Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 1 November 2007

Italy NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

South Tyrol/Naming received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages mirror German Misplaced Pages. That game has got to end. Icsunonove 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

• weak support Icsunonove 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• strong oppose should avoid usage of the '/' character. Rarelibra 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• oppose double names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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  19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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  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)

Discussion

Rarelibra, check this out. Google English search of "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol -wiki" . All of 111 hits! Come on now... :)) Also, you find your Province of Bozen-South Tyrol here , but on the same page it shows Province of Bolzano/Bozen and in the Autonomy Statute shows Province of Bolzano . 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

"Province of Bolzano-Bozen": 20,600 pages

"Province of Bozen": 2,330 pages

"Province of Alto Adige": 915 pages

"Province of South Tyrol": 532 pages

"Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige": 148 pages

"Province of Bozen-South Tyrol": 110 pages

"Bolzano Province": 13,700 pages

"South Tyrol Province": 672 pages

"Alto Adige Province": 421 pages

"Bozen Province": 301 pages

"Bolzano-Bozen Province": 104 pages

"Bolzano-Alto Adige Province": 1 page

"Bozen-South Tyrol Province: 0 pages

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)

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  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)

• Andreas: the History of the German Democratic Republic is comparable to the History of the Province of Bolzano, not to the History of South Tyrol. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, where is the History of East Germany? Andreas  22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

this was a Misplaced Pages: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  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 Misplaced Pages 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  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  22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) WHy can't I find it here? Maybe you have a better source.  Andreas  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
• "West Tyrol": 50 hits
• "East Germany": 632 hits
• "computer": 21,292 hits
  • 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 10 :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  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  13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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  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. Justified or not (a matter of opinion), resentment against the name "Alto Adige" exists, as does resentment against the annexation. Andreas  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 Misplaced Pages, we have to live with this.  Andreas  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)

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)

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)

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)

Province of Bolzano-Bozen

• Support. This name is cited in Encyclopedia Britannica as such (along with the main English page of the provincial website , 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 (!!). 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)

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      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 . 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 can be left elsewhere. That is what really makes this discussion uncivil. Icsunonove 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Google, English, -wiki

"Province of Bolzano": 47,700 pages

"Province of Bolzano-Bozen": 21,000 pages

"Province of Bozen-South Tyrol": 115 pages

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)

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)

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:

(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 Misplaced Pages:Content fork.  Andreas  01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How about the disambig page option discussed below? —AldeBaer 11:33, 21 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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages means we do need some expositionary text. WLD 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)

South Tyrol

Why was this page moved when Misplaced Pages rules clearly state that the most commonly used name should be used? There have been multiple votes 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, Misplaced Pages 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) Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 20 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 Icsunonove 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Or Brittanica, which on English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 , without the accusation against "Italians". Hmm, I wonder if you've answered your own question. Awesome. :-) Icsunonove 06:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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 and . 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)

Wiki Commons

• Nice  :))) 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 . 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 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 "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 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)

Just so everyone is aware

Gryffindor is re-starting his cleansing crusade. Check out his edits . 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 ? You are infamous on Misplaced Pages 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. :) 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)

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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages projects to come here and vote. Is this the way we really want to do things on English Misplaced Pages? 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 , 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 , 2) the official name of the province . Wiki articles rest with Italy and not Republic of Italy. Three votes , , 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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? 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 . Same search with Alto Adige, 891,000 hits . Same thing on Google Scholar, "South Tyrol" 2,400 hits , "Alto Adige" 5,360 hits . 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 Misplaced Pages and telling them what they speak in their language. I wouldn't even be comfortable to do that on Italian Misplaced Pages. 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 and here . 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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 ", 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ". Deviating from this norm automatically gives the impression of non-neutrality. Icsunonove 23:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

English Misplaced Pages

• Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages because it is poorly documented, but see here.  Andreas  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  19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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:

• 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, in past times also known as Welschtirol in German.
• the German-speaking part of the County of Tirol that was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy in 1918.
• the Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen, a political subdivision of the Republic of Italy, which is also known as Alto Adige (lit. "Upper Adige") in Italian and Südtirol (lit. "South Tyrol") in German.

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. :-) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 , obviously a bunch of Italo-centric/extremist Brits. Icsunonove 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, Icsunonove - you WILL keep things professional, respectful, and ON TOPIC here. You want to f*ck around with anything other personal comments and/or agendas, and I will personally see to it that you are reported and blocked for your actions. So learn how to be mature, intelligent, and remain on topic. Unless you want the games to begin. Rarelibra 18:48, 1 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)

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 (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 Misplaced Pages:original research because his definitions are not backed by citations. Note that "Nordtirol" was used before 1919 almost as often, therefore Südtirol (pre 1919) = "Southern Tyrol" in a general sense as would be used for any other geographical area (for example Süddeutschland. German is a synthetic language and uses compound words extensively. Andreas  13:19, 1 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  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)

• NA-Class Italy pages
• NA-importance Italy pages
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• Old requests for peer review