgetting the Adige in the Alps exists? I don't know. :-) Anyway, Alto Adige does have political connections to the resurgence of Italy; but overall I would say it is a much more tame term than South Tyrol. There will always be an Alto Adige, Alto Po, Alto Isarco. The history of this patch of land is one of Romanization, Germanization, etc., etc. I can't understand the bitching from groups like the unionfs who lack no rights, live in prosperity, and in a beautiful land. To them, who has the right to stay in this area? Those whose family lives there for 500 years? 1000 years? 2000 years? I think they are just bored... Icsunonove 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"... frequently get links to South Tyrol anonymously changed ... ": So what. References to Republic of Macedonia and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are swapped in more or less regular intervals by anonymous users. By the nature of Wikipedia, we have to live with this.  Andreas  (T) 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that leaves us the choice of consciously trying for neutrality, where everybody (including us outnumbered anglophones) gets something; or descending into the Macedonian snakepit. I've gone there; I know which I prefer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article name

It looks like preference so far is for Province of Bolzano and then Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Can we just go ahead and narrow down to deciding between these? This page has already been cleaned up to reflect the modern province. We can then debate what to call the historical page, currently History of South Tyrol. We can talk all about where exactly is the Southern Tyrol and the Highest Adige. :-) Icsunonove 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

None of them have more support than opposition; this suggests that South Tyrol is also a contender. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there was indeed a large opposition for using anything other than South Tyrol, this coming from a group of people who were likely ignorant or misinformed about the history of this region (and maybe slightly biased with a particular cultural viewpoint?). That is neither here nor there now and is water under the bridge. We are going to address the names (and apparent sensitivities) regarding Alto Adige and South Tyrol (and Trentino for that matter) with the History page(s). Right now we need to finally locate this article, about this modern and very real province of Italy, at some Province of BZ so that the provinces of Italy are complete. There simply has never been a Province of South Tyrol or Province of Alto Adige (there was the administrative region of Haut Adige under France, but that is another story...). Icsunonove 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for softening your edit. I agree there should be an article on the Province, as you know; and you know how much I think should be in it. I prefer Province of Bolzano, on the whole. I am not a German nationalist; but I do speak English - and the English name of the region should have an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Did I soften it? :P I didn't mean to be harsh if that is how my post came out; it is just my observation in general given past votes, and definitely not aimed at you. I'm a native English speaker as well, and I know that Alto Adige, province of Bolzano, and South Tyrol are all common terms in English; though I do most rarely see South Tyrol used. Regardless, we can't have a page for all three. I think the most reasonable and neutral way is to have a page for the modern province of BZ. We can't push to have things called only Alto Adige or South Tyrol, it is just unreasonable. The nationalistic side I've perceived is the push of this concept that the area has always been German, named South Tyrol, the majority of Italic names were made up in the early 1900s, etc., etc. It has gotten really boring, just for the sake of many people appearing unable to change their ideas and opinions over time. I know very well of similar politics in Taiwan for example, but it has been a big shock to see this primitive thinking in a region I care for so much. This area BZ is simply an interface for Roman/Germanic culture. That is really something that should be cherished, not this ridiculous push to get one or the other out (i.e., those folks in the unionfs should be utterly ashamed). Anyway, again I wonder what major arguments there are against using something like Province of Bolzano-Bozen which is a correct name for the modern province, is cited in black-and-white in Encyclopedia Britannica (along with the main English page of the provincial website), is a very neutral name for a province, and is multilingual. Icsunonove 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Since many of the ultra-nationalists like Gryfindor and Emes apparently have left the English wikipedia, we should be able to get rid of all their "contributions".--Supparluca 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
<Tongue into cheek>Leaving us with only the Italian nationalists? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't make me come over there Septentrionalis. :P Have a good weekend, Icsunonove 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province Title: 2nd round

Lets try and narrow down to what are probably the three main choices. Instead of using "Oppose", editors please just state which one page location they "Support" for the province page and briefly why. thank you. Icsunonove 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bolzano

  • Support. for the article on the provincial governemt only. No double names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point about the provincial governemt only aspect. —AldeBaer 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. In Italy, not clear English name, so go for Italian.Rex 14:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. We have the article about the city at Bolzano; naming conventions; we rightly rejected double names; etc.--Supparluca 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
(I firlmy support AjaxSmack's solution: <<Another possibility is maintaining articles for “Province of Bolzano-Bozen” and “History of South Tyrol” but creating a South Tyrol section at “Tyrol” and having South Tyrol redirect there.>>)--Supparluca 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Supparluca. --Checco 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bolzano-Bozen

  • Support. This name is cited in Encyclopedia Britannica [49][50] as such (along with the main English page of the provincial website [51], which states "Description of the autonomous legislative and administrative powers of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen"), is a neutral name for the province (no south, north, high, low), is multilingual (Italian-German), and is in fact the name of this province of Italy [52] (!!). Icsunonove 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. First choice. —AldeBaer 06:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me extend a bit as to why I endorse this among the other alternatives. Having spent some time recently looking for sources for the one correct name, I found out there is isn't one. Instead, there's a good source for just about any plausible name. I believe Province of Bolzano-Bozen is not in itself more "accurate" or of greater compelling logic than the current name, or the above and below alternatives. But it represents the best compromise among the various terms I have seen in reliable sources (and as Icsunove pointed out, it's the term actually used e.g. by Britannica). This name considers both the German speaking majority and keeps in line with the way we named the other Italian provinces. Again: There may be no perfectly compelling argument to use any one name for the article, but I'm inclined to believe that this may be the most viable compromise. —AldeBaer 06:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a good compromise, in line with the name of the other italian provinces while reflecting the peculiarity of this particular one. Pcassitti 11:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Pcassitti puts the case perfectly. —Ian Spackman 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems like the way it's normally referred, and is neutral, giving both Italian and German names. john k 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as per the rationale expressed by AldeBaer and Pcassitti. Olessi 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Bozen-South Tyrol

  • Support. English usage as per the official provincial website. Rarelibra 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The official website http://www.provinz.bz.it/ is available in 5 languages, in English it says Welcome to South Tyrol -- Official site of the Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol. This English name reflects the name used by over two thirds of the local population. There's nothing left to discuss except the inclusion of Autonomous. -- Matthead discuß!     O       20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Two thirds of the local population are using the term "(Autonomous) Province of Bozen-South Tyrol"? I can hardly imagine that. However, we should use the most commonly used English term, which is rather Province of Bolzano. Including the German-speaking local majority name Bozen is a sufficient and convenient compromise, in my opinion. —AldeBaer 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately we may not have yet graduated to compromise [53][54]. This sort of article doesn't sound like an Encyclopedia, but rather a political diatribe. South Tyrol is "still occupied"? The double-names are all part of the great plan of Fascist Italy, with whose people were never Denazified? It is surreal. Icsunonove 07:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It'd be in the debate's best interest if everyone tried to be extra civil, particularly to everyone who is voicing a valid personal opinion, like Matthead certainly did. —AldeBaer 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Good enough, I just think the whole discussion about denazification and accusations of occupation and fascism [55] can be left elsewhere. That is what really makes this discussion uncivil. Icsunonove 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Google, English, -wiki

"Province of Bolzano": 47,700 pages [56]
"Province of Bolzano-Bozen": 21,000 pages [57]
"Province of Bozen-South Tyrol": 115 pages [58]

[edit] South Tyrol

Sorry, this is genuinely what I support. Of the other three, I support Province of Bolzano. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.

This article has been renamed from South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen as the result of consensus Icsunonove 21:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move Request

Ok, we've had this up for almost three weeks. It looks pretty clear that we should use a Province of Bolzano or Province of Bolzano-Bozen. We should at least move the page to the proper Province of BZ location. If need be a discussion of using just Bolzano-Bozen can be made independently. Icsunonove 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whither South Tyrol?

Now that this article has been moved to Province of Bolzano-Bozen what is the fate of South Tyrol? — AjaxSmack 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Let me just make a comment to this; besides South Tyrol, we should likewise be considering Alto Adige during these discussions. Icsunonove 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Another comment: Please keep in mind that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion. WP:NOREASON and WP:ILIKEIT votes are going to be disregarded in the interest of the more compelling arguments. —AldeBaer 09:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      strong support :-) Because it would be nice to stop with the majority voting and actually base decisions on logic and good arguments. Icsunonove 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Should it:

[edit] (1)Redirect to Province of Bolzano-Bozen?

  • Support This would probably be the most logical way to do things, redirect Alto Adige, South Tyrol, etc. to this page. Icsunonove 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support this or (3).--Supparluca 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: it seems to me the best option, as "South Tyrol" and "Alto Adige" refer to Province of Bolzano, they should redirect there. --Checco 08:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    Endorse this over the other options since readers searching for "South Tyrol" are most probably interested in the Italian province. As a safety net to prevent any potential confusion among readers, I'm going to put {{See also}} tags on top of both Province of Bolzano-Bozen and History of South Tyrol to prominently inform of the other articles and their respective contents. —AldeBaer 10:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    Should we also put these on other areas once part of the County of Tyrol? Icsunonove 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why didn't I think of the dab option myself? —AldeBaer 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, either redirect to History of South Tyrol or dab. How can we tell what readers come here for? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose A province of Italy is just that, an administrative subdivision of a current nation state. Something that we need an article on, but not the whole story, and not the context in which the whole story can be told. (Excursus on NPOV: very often there isn’t one. Think of a coin and what its neutral point of view would see. The obverse? No. The reverse? No. The edge? You are joking!) —Ian Spackman 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    Hey Ian, what is your preference for what we do with Trentino, Alto Adige, South Tyrol, Alto Adige/South Tyrol? There is so many opinions now on this, I can't keep them straight. :-) Icsunonove 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support What kind of information could there be in a page South Tyrol that is not inProvince of Bolzano-Bozen? It would be a Wikipedia:Content fork.  Andreas  (T) 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • support The name "South Tyrol" refers to the province of Bolzano-Bozen, and is a relatively recent creation dating back to the separation of Tyrol into an italian and an austrian part. Since it is a political, not a historical term, I see no reason to link it to a history page. For "Alto Adige", on the other side, in my opinion a dab may be necessary, since, as has already been pointed out, it was also the name of a napoleonic department. Pcassitti 19:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (2)Redirect to History of South Tyrol?

  • We could do this too, but the page then should be History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol or History of Alto Adige/Südtirol. This would have it match up with the regional name Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and mirror History of Trentino. Icsunonove 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Second preference.--Supparluca 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (3)Redirect to Tyrol with a new section to be added on South Tyrol?

If this is chosen it is important that South Tyrol not duplicate Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Bozcaada (district)/Tenedos was cited by User:Rarelibra as a "happy split" but the result is less than impressive (huge amount of duplication; a true content fork). — AjaxSmack 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • In This case we could simply move the history of History of Trentino and current History of South Tyrol to the historical Tyrol page. Icsunonove 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support this or (1).--Supparluca 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've put Bozcaada (district) up for deletion on that ground; its sister article Gökçeada (district) is quite reasonable. My proposed article on the Province would be between the two, since the government of the Province of Bolzano is actually notable, unlike the administration of either island. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (4)Move History of South Tyrol to South Tyrol?

If this is chosen it is important that South Tyrol not duplicate Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Bozcaada (district)/Tenedos was cited by User:Rarelibra as a "happy split" but the result is less than impressive (huge amount of duplication; a true content fork). — AjaxSmack 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • To be correct it would have to be either Alto Adige/Südtirol or Alto Adige/South Tyrol. But overall, I wouldn't really support this option because we would really risk eventually building up a content fork. Icsunonove 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--Supparluca 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If Bozcaada (district) was ever a happy split, it is now a POV fork. Nevertheless, I support this; on the condition that this article, which should be moved to Province of Bolzano, be strictly limited to the Provincial Government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    I think that is a bit difficult to enforce, because shouldn't also modern aspects of the province be included in this page? I.e., tourism, industry, transportation, etc. (everything someone might want to know when visiting this province of Italy. Icsunonove 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, they are aspects of the region, which English calls South Tyrol. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    A region English also calls Alto Adige, as well as Province of Bolzano. Icsunonove 04:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something else?

  • Summary: What I would probably favour the most is: Move the content of History of Trentino and History of South Tyrol to the historical Tyrol page. Have History of Trentino and History of South Tyrol redirect to Tyrol. In that way both Province of TN and Province of BZ will also link back to the historical County of Tyrol (through their history subsections). Then have Alto Adige, South Tyrol, et al. redirect to the Province of BZ and Trentino to the Province of TN. So the only work we'd have to do at this point would be consolidating the historical sections at Tyrol and redirecting. Icsunonove 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The Trentino was, for the most part, not part of the County of Tyrol except during the nineteenth century, so this seems problematic to me. john k 06:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not completely clear on the border changes of the County of Tyrol over time, but I guess we could deal with this by having History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol go to Tyrol#History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol and History of Trentino go to Tyrol#History of Trentino. Icsunonove 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The Trentino was part of the Bishopric of Trent until 1801. john k 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Trentino was only part of the Tyrol county for ~100 years? and Alto Adige/South Tyrol? These places seems to really have changed political control so often back then. It makes it more a wonder of why anyone wants to try and claim any of these areas as belonging to only one culture. *sigh* Icsunonove 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig page option

Perhaps something like:

South Tyrol is a historical and cultural region located on the southern slopes of the Eastern Alps of Western Central Europe. The term is used in two senses.

  • The southern portion of Tyrol; its geographical extent varied over time but at its greatest included today’s Italian provinces of Trento and Bolzano-Bozen plus the territory of Ampezzo in the province of Belluno.
  • In a more restricted sense as a synonym for the Province of Bolzano-Bozen.

—Ian Spackman 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, not bad. I like including the two explanations of the term South(ern) Tyrol. I'd just add to the second bullet "In a more recent and restricted sense...". Icsunonove 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think it merits more than a 'simple' disambiguation page - the long and heated controversy over the name to use for the Italian province in Wikipedia means we do need some expositionary text. WLDtalk|edits 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support also this, if it is kept as a disambiguation page like that.--Supparluca 06:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, we could have both Alto Adige and South Tyrol forward to this page. Likewise, the opening sentence should be more along the lines as "Alto Adige, or South Tyrol is a historical and cultural region..." Icsunonove 07:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    Alto Adige might warrant a similar but distinct dab page. It was also the name of a department (capital NB Trento) of the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy. —Ian Spackman 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Septentrionalis and Ian Spackman are right. There's no way to tell what exactly someone looking for South Tyrol is interested in. The dab idea just didn't occur to me. Three principal links, to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, History of South Tyrol and the Tyrol (disambiguation) page, would give a perfect overview of our South Tyrol related content. —AldeBaer 12:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, I'd also support redirecting Alto Adige to that South Tyrol disambig page. —AldeBaer 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • A dab page like this would be as useful as explaining that New England could either mean a region of the United States or a historical part of the british empire. I do not see the point of creating a dab only because a term like south tyrol can literally be understood as the "southern portion of tyrol". It is a very actual name for a political province, and its geographical extend has not varied over time, since its common use does not go farther back as the separation of Tyrol into an italian and an austrian part. Pcassitti 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, we do have an article on the province, and one on the history of the area, as well as several other related articles. It's about conveniently informing readers of all the content we have on the topic. —AldeBaer 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I find this very unusual. If the historical section of an article about a certain region is overly long, usually you shorten it to a summary and then insert a link to an own historical page. As for references to other related topics, they could find space inside the main article as well, it would seem to me the simplest and least confusing solution, and I think that's also how it is usually done. 138.232.1.229 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Last post was from me Pcassitti 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, South Tyrol / Province of Bolzano-Bozen may be an extraordinary case in that e.g. the area has a multinational history while the present-day province is Italian, which warrants different articles, as we etablished earlier. —AldeBaer 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I just don't see any difference between the area of South Tyrol and the province of Bolzano-Bozen: they are identical. It is true that the county of Tyrol extended beyond the present-day boundaries of South Tyrol and the austrian Tyrol, but in those days South Tyrol did not exist. Tyrol has a multinational history, but South Tyrol has always been italian. Pcassitti 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, Trentino has always had an Italian history, but Bolzano-Bozen is mixed. I would agree that the origins of most of the province are Italian; except for the North East borders villages with Austria. That said, the fact is that Germanic people migrated down to Italy during the Middle Ages, so BZ in particular is more fair to say it has an Italian/German history. Most all of Italy has some sort of multinational history, and that is in fact what makes it such an interesting country. Icsunonove 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
              • I would not go as far back as the middle ages when considering the problem at hand. We are talking about a regional entity which as such exists only since WWI, and thus has always been politically italian. Before that the region was known as the county of Tyrol, which stretched well into todays Trentino. A dab for Tyrol would therefore be appropriate, but South Tyrol can only mean todays italian province, there are no other possible meanings, and hence I think a dab page is superfluous. Pcassitti 10:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
                • I agree with Pcassitti! Well, Trentino has always had an Italian history... Unfortunately wrong: Parts of the province have been German-speaking for centuries (even Trento) and still today there are little linguistic enclaves like Lusern. Greets. Mai-Sachme 13:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • I apologize if I didn't give credit to the Germanic speakers in Trentino, and you are absolutely correct. I value those pockets of Germanic languages in Trentino. Icsunonove 06:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Tyrol

Why was this page moved when Wikipedia rules clearly state that the most commonly used name should be used? There have been multiple votes [59] held in the past, with a very clear consensus of at least 16 users to keep it at the original South Tyrol, almost none of the previous users who voted in favour have been consulted or asked to participate. IMO this is now a huge mess with disambiguation problems that should not have been created in the first place. This article should be moved back and a new vote can be held with the users who previously participated as well, instead of just ignoring past results. Gryffindor 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you can abuse your admin powers as usual.--Supparluca 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No he will not. We will not stand for that again. Neutral and professional Admins who have kept an eye on this page will see to that. Icsunonove 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Enough with your crusade Gryffindor, one that really should of had your Admin rights removed a long time ago. There is a province in Italy called Bolzano/Bozen, this is without question, and it is the most commonly used name. You have absolutely no ground to stand on when you say South Tyrol is the most common used term in English; one could just as well argue Alto Adige is used more often (which it probably is). Regardless, just as with the move of Trentino-South Tyrol to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, and now the move of South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, these pages have finally been put at locations that are neutral, all-inclusive of both Italian and German, based on clear English references such as Brittanica, and help remove this ill feeling that you have helped perpetuate over the past two years. Also, as has been stated many times, Wikipedia is not a democracy. You can get 10, 20, 30 of your pals to come and vote for a name they like; that doesn't overrule the good work that was been done by everyone above. If you look at this page now and read the first paragraph of the article -- it has simply never been so good and informative with respect to all the names. Icsunonove 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one who is having a crusade here my Italian friends. The name is wrong, since the province is 1) Autonomous, so the name is missing "Autonomous Province of XXX". 2) The word "South Tyrol" is part of the official name, taking that away is not making it any more factual. 3) Wikipedia has a policy of using the most common name in English, so that alone is in violation already. 4) You held a little poll that conveniently left out who was in favour of actually keeping the original name of the article, which was very clearly voted upon last time, over and over. By pushing for votes after votes and conveniently not alerting users that have been previously involved, you are trying to get the result that you want. You can split the article if you want, but trying to get rid of the original name and completely disrespecting previous poll results is just mindboggling. Gryffindor 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This from Gryffindor, the one who moved Trentino-Alto Adige to "Trentino-South Tyrol" back in 2005 without even a hint of discussion. The Gryffindor who went around with Markussep and PhJ renaming places in BZ with their own private voting group. ROFLOL. The T-AA move famously set off many ill-feelings over the course of two years and Gryffindor even referenced the T-ST page during his request for Adminship. Mindboggling, indeed. The Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen would be fine, and I originally preferred this idea, but others did make the point that having simply Province of BZ with Autonomous in the body of the article is simpler and gives the same information. As far as South Tyrol, get it through your thick head that Alto Adige is also common English usage for the regional name of this province. It can be argued that Alto Adige is in fact used more often in English. The point that we've been trying to make is to be all-inclusive rather than pushing for one POV or the other. Using both the Italian/German names and points of view is the best way to go and most respectful for this province and region. But I guess that method really irritates you. Not surprisingly.. Icsunonove 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am 100% behind Gryffindor and he has not given solid opinion, but FACT. It IS an autonomous province - not just a province. So it should be "Autonomous Province of XXX" if anything. As far as finger pointing, I am sick and tired of the Italiano-POV pushing that has occurred here. And it is being carried away to the extreme. South Tyrol IS the most common name used and according to wiki policy, the most common name is the one that is used, like it or not. Plenty of Google hits and other evidence can support this - but we are dealing with people here that don't even accept the OFFICIAL PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT stance (an AUTONOMOUS government, remember?). The official government of the province names it, in English, as "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol". LIKE IT OR NOT. You all make me sick, and thus, I have shyed away from participation, instead to initiate better edits and improve articles and such. If anything, you all get a wiki star for PERSISTENCE. That is it. You talk about "neutral admins" - but any neutral admin will see what Gryffndor described is correct - you continually pushed for vote after vote after vote until you got you own way, like a kid who screams until they get their lollipop. So be it - I'll throw in some pampers and go my own way. You haven't 'won' a thing and, if anything, you've pissed off good people. Good day. Rarelibra 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, Rarelibra, you are funny. You say you are tired of the Italian-POV pushing, but almost everything in this province has been named in German here on English Wikipedia. It seems Italians have been content to use Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, where Austrians like Gryffindor want only Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol. To me the former is a neutral/multi-ethnic view compared to the latter which is a very one-sided POV. Also, about persistence, you have pushed this "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol" like "a kid who screams until they get their lollipop". No one supported it, except recently Matthead, yet you unilaterally decided to update all the maps and links. I've never seen something so childish. You even took my name off your main page, after I updated the link to Bolzano-Bozen (obviously no real friend would do such a thing!), and said you just update your page so often. I mean, can't you even grow the orbs to say why you really did that? That is truly pampers behavior. You completely ignore the vast majority of editors who say we should use what is in English references such as Brittanica. You can't get more neutral than that. If "good people" (you mean you and Gryffindor??) are so pissed off because this page is at the properly referenced Province of Bolzano-Bozen, then I'm not sure they are such good people afterall. Also, if you can, prove to us all that South Tyrol is the most commonly used term in English, versus say Alto Adige? I know you've had personal conversations with Gryffindor over e-mail, he must really be good at spreading political hatred afterall (well, it was his major in scohol I guess). :-0 Icsunonove 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Icsunonove - childish to the max is the statement "You even took my name off your main page, after I updated the link to Bolzano-Bozen (obviously no real friend would do such a thing!), and said you just update your page so often." Wow. Cry over spilt milk, why don't you. The right to edit a page remains the user's perogative. And yet you judge and make personal comments. Calling the kettle black, are we? Rarelibra 20:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we have an "ignore" button on wikipedia?--Supparluca 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Icsunonove and Supparluca. Remember that the official name of the province is Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano - Alto Adige/Südtirol, but in the Italian Constitution it is mentioned as Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano. I can't understand why some people have problems with it. --Checco 13:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And Province of Bolzano in the English version.--Supparluca 13:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well Rarelibra and Gryffindor are mighty pissed off at this Italian aggression (even though I'm an American with German/Italian heritage) that has infiltrated the Earth and gone as far as even the good book of Brittannica, etc. It seems the Italian-POV has also been able to hypnotize the good professor Andreas and Mr. AldeBaer, Ian, Olessi, etc. (none of whome are Italian, or at least admit to be :). I mean calling the Italian province of Bolzano/Bozen, the Province of Bolzano-Bozen!? That is some serious POV'ing there boys, obviously very offensive (to who, I'm not yet sure). We now need to gather lots of pampers and lollipops for the cry babies. Anyway, I'm going to seriously laugh one day when the Spanish-speaking majority in New York want the city referred to as, and only as, Nueva York. :)) Icsunonove 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Take great care with your POV-centric decisions on what to "do with" the South Tyrol naming. Properly, MHO is that Tirol and its regions (South, North, and East) should be linked - you see that the Tirol article mentions "is a historical region in Western Central Europe". So branching should occur from this main article to an article for each of the sub-regions (including South Tyrol). So "South Tyrol" should not redirect to the province but, instead, to an article about the 'historic region' with tie-ins to the modern province. Thus, the history article of South Tyrol should stand as it's own article (with the possibility of the province article having a small text with reference to the history of South Tyrol article). This is a logical, real approach. Non-centric, and educational. But you will all do whatever you want for your lollipop, anyway, right? Supparluca - I have no respect for you at all. You want to make mention of an 'ignore' button? Real life, your resume probably wouldn't stand up. You personalize things in a manner that earn the comments I type at this moment. GROW UP. The way you all handle this will say a lot about how 'cultural' you all really are. Rarelibra 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyrol was not only North and East Tyrol and Alto Adige/South Tyrol, but Trentino too. Keep your facts straight. I can't believe you came on here and told someone to grow up and say that their "resume probably wouldn't stand up". Am I dreaming when I read this? LOL. Must be pretty proud of your own resume to be that arrogant on a talk page. :-) Icsunonove 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Tyrol was North, South, and East. And it was owned by Austria. We are talking about cross-cultural reference to a multi-ethnic area. You claim your heritage (which you are, by all respects, American - unless you emigrated) - but that has nothing to do with wiki policy to use the most common name. You have not addressed that deficiency. Rarelibra 20:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem I have with the above suggestion is that South Tyrol IS in fact the Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen (and yes I think the autonomous is important and should be added), therefore the history of South Tyrol is identical with the history of this particular province. No point in having two articles about the same thing. The way I see it the article about the autonomous province of Bolzano-Bozen ideally should include the history of this region from WWI onwards, with a brief summary of history up to that point, and link to the history of Tyrol article for an in-depth view of the general history of the area. Pcassitti 16:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I originally backed having the pages at Autonomous Province of Trento and Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen, but those were shot down. Icsunonove 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The "autonomous" is quite official, I think it would be important to include it, like has been done on wikipedia italy, for example. I see no objective reason why anyone should be against it. Pcassitti 11:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Pcassitti - well said, and I fully agree. You can see this with the articles on Constantinople and Istanbul (where it clearly states, for example, "This article is about Constantinople before the Fall of Constantinople (1453). For after 1453, see Istanbul" and vice versa). This is, IMHO, how South Tyrol should be treated. Rarelibra 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, interesting idea, considering that in this case both the establishment of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen and use of the term Südtirol started in the early 20th century... Icsunonove 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see any problem with that. Adding to the history of Tyrol something like "This article is about the history of Tyrol before its division into various political entities as a consequence of WWI. For after 1918, see Tyrol (Austria), South Tyrol, Trentino, etc." would IMO be a good idea. Pcassitti 11:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, why do you consider a website more significant than a constitution (I'm just curious, I don't want to insinuate that it's wrong now)?--Supparluca 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, especially when the aforementioned provincial website also uses "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" in plain English [60] Icsunonove 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Or Brittanica, which on English Wikipedia outweights both the Italian constitution and the Bolzano-Bozen website. Icsunonove 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to ask for a reopening/extension of the vote because it was obviously a sham vote and done on purpose to sneak in this new name, without consulting users who were involved in the past. In the worst case I will file for an rfc. Gryffindor 03:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think an RfC on you, along with an investigation of Admin abuses would be awesome. I guess any vote is a "sham" if you don't get your political way. :-) Icsunonove 04:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you and your accomplice have been quite busy here, getting articles and categories moved. I took a step back hoping that the issue will have settled and calmed down, you obviously misread me. Too bad that you just cannot seem to give the topic a rest. Having a vote with three users even though more than 15 were in favour of keeping it under the original name does not make it right, even by your standards my friend :-) Gryffindor 04:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor, your standards are both flat-out racist and utterly divisive. You flaunt Wikipedia guidelines to push your crude nationalistic agenda. You are going around saying that "Italians" moved this page to the "Italian" name. Bolzano-Bozen is the Italian/German name, and the users above are not all Italian (including myself!). You go ahead with your crusade, but this time the truth about your behavior is coming out.. my friend. Every last bit of it. :)) Icsunonove 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
did you just call me racist? Gryffindor 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you define yourself by your own actions [61]. I am an American and of Italian/German descent. Andreas is not Italian, Ian is not Italian, john k is not Italian, AldeBaer is not Italian, AjaxSmack is not Italian, Rex is not Italian, oh and neither is Olessi. Oh, but look Gryffindor, you have a special version just for Italian nationals [62], without the accusation against "Italians". Hmm, I wonder if you've answered your own question. Awesome. :-) Icsunonove 06:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

  • and I'd like to give many thanks to Rarelibra and Gryffindor for bringing the vitriol back into our lives and this discussion. Maybe we can have a guest appearance from Emes and Matthead. Icsunonove 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What is your point, Icsunonove? You want to check one's use of Sulphuric Acid, we can easily see how acidic you have been - in a constant, biased drive and many, MANY, personal edits. Be careful with your words, Icsunonove - or we'll go ahead and involve one of the neutral admins. Fancy words won't protect your intentions. So grow up. Rarelibra 19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The past is the past, and for personal things I've said, I've often apologized (and I can't say many others have followed that route). I am biased towards neutrality, and my intention is multi-ethnic fairness. What are you biased towards Rarelibra? You ask what is my point? My point is you and Gryffindor are the ones who here and now make this conversation "acidic". There are some famous words for you Rarelibra, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". Good for you if you (and your resume) are better than the rest of us. Icsunonove 20:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, any time you want to compare, let me know. As far as apologizing, I have personally seen times when you haven't apologized. You claim a bias towards neutrality? Please. Your bias is POV-centric, and you haven't stopped over the past year + until you got your way. Kudos to you, you happy now? But you insulted culture - not very 'neutral'. Your personal words add acid, do they not? I'll cast the stones - I can take the return. Can you? Rarelibra 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Throw stones, if that is your mentality. I harbor no such insecurities that even give me the tiniest need or desire to "compare resumes" with you. Like I said, good for you if you feel your résumé/curriculum vitae is better than everyone else's. I'm at least able to say that I've apologized even to good ole' Gryffindor on occasion. However, he is the type who will never apologize for his words or actions. Sorry you have not been able to figure that one out yet. You guys do share one common attribute though: utter self-righteousness. That you get your panties in a bind because we don't use – the never used in English – Province of Bozen-South Tyrol is odd to say the least (even though I'm positively sure you'll keep your maps as is, no matter what most editors want). By the way, your statement asking if I'm happy I finally got my way: It wasn't only me who wanted this page moved to Province of BZ or likewise T-ST moved to T-AA/ST (which took even longer!). I'm only happy that at least others have been able to change their opinions (and learn things) over time with an open mind, and go with naming such as Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Bolzano-Bozen, which are explicitly neutral and likewise "culturally aware". Oh, yeah, and also in English-language encyclopedias... go figure. Icsunonove 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'll just intervene with a constant call for a vote and then revote and then - no, wait, YOU already did that. Funny thing - you mention apologizing to Gryffindor, then you turn around and insult him by saying "he is the type who will never apologize" - proving that you CANNOT say something with insult or insinuation. Again - this is childish. Like the insinuation you attempted with the whole "wah, wah, you removed my name from your user page." Do you know what BFD means? BFD! Move on and edit in good faith. Then you choose to discredit a provincial website which states "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol." Like YOU have that authority to discredit an official website. Go figure. Rarelibra 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep it up Rarelibra, but you still add nothing of substance to this discussion. Let me clue you in on something, I do not care if you removed my name, I simply thought it funny how you couldn't be honest about it. But, BFD, as you say. By the way, even though I know you choose to pretend it doesn't exist, the provincial website also clearly states in English "Province of Bolzano/Bozen". Apparently you believe you have the authority to discredit the Encyclopedia Brittanica (and basically every other English-language encyclopedia and atlas out there) along with the official English translation of the Italian constitution (so you certainly got me beat). So again, keep on bragging about your resume, telling everyone to grow up, and calling people childish; and all-in-all trying to make people feel bad about themselves. Because apparently your own insults and insinuations don't count. Icsunonove 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"... like a chump (hey), like a chump (hey), like a chump (hey)..." Rarelibra 23:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, everyone insulted everyone. Unless Gryffindor wants to insult someone (I will not reply), I think we can stop it now.--Supparluca 19:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bravo. Icsunonove 20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And yet, sooooo WP-LAME as well. Rarelibra 21:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ironic you mention that page by the way. Some of the usual suspects (i.e. your pal Gryff) that pushed for Trentino-South Tyrol contributed to the city of Bolzano (Bozen) page being listed at WP-LAME. Just scroll down to Involving other languages. Icsunonove 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us continue this discussion on our talk pages, or better on an external forum, please. It is difficult to watch this page.--Supparluca 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what we are arguing about, to be honest. :-) It seems just strange that some are trying to infer there is no province in Italy called Bolzano-Bozen. Even though there is [63] and [64]. We all know the regional terms of Alto Adige and South Tyrol, and they are included in the first paragraph, along with every freakin' alternate name we could think of. But we are bad people because we didn't like putting the province of BZ page at only South Tyrol, as a mirror of de:Südtirol. Surreal. But you are right, and I need to work; this has been a total waste of time. Icsunonove 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Commons

  • Nice [65] :))) We've got Italian listed last, now if we could just get that pesky Italic POV to be cleansed away completely. Alto Adige? Never heard of it. I guess we do know where Gryff has been all this time. Past history too [66]. Italian, we don't need no Italian. All this makes me just hum, "oh, what a wonderful world"; everyone sharing in the multi-ethnicity of places like this, being "culturally aware". I really have no need to insult such people; their actions speak very well for themselves. Icsunonove 22:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't even try to drag Commons into it - YOU LOSE. Commons has a policy to use native language - and Sudtirol is quite valid. GROW UP. Rarelibra 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"Native" language? You mean Ladin? Oh wait, there are actually three native languages now in Bolzano/Bozen: Italian, German, and Ladin (the regional Italian language). What is Commons policy then for multi-lingual places? Anyway, it is really interesting when I sit and contemplate about the type of people who usually yell over and over "GROW UP"... or "YOU LOSE". It's really telling... Gosh, it was much more fun with the braggin' about the resume. ;) Icsunonove 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ladin - the regional Italian language????? LOL, Icsunonove, please don't start to invent new linguistic terms ;-) Mai-Sachme 13:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Umm, excuse me? My family has been speaking Nones, a derivative/dialect of Ladin, in the Val di Non for centuries. These languages are not less Italian languages than Tuscan, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Friulian, Venetian, etc., etc., etc. Ladin was and is the Italian language of this region, now called Trentino-Alto Adige, well before Standard Italian or German ever set foot into this area. If we were such an aggressive people, we'd be asking for everyone raus. Ever notice that it has never been the case? Man... Icsunonove 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is the regional language there, but I wouldn't call it Italian as I won't call Venetian, Lombard, Sicilian and so on Italian. Anyway all these languages have something in common with Italian. --Checco 01:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes Checco, my friend; you are absolutely correct. It may be a slight language problem, because in English when I say they are Italian languages, I mean that they are languages of Italy (so I'm using the word Italian in its possessive form). Just like in China they have Mandarin as their National language (also known as Chinese), Italy has Tuscan as its National Language (also known as Italian). In China they have hundreds of languages, Cantonese, Min (which is also called "Taiwanese"), Hokkien, Hakka, Wu, etc. They are not "Chinese", but they are most certainly of China. I'm afraid there has been too much politics involved in T-AA/ST, especially BZ, and most people who speak these Ladin languages in Trentino have no idea what they are. They think they are dialects of Italian/Tuscan, which they most certainly are not. I've said it before, places like Italy and China are just a dream - a fantasy. They are areas of 1000s of years of a unifying history and culture that have only recently been united under some form of government. I asked Emes many times when he was saying "the Italians did this, the Italians did that": who in fact are these Italians?? Icsunonove 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but from a lnguistic viewpont I can't agree..but everyone is allowed to think what he wants, so calm down my dear :-) Mai-Sachme 15:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't get frisky Mai-Sachme. :P~ Check out [67][68] when you have some time. :) Icsunonove 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Looking around Wikimedia Commons a bit, I find under the Commons FAQ [69] "What language should be used here? Ideally, whichever one you are most comfortable with. See Commons:Language policy. However for technical reasons categories should be in English". Then going to Commons Language policy [70] it shows "So far, Categories are in English". It seems there are ongoing discussions about this subject, but there is so far no existing "policy to use native language". For sure there hasn't been anything hammered out for bi and tri-lingual regions. Neato. Icsunonove 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just so everyone is aware

Gryffindor is re-starting his cleansing crusade. Check out his edits [71]. I believe this is an excellent time for a long overdue call for a thorough investigation of the Administrative abuses of Gryffindor. Admins are held to a higher standard of accountability than everyday editors, and I think it is time this behavior is brought out into the public. I amongst many others will do the leg work to bring up the mountain of past evidence. That this individual pushes for only the use of Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol, where also Trentino-Alto Adige, Alto Adige, Province of Bolzano, Province of Bolzano-Bozen are largely used in English shows a political and divisive agenda. As someone with native and Italian/German roots from this region, I find it absolutely appalling behavior. We finally came to an agreement at both T-AA/ST and PofB-B that are neutral and fair to the languages of this region, yet Gryffindor persists in wanting to perpetuate bad feelings forever. Note that the editors who worked on this page were of many backgrounds. In some ways it is not such a surprise, remembering the hissy-fit Gryffindor threw when Trentino-South Tyrol was finally moved to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (and remembering Gryffindor originally moved the page to Trentino-South Tyrol without ANY discussion). Grffindor, I think you should take your degree in politics someplace else. Icsunonove 04:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It frankly bores me how you constantly keep on projecting your intentions and behaviour on other users. Your threats against me ring hollow and you can stop denouncing and mud-slinging at me in public. The topic Trentino-South Tyrol you keep on referring to has been discussed and agreed upon even with your consent, stop beating a dead horse. If you cannot seem to give this topic a rest, I suggest we reopen the vote to let other users have a say as well. Or we put it up for mediation. Gryffindor 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "It frankly bores me how you constantly keep on projecting your intentions and behaviour on other users." Oh, you mean like this [72]? You are infamous on Wikipedia for stirring up horrible feelings on this particular region. If anything we can only hope a user like Lar can put in time for mediation. I do remember though a certain two users colluding over e-mail to stop the original mediation attempt -- because they had figured out the solution between themselves. Nice one. :-) We'll add that to the list. Icsunonove 05:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say Gryffindor. You are bashing all of us who came up with this idea to separate the provincial page and rename per Brittanica; including the Administrators john k and Olessi. They are part of the "Italian" sham vote too? Having discussions is fine, but your intentions have always been to either abuse your administrative privileges or call in dozens of editors from a particular language background. Let the threat ring hollow, I've have literally had it up to here with you and your abuses. I will put in my time to make sure that a thorough investigation is put forward and this abuse comes to a stop. Don't worry, I've definitely got the passion and energy for it.. especially because of the politics you push in the region that has always been my home. There is nothing more important. Icsunonove 05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil guys, it will not solve anything; rather try to resolve the dispute. Arnoutf 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But in this case we had a normal discussion, until Gryffindor came here and decided that we should move back the article. Do we really need WP:DR for this?--Supparluca 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Three votes were held in the past in favour of keeping that name. You snuck in a new vote and I caught you on that. I am not the one who is "starting" anything here, my friend. Gryffindor 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually Gryffindor, and just in case you forgot, it was you who indeed started it all, almost two years ago now. :) [73] Icsunonove 09:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, this was the first discussion in which you/Emes didn't call lots of users with your same opinion (mostly users who never edited this page), also from the German wikipedia, to sabotage it.--Supparluca 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Supparluca, my advice, and also the advice of Lar: Just let him be. If he doesn't want to present quantitative data that shows why his solution is more correct and more neutral, and instead yell at everyone because his solution was not accepted, let him do it by himself. If he and PhJ want to really debate and have a constructive discussion.. they are welcome to; whenever they get around to doing so... Icsunonove 09:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you "caught" everyone here, a group of editors from different countries and language-backgrounds, working on a compromise and neutral solution. You are good! Icsunonove 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review

  • Hi, I received a request for review of the current situation on my talk page. I'm not sure why you guys would want me to review things given how bad a job I did last time (basically I slacked until you apparently all sorted things out yourselves, without me doing much of anything useful)... :) But if you do, can someone provide a summary of what the concerns are, couched as issues to be resolved about the article, not accusations against people? I can try to review things I guess but it would be better if it wasn't me. :) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I will say this, just from a skim... there needs to be a huge dial back in the accusations of racism, accusations of admin abuse, insults and acidic talk in general. I'm appalled at how much vitriol and invective is flowing here. I'm not going to name names but it applies to a lot of parties, both old, and new, on all the sides of this. If you think I'm talking about that other guy but not you, you're half right and half wrong. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have limited time online at the present and have changed my current editing to focus on creating content offline. I concur with Lar that the amount of vitriol and crusading on this page is rather regrettable. Olessi 18:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for showing up Lar! Regarding the discussions on here, it has been a real shame, considering we had quite a civil and productive discussion regarding this province during the past month over. It was a discussion with editors from a broad range of nationalities and linguistic groups. If you could babysit us for a bit, that would be very good of you. I can help provide a summary soon; you are always more than welcome to jump back into the job of mediating the naming of articles for this region. We did come up with a solution for one page, but the overall area never went through the much overdue mediation process. thanks again, Icsunonove 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I have no time for babysitting, and no interest in doing it, either... Please don't let things get to the point where babysitting is what is needed. A summary that people can agree is accurate would be a good place to start. Why did the various votes go off the rails? (explain without casting any aspersions or ascribing any motives, please) ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Will do. The bit about babysitting was tongue-in-cheek. :-) Icsunonove 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Summary for Lar. The Italian region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is made up of two provinces: the Province of Trento and the Province of Bolzano-Bozen. The 109 provinces of Italy are basically named after their primary city. Milan and Province of Milan; Venice and Province of Venice, etc. The Province of Trento is also known as Trentino; likewise the province of Bolzano-Bozen is also known as Alto Adige or Südtirol. Alto Adige roughly translates to High Adige, however the term Alto Adige is what is used in English (such as other English words with foreign-language origins like Los Angeles and San Francisco). Likewise, the English for Südtirol is South Tyrol, and is also commonly used in English. So overall, the four main terms to describe this province in English are: 1) Province of Bolzano 2) Province of Bolzano-Bozen (bi-lingual version used in Brittanica, et al.) 3) Alto Adige and 4) South Tyrol. Going back to the original pre-acidic discussions, what we decided to do was split off the historical sections of Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano-Bozen and make the pages focus on the modern provinces (government, transportation, tourism, etc.). Province of Bolzano was chosen over Province of Bolzano-Bozen through a poll, and mostly because it was multilingual (an important aspect of this province) and cited by English-language encyclopedias such as Brittanica. So now, if one goes to [74], we finally have all 109 provinces of Italy at a page. Where things have become a bit dicey is that the regional names Alto Adige and South Tyrol have certain political connotations. Some users would have English Wikipedia mirror de:Trentino and de:Südtirol. At one point we were even mirroring de:Trentino-Südtirol with Trentino-South Tyrol, but this was changed. The overwhelming usage in English was Trentino-Alto Adige, but as a form of compromise we chose Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (if that was correct or not to compromise like this, I do not know). Even on this page a compromise was reached, because the most proper English usage would simply be Province of Bolzano. But because we wanted a similar neutral solution, and it was backed up by references such as Brittanica, we went with Bolzano-Bozen. Anyway, so that is the basic gist of things. If you go above you'll note that the editors who worked on this solution were no group of nationalists or ones trying to push a sham vote. There were multiple respected administrators, and a group of majority non-Italians in fact, and just a few German-nationals. It was unfortunate that the discussion had to take a sudden turn to being uncivil. Hope this helps, and anyone please add to this summary of events. Icsunonove 05:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Do others feel this is a fair summary? What of the previous polls and attempts to reach consensus? How do they factor into this? Some of them had pretty wide participation. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • In the past year, consensus was never found. For all intents and purposes it became a vote fest running along lines of national-POV, and degenerating into name calling. Literally it got to the point of individuals putting out the call on non-English Wikipedia projects to come here and vote. Is this the way we really want to do things on English Wikipedia? To put an end to this, it was discussed to break off the history section and have this page focus on the modern province (administrative, tourism, industry, transportation, etc.). This idea was fielded and accepted by a diverse group of established editors. The idea was to finally have an article for the modern day Province of "BZ". For deciding on the location of the province article this had its own set of discussions and opinions. Some simply wanted to use Province of Bolzano (probably the most common English usage, and used in the official English translation of the Italian constitution and regional autonomy statute). Others, the Province of Bolzano-Bozen (as cited in English encyclopedias). Still a couple people wanted to use Province of Bozen-South Tyrol. The solution that the majority of editors came up with was the bilingual name cited in English encyclopedias: Bolzano-Bozen [75][76], which also happens to be the most neutral name. We also made sure, with the help of editors with various language backgrounds, to list every known term clearly in the article's intro paragraph. This includes the various names for Bolzano/Bozen/Bulsan, and also the different terms used for the colloquial terms of Alto Adige and South Tyrol. So comparing the votes in the past is a bit difficult, since what we did here was move forward with essentially a page split.. one for the post-WWI history of Alto Adige/South Tyrol, and this page for the present-day province of BZ; a province which is certainly neither the "Province of Alto Adige" or "Province of South Tyrol". Icsunonove 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol is the 1) the most commonly used name in English [77], 2) the official name of the province [78]. Wiki articles rest with Italy and not Republic of Italy. Three votes [79], [80], [81] have been held previously over the span of a year, the last one in March 2007, all overwhelmingly in favour of keeping it under "South Tyrol". Simply respect these results, stop this POV vote pushing and manipulation right now and give it a final rest. Gryffindor 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what Lar wrote just a few paragraphs above, and stop the accusations (POV vote pushing and manipulation (!?!)) on this discussion page. Thanks for posting your "opinion". By the way, with regard to your raw Google search on South Tyrol, just as well one can do the exact same search with Alto Adige [82] and find a factor of three times more results. With the example of the Republic of Italy, there is simply no "Province of South Tyrol" to shorten to South Tyrol, nor a "Province of Alto Adige" to shorten to Alto Adige. I guess we could shorten Province of Bolzano-Bozen to Bolzano-Bozen (province) or even Bolzano (province), to go along with the City of Bolzano. However, the rest of the Italian Provinces use the Province of X format, and similar to German Wikipedia with Italienische Provinz. Icsunonove 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"Stop the accusations" As I said on my talk page, that goes for you too. It goes for everyone. Please try to come up with a solution that everyone can accept. Please explain why the previous solutions were not satisfactory and why there is a consensus among the long term participants now for a change. There have been many polls already, much discussion. Build on that. And leave personalities and aspersions out of it. Please. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There is already a solution which pleases almost everyone, even if some people would prefer something different (I'm for "Province of Bolzano"). This means that this is a good compromise and we should thank Icsunonove for it. --Checco 01:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, he did a great work.--Supparluca 08:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the long term participants agreed to this, this vote was jacked because everyone was so tired of voting and discussing the same issue at least three times, they simply stopped participating. Can't say I blame them either. The official names says clearly on the homepage of the province, and using Google results for "Alto Adige" points to Italian websites. Gryffindor 05:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there seems to be an ideological bias on both sides, if I may say so, and judging by the virulence with which the name "South Tyrol" has been challenged again and again I think no side can claim a fully NPOV. In my opinion suggestions which aren't bilingual and ignore the multilingual reality of this province are not objective. That includes "Province of Bolzano" and "South Tyrol". I would go for either "Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen" or "South Tyrol/Alto Adige". The first suggestion is in line with the naming of the other provinces, while the second one has a more historical and cultural connotation to it. Pcassitti 06:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the idea that people suggesting to use the Italian names for places in Italy aren't neutral, because that is what the naming conventions say, when there aren't established English names, and that is what is done in wikipedia for other places. And, by the way, why should a German user come here and try to move articles about places in Italy to German names? I think it's a bit strange; for example, I would never go to Slovenian or Swiss articles and try to move them to Italian names, it's so silly.--Supparluca 08:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and I couldn't put it any better! and this is exactly why we went for Province of Bolzano-Bozen and then the history page. It is currently at History of South Tyrol, but the idea was to move this page to History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol or History of Alto Adige/Südtirol. The idea we came up with includes everyone and celebrates the multilingual history of this region. Going with South Tyrol and only South Tyrol is simply not right. Icsunonove 07:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The vote was "jacked"? o_O When you say none of the "long-term participants" agreed to this, that is simply not the case. Needless to say, Wikipedia is dynamic; new or old editors have an equal say and opportunity to present new ideas. Also, it goes both way Gryffindor, you don't think all of us aren't tired of this? [83] The bottom line is that we simply can not throw English references to the way-side. With regard to the Google search, it was you who started with Raw Google. :P Look, simply do "South Tyrol" -wiki, search only for English pages on US Google, 411,000 hits [84]. Same search with Alto Adige, 891,000 hits [85]. Same thing on Google Scholar, "South Tyrol" 2,400 hits [86], "Alto Adige" 5,360 hits [87]. Will you just simply ignore all of that? You've said many times Alto Adige is not used in English, but you are telling this to quite a few native-English speakers, such as myself, coming from English-speaking countries such as the United States. That would be like me going to German Wikipedia and telling them what they speak in their language. I wouldn't even be comfortable to do that on Italian Wikipedia. Regardless, the consensus was to split the pages and concentrate the history of Alto Adige/South Tyrol on one page, and focus this page on the present-day province of Bolzano/Bozen (BZ). Every single-term (and then some) are included in the intro paragraph, and we've setup the proper redirects and disambiguation pages. There is frankly more information and an all-inclusive summary than has ever existed on here before. The article's location is multilingual on top of everything, and thereby is a combination of Provincia autonoma di Bolzano and Autonome Provinz Bozen. Not to mention, but most importantly, referenced in black-and-white here [88] and here [89]. Again, we want an article on the modern-day province. It is not the Province of Alto Adige, nor is it the Province of South Tyrol. If you really want to support most-common English usage and move History of South Tyrol to History of Alto Adige, go ahead :) Icsunonove 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your incessant monologues are a perfect example of how with this tactic you have managed to scare and tire every sane user who ever participated on this topic. Gryffindor 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that is a very professional and civil thing for you to say Gryffindor. What a great attempt to try and have a productive discussion; great to have someone with Administrative privileges setting such a nice example. :-) I guess instead of addressing the points I (and others) make, you just find a way to ridicule them. But I suppose since you see me personally as the individual who has spoiled your plans, it does makes sense. Regardless, the solution that we found on here is the most neutral, based on English reference, and the most logical compromise. If that really causes you so much grief, maybe.. speak with someone about it? If you aren't going to make a valid rebuttal against the information I provided above, well... :-) Icsunonove 08:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The last two comments in this thread (among others) were not, in my view, helpful. Stop it, please, you both know better. Can we get back to whether the current solution is acceptable, why or why not, and whether the process that got us there was ok (I still would like to understand why the poll that was held on the current solution, which had less participants than previous ones is somehow more valid than the previous ones were...) and what to do about it going forward. The summary is helpful but I still don't really have my arms around why leaving it here wouldn't work if there were enough redirects and enough discussion of the naming controversy within the article itself to make it clear that there is controversy? Ditto for moving it to some other name. Please try to speak in terms of ideas and issues and leave personalities and actions out of it. ++Lar: t/c 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my reply was not helpful, but it's just really crude what was said. Regarding the previous polls, if you read through them you'll find no consensus, no real discussion; they simply degenerated into mud-slinging and a war for (vote) domination. One user went so far as to put out a call to arms on the German Wikipedia, etc. There could of been 100 people vote, but I don't feel 2x or 10x the number of participants should weight more than just plain good old-fashioned discussions and debate. This past discussion was the first time we ever had people of German, Italian, Dutch, English, etc. backgrounds work together. To me that discussion was worth more technically, and even just from a feel-good lets-work-together atmosphere, than a dozen of these bi-monthly "polls". Especially in this type of article, where national sensitivities are involved, polls simply becomes a joke. Anyway, one of the best arguments I've seen on this discussion has been one just recently made above by the editor Pcassitti. [90] Everyone should seriously read his paragraph and then re-read it a few more times for good measure. Personally, I'm still patiently waiting to hear what is more neutral and a compromise than Province of Bolzano-Bozen and an associated History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol. regards, Icsunonove 10:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the last poll is more valid than the previous ones because it's the first time that people from the German/Lombard/whatever wikipedia, and other Italian separatist users of en.wiki who generally don't frequent this page, aren't called to support the South Tyrol version. But anyway, the point is that obviously the most recent poll is what counts.
Regarding the title of the article, I support a "Province of-" name because every single province of Italy is called "Province of [English name of the capital city]", it's the most natural way to call it (so this should be Province of Bolzano). Moreover, the name South Tyrol is simply a political/separatist name, because Tyrol is an Austrian state, and this province was (a century ago) part of Austria, and there are some people who would like it to rejoin Austria. But of course, the title of this article in an encyclopedia should not reflect this; instead, we should write all these things in the body of the article.--Supparluca 10:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would sincerely hope that not everyone uses the terms Alto Adige and Südtirol (South Tyrol) in a political/separatist connotation, because actually both names are quite nice as a matter of fact. However, what you say also can't be ignored, because it is very clear there is a vocal minority that uses these terms to back up a rather aggressive political view point. But you are 100% correct that Wikipedia should not ever be used for such a campaign. It just leads back to the comments made by Pcassitti; also it is quite difficult to argue against the logic you make with every single province of Italy is called "Province of [English name of the capital city]". Deviating from this norm automatically gives the impression of non-neutrality. Icsunonove 23:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll for South Tyrol

I removed this. In my view it is not helpful at this stage. Revert me if you want, I won't revert back, and you can carry on anyway, but this removal should send a message to all parties, this is not the way to solve this. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Very much agree. —AldeBaer 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. We came up with a nice compromise here. If editors want to discuss it, discuss it. A couple prerequisite I'd ask for is at least opening an ear to the decisions that were made here this past month, and also realize that there is not only one term used in English for this area. Icsunonove 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Wikipedia

  • Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. :-) If we get 200 people to come here from the UnionFS and vote for what they are in favour, we simply change? This is English Wikipedia. The most common English-language usage is Province of Bolzano or Alto Adige. Would you like us to change the location to one of these? We are not a mirror of another Wikipedia project using de:Trentino-Südtirol, de:Trentino and de:Südtirol. Though at one point we had Trentino-South Tyrol, Trentino, and South Tyrol, respectively pushed on us. The most common English usage is Trentino-Alto Adige, Province of Trento (aka Trentino), and Province of Bolzano (aka Alto Adige). We have compromised with Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Province of Trento, and Province of Bolzano-Bozen; all which I'm personally satisfied with. Both Italian/German are represented, along with the modern present-day English-language names of these regions/provinces. The articles themselves in the intro paragraphs are very clear to the different names associated by language or history. We came up with a solution that was based on modern reality and also in a way where the majority of users were satisfied. We do not need again to have this battle over one nationalities view over another. We have used English-usage first and second made sure to have a neutral solution respecting the Italian and German POV. The two or more users wanting to use only South Tyrol or Province of Bozen-South Tyrol should really think about this. Icsunonove 05:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Icsunonove. In an encyclopedia you have to use the present-day name. Just like Kaliningrad as a political entity doesn't run under its original name Königsberg, the article about South Tyrol should go under the title "Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen". The autonomous in there is important, it is part of the official name, and should not be left out, as has been done.
Another problem is the content fork between "History of South Tyrol" and "Tyrol". South Tyrol as a separate entity only exists since the end of WWI, so "History of South Tyrol" should only go as far back as the end of WWI, as everything before that time is already treated in the Tyrol article. Pcassitti 07:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, autonomous is in the body of both articles, so it hasn't really been left out. I did favour at one point putting both pages at Autonomous Province of Trento and Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Other editors argued that it looked a bit tedious and sloppy, especially when comparing to the other 107 Italian province articles (especially when all listed together). Yeah, what you say makes perfect sense with regard to the history sections as well. We have the modern entities Province of Trento, Province of Bolzano-Bozen, and State of Tyrol. Then the historical Count of Tyrol page, going along with History of Trentino and History of South Tyrol (which should probably be renamed to History of Alto Adige/Südtirol or History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol to align correctly with the Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol page). The History of Trentino page can detail its own separate history with respect to the County, as well the History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol can focus on the area's history Post WWI (both thereby avoiding content forks). Anyway, this all fits pretty much with what we sorted out earlier this month, but does help a lot in "the details". Icsunonove 08:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed ridiculous. 27% speak German natively and that somehow justifies a German dominated name policy. If that s how its going to be, I know a few buroughs of Berlin that will get some Turkish names.Rex 16:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The breakdown per census is like this: Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (65% Italian; 32% German; 3% Ladin), Province of Bolzano-Bozen (69.2% German, 26.5% Italian, 4.4% Ladin); City of Bolzano (73% Italian; 26.3% German; 0.7% Ladin). I'm not sure if the Province of Trento is just simply assumed 100% Italian speaking. A lot of these language stats are bogus though, because (for example) the majority of people in Trentino speak some form of "Ladin". Another point, as Supparluca once said, 99% of the people speak Standard Italian fluently. With regard to your last sentence, well in a couple generations we may just see the whole name changed to Almanya in that case, but that is a whole different topic. Icsunonove 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The comparison with Berlin is actually quite fitting. Just like the german name of Berlin is the correct and historical one, and some feel it is threatened (although that is a bit of an exageration) by the language of immigrants, in South Tyrol many hold the point of view that the legitimate german names have been displaced by the language of italian immigrants which arrived in South Tyrol from the 20ies onwards. Add to that that most italian names have been created by the fascist regime with the very purpose of displacing the german ones, and you can understand why this subject is still ver controversial in South Tyrol. Pcassitti 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with what you say in general. One minor point though in saying "that most italian names have been created by the fascist regime". This is really not the case, and a lot of this is simply propaganda. Unfortunately this propaganda is not only being used to preserve German names (which is a good point), it is being used to wipe out the 90% of Italic names that are original to this region. That, in my opinion, is sick. Icsunonove 07:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not propaganda. Of the 8000 names created by the fascist regime, about 200 are historical. But I am not expressing any political opinion here, I just wished to explain why the issue is so controversial: it has to do with cultural identity and past wrongs which still live on today because they have never been amended for. Any solution to the problem at hand must therefore be bilingual: either Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen or South Tyrol/Alto Adige. Pcassitti 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You contradict yourself: how can you create a historical name ;-) ? For the record: the names were created long before the word fascist existed. See Prontuario. What the fascist did was to ban the German names. (However, I do not want to minimize the wrong that the fascists did to the South Tyroleans). To understand the rationale of the creation of these names, read Tolomei's introduction to the Prontuario included here. Still, most names are invented. They are different from the original Ladin names. Name changing was in vogue with nationalists at that time, for example the Greeks changed the names of most places in Macedonia in the 1920's, as did the Turks in Kurdistan (this fact has not found its way into Wikipedia because it is poorly documented, but see here.  Andreas  (T) 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You're citing fascist writings to support your positions? I don't think that's a good base for a healthy confrontation. Pcassitti 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. My proposal to read Tolomei's writings does not imply that I agree with his ideas. Sorry for giving out-of-context comments. I will reply to Pcassitti on his talk page.  Andreas  (T) 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll on page name

There has been no valid poll on the name of this page. The so-called vote was a farce. It has to be annulled. -- PhJ 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me check your talk page... oh yes, that Gryffindor's message!--Supparluca 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So what? -- PhJ 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
PhJ, you are welcome to join the discussion, but please do so in a civil manner. Disrespecting the recent work of a dozen-plus editors, who have all worked hard to find a compromise, is not the way to begin. Now, you placed a tag on the article stating that the title of Province of Bolzano-Bozen is not neutral. Can you suggest to us what in your opinion is a more neutral title? Icsunonove 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You two need to leave PhJ alone instead of mocking his opinion, this is another example of how you like to drive other users away who have an opinion that is not the same as yours. Gryffindor 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Umm, ok, interesting statement there Gryffindor. I, and probably many others, are simply curious what PhJ considers to be a more neutral title than the one that was chosen. Please do try and keep the discussion civil Gryffindor. Icsunonove 08:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh Please

EVERYBODY needs to stay focused on the ideas and article related matters and NOT on each other's behaviour. Everyone needs to keep their house in order here. Annotating the entire discussion: (and I'm annoyed that I find it necessary to do this)

  • PhJ, rather than characterising things as farces, speak instead to how consensus can be achieved going forward.
    • Supparluca, your comment in response to PhJ was not helpful at all, as it is mocking and inflames the situation.
      • PhJ, how did your response to Supparluca help matters?
    • Icsunonove, your reply to PhJ wasn't bad, it sought input to help move things forward, it is a valid approach to seek input from someone on an alterative phrase if they placed a tag complaining about one.
      • Gryffindor, focus on the way to move forward, not on user behaviour. You can do better. Your emails to me raise valid and substantive issues, keep to that tone here and it will help. I know you are very frustrated with how long and how repeatedly rehashed this matter is.
        • Icsun, your last comment slipped partly back into the old way of talking. You can do better, you know you can.

I said I did not want to babysit the lot of you. I'm disappointed that I keep getting calls to do just that. Please everyone try to work together here, try to review the many attempts to resolve this and find a compromise that works. Remember that redirects do help a lot. Wikipedia assumes that you're all adults here. Live up to the assumption and Don't make me stop this car! ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I kindly ask Gryffindor to avoid hidden conversations via email.--Supparluca 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is fine Supparluca, he definitely has that right to go and e-mail who ever he wants. It doesn't go far in helping build mutual trust, in my opinion, but it certainly isn't against any rules. I've strictly avoided it myself. Icsunonove 17:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No. I am fine with anyone contacting me if they have things they want to voice privately. That goes for any party to this. I may not act exactly as the person contacting me hopes but I am NOT from the school that says EVERYTHING has to be on wiki. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't make me stop this car!. Nice. I wonder if this translates to our non-American folk. :-) Seriously though, after the hard work we put into trying to find a neutral and all-inclusive solution, I'm simply interested to know what PhJ or Gryffindor would think is more neutral, and why. Icsunonove 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
trying to find a neutral and all-inclusive solution....not very difficult if you don't inform supporters of South Tyrol ;-) Mai-Sachme 10:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Come on Mai-Sachme, we don't maintain a list of everyone on Wikipedia to notify of discussions. :-) The vast majority of participants were not contacted when a few editors went page-to-page changing article locations awhile back, for example here, here, and here. You might also note that in those cases the majority of editors were native-German speakers (Gryffidor,PhJ,Matthead,Emes,Markussep), which can obviously lead to some bias. Also, "supporters"? This isn't football my friend. :-) So do you have some ideas to add to this debate? I think we'd all like to hear at least one argument to why South Tyrol is more neutral than the other terms used in English. cheers, Icsunonove 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Markussep is Dutch, not German; and I am neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Quoting and agreeing with Lar: I said I did not want to babysit the lot of you. I'm disappointed that I keep getting calls to do just that. Please everyone try to work together here, try to review the many attempts to resolve this and find a compromise that works. Remember that redirects do help a lot. Wikipedia assumes that you're all adults here. Live up to the assumption and Don't make me stop this car!' --Adriano 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Came over to take a look after the closing of the recent discussion of Category:South Tyrol (now logged here), which says to keep the category pending the article dicussion - not sure if this is the article meant, but I wondered whether it would help things along to mention that consulting the English-language pages on the websites of the provincial authorities, the tourist information sites of the region and the province, and the official site of the Museo archeologico dell’ Alto Adige (where Ötzi resides) all suggest that whatever the official name, the favoured English form is “South Tyrol”. This also happens to be the only form I'd ever come across until the discussion on wikipedia - but then as a historian I tend to read things that are old. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the article, thank you for the input. Other users mentioned the official website of the province, but in fact, that is really of little importance for various reasons. For example, in that site the province is called "Province of Bozen - South Tyrol", but we already know that the English name of the city isn't "Bozen". Then, you can find that in the same site the province is also called "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" and "Province of Bolzano" (in the pdf about the autonomous statute), and that in other tourist information sites "Alto Adige" or "Bolzano Province" are used (for example here).--Supparluca 11:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly there are a number of options, and the website of the province is not afraid of any of them. But I'd have thought that their choice of "top page" English name (the one that appears across the top of the browser window) would carry some weight. Since we're talking about an autonomous province, in which a large proportion of the population is a minority in the country as a whole, I'm not sure that the general "all Italy" website that you link to should be given the same weight - sensitivity to minorities and so one. Usual English usage is either the established English name or what the people of the place themselves use. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I had the opportunity to do some reasearch at the Library of Congress of Washington, DC and I noticed that there was no atlas using "Bozen": in every atlas the Province was named "Bolzano". So, it seems to me that "Province of Bolzano" is the most used expression in English and I think that we should use that. The current title is not POV and it is a good compromise, but it is not the most correct title we could have which is definitely "Province of Bolzano". --Checco (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian translation of Südtirol - Alto Adige

In english wikipedia literal translations make only sense if they are used to explain the meaning of a foreign word, and should therefore logically translate into english. When, on the other hand, the purpose is to inform the reader of alternative foreign names, then obviously only those actually existing and being used should be mentioned, not some theoretical translations which are not part of written or spoken language. Tirolo del Sud is such a theoretical translation, as are Oberetsch and Hochetsch. The italian translation of Südtirol is either Alto Adige or Sudtirolo (Tirolo del Sud is almost never used. For what it's worth, a raw google search gives the following results: "Tirolo del Sud": 1.520 hits - Sudtirolo: 276.000 hits) As for Oberetsch, the literal german translation of the italian Alto Adige, that's a purely theoretical and never used word as well. I don't see any point in mentioning it at all. Pcassitti 06:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pcassitti, I see your point. However, even though they aren't literal translations into English, you don't think they should/could be kept if labeled as literal translations in those languages? Though I suppose a German speaker would likely visit the German Wikipedia and see that translation provided. I'm just not exactly sure how we should list Sudtirolo, since it isn't really proper Italian, correct? Icsunonove 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it is not proper italian, but names don't have to be. That's the thing with names which Tolomei didn't understand (or understood only too well): you can't translate them, and if you do, you loose part of your history preserved in the evolution of those names. Sudtirolo is an interesting example, as it is a grown name which has become a widely used alternative to "Alto Adige". Tirolo del Sud, on the other hand, is rarely used, and could include Trentino as well, as it merely indicates the southern part of Tirol. I would solve the problem by removing the translations altogether, and replace them with a paragraph something like: ...also called Alto Adige (lit. High Adige) or Sudtirolo in italian, Südtirol (lit. South Tyrol) in german, Adesc Haut or Sudtirol in ladin. Pcassitti 07:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(copy and paste from Icsunonove's talk page)

Well, I think that the first sentence is just too long. In my opinion, something like "The Province of Bolzano (Italian:...; German:...; Ladin:...), also called Alto Adige (from the Italian name) or South Tyrol (from the German name Suedtirol) is an autonomous..." is enough.--Supparluca 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

--Supparluca 12:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but IMO Ladin should be included as well. Pcassitti 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Didn't I include it? Anyway Ladin should obviously be included.--Supparluca 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pov tag

Ok, so we've had this POV label (The neutrality of this article's title is disputed) put up by PhJ for nearly a week. In that time we havn't been given a single argument to why this title is not neutral, nor an example of a title which would be more neutral. I would suggest that this tag be removed by the end of this week if no such explanation is put forward. cheers, Icsunonove 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Icsunonove, I'm warning you. Don't try to remove that tag. You should know the topic is controversial, and I'm sure you know. There is no reason to remove it, and doing so would be a violation of WP common sense. So keep your fingers off. -- PhJ 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that was another interesting reply. :) Get this PhJ, you placed a POV tag on this article suggesting that the new title is not neutral. Why don't you make an attempt of suggesting to us what is a more neutral title instead of writing in such an aggressive tone? If not, it is "common sense" for this tag to be removed. We can certainly get an Admin to comment on this, but I see no sense in an editor putting on such a label and then ignoring multiple requests to give a suggestion of what is more neutral, and why. Icsunonove 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PhJ, I don't think it's the best approach to put tags on things if you are not subsequently willing to discuss why the tag is there, or willing to discuss other possible alternatives, and things that seem to be like threats may be even less effective. Icsunonove, even the use of interesting in this context probably doesn't help further matters. You all should, in my view, be trying to out do each other in how nice you are to one another and how cooperative, instead of scoring points. IMHO of course, do with it what you wish. But I'm not seeing a whole lot of forward motion. Where to next, I wonder? I'd say that if suitable justification for why POV is an appropriate tag isn't given, and if alternatives aren't offered, I'd have half a mind to remove it myself as a disinterested party, because I really do not care what this article is called... ++Lar: t/c 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies for including "interesting", I was just a bit surprised by those threats at the time. I personally really miss the constructive debates and discussions we had going on during the last month; it seems the only time we've ever managed to do so on here. We put in a lot of work to try and come up with a neutral solution. If some editor or editors felt left out or that this is not the most neutral solution, please put forward new ideas. However, this POV tag isn't going to stay on the article if it is just for the sake of an editor trying to make a point. So PhJ, you are always more than welcome to explain to us why this article title is not the most neutral, what you suggest is more neutral (and why). Until then, anyone is free to remove this tag. cheers, Icsunonove 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to discuss it, and I will also first point out that the tag states "DO NOT REMOVE" until the issue is resolved. So Icsunonove, you cannot simply remove it for fun. We will discuss this first. See below Rarelibra 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Before bothering us again, re-read what Lar wrote above. We gave the editor multiple chances to explain to everyone why this article title was not neutral, or why his choice was more neutral. He did not, therefore the tag was removed. A tag can not simply be added for fun, or to place a 'black spot' on the page. That was also two months ago, so no matter how important you believe you are, we weren't here waiting for you to discuss. If you can explain why the title South Tyrol was more neutral than the current, go ahead. Icsunonove 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reinstating the POV tag - and I want to hear comments from editors OTHER THAN ICSONONOVE. Ic - you have commented before and do not have the right to simply remove the tag to your liking. This is a legitimate challenge, so if you want - take the risk of being warned and blocked. The POV tag is valid - and I argue that the article has gone completely to an Italo-centric approach without merit to the legitimate, Germanic (and German-majority) language and population. Rarelibra 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • "legitimate, Germanic (and German-majority) language and population." My understanding of our policies is that "legitimacy" is none of our business. Would you care to elaborate upon these concepts? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    It is the exact same thing PhJ did on here, put a tag and then not even make the effort to give us a good explanation. It is just this, "well it is wrong because it is italo-centric, blah blah blah". Yeah Bolzano-BOZEN is Italo-centric, but South Tyrol is not German-centric. :-) If anyone needs to be warned, blocked, and actually banned it is Rarelibra. Sour grapes... Icsunonove 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Before bothering us again, re-read what Lar wrote above. We gave the editor multiple chances to explain to everyone why this article title was not neutral, or why his choice was more neutral. He did not, therefore the tag was removed. A tag can not simply be added for fun, or to place a 'black spot' on the page. That was also two months ago, so no matter how important you believe you are, we weren't here waiting for you to discuss. If you can explain why the title South Tyrol was more neutral than the current, go ahead. Icsunonove 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a possible disambiguation

I would like to hear your opinion on a possible different disambiguation concerning the term South Tyrol, instead of the existing redirection from South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen. (The article about the Province of Bolzano-Bozen would not be modified because of this proposal.) I propose something as follows:

South Tyrol (German: Südtirol) may refer to:

I think that this suggested disambiguation is informative, balanced and reasonably neutral. This version relates to the current articles Tyrol, History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, so any reader can find the information that matches his/her interests. This version also seems to me quite language-balanced. Any opinion and constructive criticism is welcome.
Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You proposal is ok for me. Let's do it ASAP. --Checco 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we make the exact same page then for Alto Adige dab? I still believe it makes more sense to just use one page, the Tyrol dab page. cya, Icsunonove 05:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This proposal is the most basic, intelligent, well-thought-out, neutral approach and is welcome like a breath of fresh air. I see no reason why other editors would have a problem with this, other than the fact that I have mentioned something of the same sort in the past - to no avail. South Tyrol is a historical region, and it should be annotated in it's own article. There are PLENTY of other examples from other countries that do the same - I have been working on Pakistan lately, all you have to do is fish through those articles for examples, with shared regions between China and India. So I also say let's do this as soon as possible as well. Until then, this issue is a POV issue due to the fact that the article is Italo-centric (due to the latest overpowerance of moves and changes). Let the South Tyrol article live on its own (separate from the Italian province article of Bozen-Bolzano), and allow it to grow to cover the history and reference to the region (as it existed before the current provincial name). Rarelibra 19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad idea; the English name, which is used for all three, should be explained. Please note, however, the rules for dab pages at WP:MOS (disambiguation). In particular, while this is a dab page, the only outward links should be to the three articles it disambiguates between. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Sep, long time no see. :-) This is completely off the subject, but I never got to tell you the time when you were messaging me about this subject and Rarelibra e-mailed me directly to warn me that I shouldn't trust you because you have some sort of ulterior motives. What are those by the way? :-) Icsunonove 05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've never been quite sure. Rarelibra strongly holds the position that we should always use official names, and I belong to the wide agreement that we should do what English does. But I do appear to lead some sort of Evil Plot; I've been led to dispute with dedicated Iranians, Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Croatians, Italians, Germans, Poles, Russians, and Icelanders, so I suppose I'm scheming for whoever's left. Who is that, anyway? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Tyrol is a historical county of Europe. It is with ignorance when someone says that "South Tyrol" is a historical region. The "South of Tyrol" was everything south of the Alps including Trentino. The political usage of the term South Tyrol actually came after the current provincial name. With regard to this page, it is actually finally a neutral article. Saying "Italo-centric", hmm, sounds like something you would hear from an individual who goes around Wikipedia taking sides in various ethnic debates. I'd like to know how having only South Tyrol was actually more neutral? Bolzano-Bozen is "Italo-centric"? No, though you might be able to make that argument if the page was named only Bolzano or Alto Adige. I guess this logic is a bit challenging ... You know what, I did witness some "overpowerance" (some new MBA-boy term?!?) on the map of Trento and Bolzano-Bozen (that it MUST, no matter what anyone else thinks, be Bozen-South Tyrol). Oh, hey Rarelibra, long time no see; how's that fffantastic resume going? :-) I believe the current dab page works fine, we can begin by adding more information to that page if something is indeed unclear. Both Alto Adige and South Tyrol redirecting here makes perfect sense. Hey, look, BBS uses Alto Adige too [91], obviously a bunch of Italo-centric/extremist Brits. Icsunonove 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, threats, profanity; all in just a few sentences. Then this hypocritical tirade given to us about being professional, respectful and on topic -- all while you self-righteously remove others' text. "Unless you want the games to begin". Ok, and now we even get the tough-boy threats from behind the keyboard -- gotta love it! Takes the cake, given the rest of your behavior on here. I mean, it sounds like I'm listening to some frat-boy with an inferiority complex. Oh, nothing personal there of course, just thinking out loud.... LOL. Icsunonove 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why this post is called for at WP:ANI#User:Rarelibra. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I still support indifferently one of these options: redirect to Province of Bolzano, redirect to Tyrol, disambiguation page.--Supparluca 22:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the current framework works fine. Adding more details is not a problem. Believing that if we "Let the South Tyrol article live on its own (separate from the Italian province article of Bozen-Bolzano), and allow it to grow to cover the history and reference to the region (as it existed before the current provincial name)" is just laughable, at best. Then what, an Alto Adige article too? The term was used politically before "South Tyrol" after all. It is just this same-old naive attitude of believing that one understands everything in a foreign land. We have History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol. That page can be used for writing "history". Icsunonove 05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Francesco's proposal. The term "South Tyrol" has had various meanings in history, therefore a disambiguation page would be the most useful solution. -- PhJ 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but "Alto Adige" can be described exactly as you have described "South Tyrol". Do you want a disambiguation page also for Alto Adige? It would be the same page.. Icsunonove 03:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

oppose: the term "South Tyrol" (a translation of Südtirol) is a political term invented after 1919 and never had been used otherwise. Read my comments above under #Wait. The German term is found occasionally in pre-1919 publications where it sometimes refers to the Trentino and sometimes to everything south of the Brenner [92] (note that Google Scholar lists journal articles under the year the journal was founded, leading to false positives). Francesco's proposal is not a dab page, the definitions do not point to individual articles. It is rather a mini-article about the use of an expression and is Wikipedia:original research because his definitions are not backed by citations. Note that "Nordtirol" was used before 1919 almost as often[93], therefore Südtirol (pre 1919) = "Southern Tyrol" in a general sense as would be used for any other geographical area (for example Süddeutschland[94]. German is a synthetic language and uses compound words extensively. Andreas  (T) 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I could not have explained it better. Icsunonove 04:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. South Tyrol is frequently found in nineteenth-century English. I believe this follows an Austrian administrative division. (Some of these are false positives, because Google Books dates magazines by date of foundation, but the citation from Fraser's Magazine, for example, is from 1872.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed before, see #Wait. Fraser's mentions North and South Tyrol, so again, this is generic. No, it was not an administrative division, or do you have any sources that show that it was? Andreas  (T) 15:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like there are 600 hits BEFORE this 'magic' date of 1919. The area was part of Austria before, was referred to IN GERMAN (duh) - and had three areas of Tirol - North, South, and East. Pretty basic stuff, gentlemen. Rarelibra 18:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This post is less than civil, and much less than sourced. I have, at the moment, no sources on 19th-century administrative divisions either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Read what the good Professor Andreas has written; I think he has a better understanding of German than you ever will. You don't even appear to comprehend that pre-1919 Trentino was also part of this Austro-Hungarian county, a county simply named Tyrol. Icsunonove 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong - it was known as "Tirol". Rarelibra 06:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Not in English, like en.wikipedia.org. Icsunonove 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Andreas:
Thank you for your interesting and valuable remarks. However, I disagree with you on a few points:
1. I am not sure what you mean when you state that the definitions do not point to individual articles. Actually, the first definition points to Tyrol, the second definition points to History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol and the third definition points to Province of Bolzano-Bozen. If you mean that the few internal links might be confusing (as Septentrionalis said), it might be a very good idea to write plain text only, with no additional links.
2. I did not mean to come up with an original research about the political connotations of a geographical term. In fact, I am not questioning what was the usage of this term prior to 1919. I am only asking if it makes sense that in 2007 we offer a disambiguation facility for the average reader that may not be aware of all the possible nuances of the term through the decades, as well as the complex history of the region.
3. My proposal does not state that "South Tyrol" (Südtirol) was an administrative subdivision of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. You know better than me that the area was part of Kronland Tirol, which was divided in Bezirkhauptmannschaften. The districts south of the Alpine divide were Meran, Brixen, Bruneck, Bozen, Cortina, Cavalese, Fiera di Primiero, Borgo V. Sugana, Trient, Cles, Tione, Riva, Rovereto -- as listed in the Andrees allgemeine Handatlas, Bielefeld-Leipzig, Verlag Von Velhagen & Klaising, 1903, pp. 58-59. The same atlas uses the expression Südtiroler Dolomit Alpen to name the mountain range between Montaion and the Sella Gruppe, including Marmolada and spanning between Fassa and Primiero. As you say, the term in this case refers to the Trentino and sometimes to everything south of the Brenner. In my own words, the atlas seems to use Südtirol for the the areas of the County of Tyrol (part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) south of the Alpine divide, including the Italian-speaking areas of Trentino. This doesn't mean that the term had an administrative or a political connotation. It is only a descriptive name for a geographical area, just as Oberfranken or Unterfranken. Why isn't it worth a mention anyway?

Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oberfranken and Unterfranken ar the wrong example, because they are indeed political entities. The disambig page as proposed here leaves a wrong impression, namely that there was a sociopolitical meaning pre-1919: the phrase "the German-speaking part of the County of Tirol that was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy in 1918" is particularly misleading because it implies that the name was used at a time when the County of Tyrol existed. It has to be made clear to the reader that the term Südtirol as we know it today did not exist befor the 1920 (or even later).
If we would follow your logic, then we should also have a disambig page East Germany with an entry
  • The part of Germany that came under Russian occupation after 1945
This part of Germany was known as the Soviet Zone or Ostzone. The Term Ostdeutschland came to being after the GDR was officially proclaimed. Before that, Ostdeutschland was a rough description of a geographical area, just as Süddeutschland (South Germany results in a red link). You see the analogy here. The difference is that the reference to Tirol seems undesirable by some. An explanatory note like at the top of the GDR article would IMHO be best. Andreas  (T) 16:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I would like to know if you can back with a quotation the statement that the term Südtirol as we know it today did not exist befor the 1920 (or even later), or if it's a dogma that I have to take for granted. There seems to be at least one case (see above for details) where a 1903 German atlas uses the term Südtirol in a geographical sense.
Again, I would like to make clear that my proposal was meant to provide some clarification for the average reader who may not be aware of the historical and political developments in the region and the related naming disputes. If my proposal is misleading, please let me know how we can reformulate in a more correct way or please provide an alternative solution, because the current version is frankly quite poor.
I think that we should move ahead and leave behind all the hair-splitting and some unconstructive confrontational tones. It is bizarre that Abkhazia or Nagorno-Karabakh, where conflicts (albeit 'frozen') are currently going on, have more comprehensive and more satisfactory Wikipedia articles than Provincia di Bolzano-Bozen/Alto Adige/Südtirol/South Tyrol or whatever you want to call it. Very bizarre.
Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
i don't think that I have to back the statement the term Südtirol as we know it today did not exist befor the 1920 (or even later). It certainly did not have today's meaning because the province in question did not even exist. Südtiroler Dolomitalpen means Dolomit Alps in the South of Tyrol. As for the "confrontational tones", please be lenient with me if you have this impression. I regard this as a freindly intellectual discussion, nothing more. We happen to have a different opinion here, that's entirely legitimate, and of course I respect your opinion.  Andreas  (T) 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the general tone of the debate (which sometimes is not helpful), not about you in particular. I indeed appreciate your remarks and respect your perspective. Best regards,FrancescoMazzucotelli 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Andreas, South Tyrol is identical with todays Province of Bolzano, a dab page would be inappropriate and misleading. Pcassitti (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peninisula

A [[peninsulahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen&action=edit&section=37 Editing Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]] is a piece of land that is bordered on three sides by water. Strictly speaking, BZ is not in the Italian Peninsula: it is north of a line drawn between Genova and Venice. "Both terms may be considered as culturally and politically charged, possibly because the term Alto Adige stresses the geographical location of the area within the Italian peninsula, while the term South Tyrol emphasizes the historical and cultural links with Austria's Tirol." This is double-sided POV and Wikipedia:Original research if no sources are found.  Andreas  (T) 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Andreas, the idea is to explain why some terms are politically and culturally charged. How would you otherwise explain that ths article has been stalled for nearly two years because of a naming dispute? It's not about being double-sided POV, it's about explaining the POVs so that anyone can understand the significance of the respective place names and their nuances. Academic or journalistic sources and quotations will be more than welcome in order to improve the point.
Thanks for the Geography 101 lesson. I'll change accordingly. Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Term Province of Bolzano-Bozen is highly POV!!!

If the most-used and most-accepted term South Tyrol is NPOV, so also the denomination Province of Bolzano-Bozen is not NPOV, because the complete name of the region is "Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen" (Bolzano-Bozen according to this "compromise" being South Tyrol completely forbidden!) and not "Province of Bolzano-Bozen", because South Tyrol it's legally and politically not like all the other provinces in the State in which South Tyrol currently belongs. If nobody moves the article under "Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen" I will think to start again for moving the article under "South Tyrol" (in diplomacy known as negotiation). SkafaTell me 21:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I don't understand what The residual legislative power of the province means (less power? remaining power from Italian parliament? remaining power from the Region Trentino-South Tyrol? remaining power from Government? - ???).

Skafa, relax dude! :-) The location of the article at just "Province of X" was used to be concise, not to be "NPOV". It is duly noted in the article that the province has an autonomous status. Icsunonove (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Again, I frankly find extremely bizarre and depressing that Nagorno-Karabakh (with a frozen conflict still pending and equally thorny name issues) has a more articulate article than South Tyrol (whatever you want to call it). This naming debate has been stalling any improvement over the last two years. I hoped I could contribute to move on. However, if fighting about the name is all that matters to you guys, please go ahead without me and have fun.
Residual powers is a technical legal term. The provincial assembly is not a sovereign body of legislative power. Its legislative powers covers those subject matters that are not reserved to the Italian parliament per article 117 of the Italian Constitution either as exclusive legislative powers (competenza esclusiva dello Stato) or as concurring legislation (competenza concorrente). (Cf. also it: Potestà legislativa). Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Alto Adige" seems more common than "South Tyrol" in modern and neutral contexts ([95] [96]), but the current type of name is the most proper for an encyclopedia. The province of Bolzano is a province, and so it has the same type of name of the other provinces (Province of Trento instead of Trentino, Province of Belluno instead of Bellunese(?), etc.). In the body of the articles we can write the peculiarities of each province--Supparluca 12:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Supparluca. The current title of the article is the only one possibile neutral title, after long discussions. --Checco 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed as well. In the United States the name Alto Adige is used most often. Does this press down people who want to call it South Tyrol? No, it does not. Call the province anything you want -- but this is an English Encyclopedia -- not a political blog. Icsunonove (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see evidence of this claim on Alto Adige; I am perfectly willing to believe it is most used among Italian-Americans, but that's not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No idea what is used most often by Italian-Americans. You should know thought that most Americans of Italian origin in the US came in the early and mid-20th century though from places such as Naples and Sicily. By this point the language is not spoken and I doubt many have much knowledge of North-East Italy. As far as my claim that Alto Adige is used most often in the United States, this is just my opinion based on experience. In general we know about this region through products such as wine, or through the occasional blurb in the news. Wine products consistently use "Alto Adige" almost as a brand name. News organizations such as CNN and BBC (especially) use Alto Adige most often, and yes, we have BBC in the States. :-) Icsunonove (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
An interesting claim on wine; Our article disagrees. I have no idea which is right; I drink Bordelais. But does either side have evidence?? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is just what I've see with my own two eyes at the grocery store, so I'm simply relaying my experience here. Maybe Andreas can check out the wine selection in Canada. :] I've only ever seen South Tyrol used once in the US; on those Loacker Quadratini. The back of the bag has something like South Tyrol / BZ / Italy. Either way, I'm happy to see either name on a package over here... You ask for evidence my friend? I guess I can snap a picture of a bottle or two with my mobile phone next time I'm at the store -- if you really want.. hah. :-) Icsunonove (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no BZ wines in Quebec  Andreas (T) 16:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? How can that be? Icsunonove (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wrong, there are, labeled Alto Adige[97]
Funny though that this wasn't my concern. I was more concerned about your wine supply. :-) If I think about it, I'll look around here more often to see what wines are avaiable from T-AA/ST in the US. There must be some whose label also include something like Südtirol-Alto Adige. Icsunonove (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write I want to call the article South Tyrol, I just remarked that "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" is not the most neutral choice, which would be Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen. IMHO this last is the most neutral because it recognize the official name and the fact that South Tyrol is an Autonomous Province. Writing "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" the only "neutral" thing is that the German name "Bozen" is included. I don't understand why the word "Autonomous" is so contrasted. SkafaTell me 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't call Aosta Valley "Autonomous Region Aosta Valley", even though it's the full name.--Supparluca 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
...and likewise we would have to have "Autonomous Region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol", and the "Autonomous Province of Trento". As well, Sicily is an autonomous region, Sardinia is an autonomous region, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, etc., etc.. :-) All these articles clearly state that the regions/provinces have a degree of autonomy. There is no agenda at leaving out the word. I was interested in including the word Autonomous at one point as well, but the valid argument was made to keep things relatively concise. Also, I think in Italian it is more common to say Provincia autonoma di Trento, but in English things are often abbreviated. Icsunonove (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote Icsunonove. --Checco (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sister city

I've e-mailed the Editor, but is this city in China perhaps twinned with the city of BZ instead? Icsunonove (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so, but where can we check? Maybe in the website of the Commune of Bolzano, http://www.comune.bolzano.it... --Checco (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had looked there a bit, with no luck. I'll try again later. Icsunonove (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How can a Province have a sister city if it is a province and not a city? Well here there is the answer: the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol signed a 'friendship agreement' with the city of Zhangjiakou because South Tyrolean enterprises built a ski resort in that area in order to show the importance of South Tyrolean buisiness. Well, I think that the South Tyrolean government signed more than one 'friendship agreements', and definitely it's only a 'business friendship agreement'. SkafaTell me 00:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot Skafa. *thumbs up*. Well then, we need to think of something to call the section rather than twin city or sister city. Maybe just Friendship Agreement? I don't know why you state it is definitely only a 'business friendship agreement' though. Icsunonove (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)