Talk:Apulia

message: In ancient times northern Puglia was Daunia, Hellenized much later than the southern parts, Messapia and Peucetia. There should be some mention of these toponyms at least. --Wetman 09:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: It is called Puglia. Why is this article named after an archaic anglicism? A search for Leghorn rightly redirects to Livorno, and the same principle of common usage should be applied to Apulia/Puglia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.47.90 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first comment, I have never heard of APUGLIA.  Please direct me to an outside source verifying that APUGLIA is the english name for PUGLIA.  70.52.169.170 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In English it is Apulia... simple. This is English Wikipedia, so there is no need to beat this point to death. The people/ language (dialects) are Apulian (not "pugliese/i"). It may be "fashionable" to call places by what the natives use; however, in most English mouths 'puglia" or "le puglie" is usually garbled and confusing. Leghorn is antiquated, Apulia is not. Mariokempes 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I take it back... a significant amount of English literature (including material in my private collection) does refer to it as "Puglia". The majority, however, calles it Apulia. The same references that call it Puglia conveniently avoid the descriptive (such as "Pugliesi"). In a nutshell, I would recommend maintaining a redirect from Puglia but keep it as Apulia/ Apulians in the text. Mariokempes 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the name Apulia should be placed in brackets after the proper name.  I have lived in many parts of Italy in recent years since leaving the UK and never knew until reading this article of the name 'Apulia'.  I am familiar with Anglicised names for provinces like Tuscany and Sicily but never Apulia.  It would be like refering to Friuli-Venezia Giulia as Friuli-Literale or Emilia-Romagna as something more suitable for the English tongue.  The name seems to still be used nowadays but increasingly replaced with the Italian name Puglia just as we refer to provinces and regions in most countries by their native names (with the exception of the biggest cities like Paris, Warsaw, Rome, etc.).  Maybe some stupid Americans use this old name but those same Americans probably couldn't find Italy on a world map (and probably not even the USA) - this is an encyclopaedia and not a Dummies Guide for Americans.--217.203.153.152 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am Italian and have talked to a number of British people about the region, and cannot but confirm that they usually call it Apulia. However, they also generally refer to Mumbai as "Bombay" to Varanasi as "Benares", to Myanmar as "Burma" and, more often than not, to Beijing as "Peking", especially when talking about ducks. The issue here is far broader than Apulia/Puglia: it is about a consistent policy, which seems to be missing from Wikipedia's guidelines, of either chosing local or English geographical designations. It looks to me now that the choice is currently based on how touchy the natives are about the issue, which doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic to me. Complainer (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The choice is actually based on what is common use in English, as set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).  There may well be a strong case for a move to Puglia, which is fairly common in English prose these days (Bern was moved from Berne because the consensus was that English use had changed over the years).  If someone feels strongly about it, why not try a change through the Requested Moves procedure?  Incidentally, it has been accepted that English use is now Lazio, not Latium.  Skinsmoke (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text:  It's time that the name of this article was changed.  Apuglia is really not used in modern day English in the same way that 'The Sudan' (for the country), Cracow (instead of Krakow) and Stettin (instead of Szczecin).  Check out this BBC article from today's news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11938665).  Not the number of times 'Puglia' or 'Puglian' is used - 9 times and how many times 'Apuglia' is used - 0 times.  And there is no need in the BBC article for them to explain the name or anything like that which suggests that the term is commonly known.--85.94.113.121 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody, at least nobody who goes to Italy, ever calls the place 'Apulia' 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus to change. May be relisted at a later time Jojhutton (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. This purely Google approach is seriously flawed, see WP:GNUM. Two flaws not yet mentioned there are that Google's English filter is broken; many of these hits on Puglia alone are on text which is in, or is quoting, Italian; also, passages which use Apulia and mention Puglia once (as in "Apulia, It. Puglia) will be ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Support. Google's language filter is 99% accurate even for language far more obscure than English, and the biases Septentrionalis mentions ("Puglia" being mentioned in an "Apulia" page) are, until the opposite is proven, to be assumed to be symmetrical. Google.dk, asking only for English pages, and excluding the word "wikipedia" gives a lead of 4,050,000 to 1,250,000 for the Italian form. Complainer (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, this should convince you to move the article: if you are referring to the mediaeval title, it was "Duke of Apulia and Calabria", where the term denotes most of Continental Southern Italy, not just the region. The (much) later title of "Duca delle Puglie" (notice the plural), which is vastly ceremonial, likewise indicates a much broader area than the region we are talking about in this article.Complainer (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: So what? Spammers and real estate agents, despicable as they may be, are a legitimate way of assessing modern English usage as well--if anything, a better one (they are trying to sell today, not in the Victorian age of many wikipedia sources).Complainer (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I question whether usage on these sites was generated by humans at all.  —  AjaxSmack  23:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the sites are software-generated, this software was written with English interfaces, by young English speakers in order to spam the contemporary English word with modern (as opposed to "good old") English ads. The one advantage wikipedia has over, say, Britannica is being up to the times, in language as well as information. My point of view is that opposing this move is a first step towards denying this advantage.Complainer (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But imagine for a moment that 40% of English speakers said Puglia and 60% said Apulia, but three of the four bots that alone made up 99% of Google hits happened to use Puglia. In such an hypothetical circumstance, the number of Google hitseven if Google actually counted pages, which it doesn't, see my post of 23:19, 28 July 2010, belowwould be seriously biased towards Puglia. (See  for an example of such a phenomenon which actually happened, artificially increasing by several orders of magnitude the frequency of San Diego's population compared to that of population of San Diego.) A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very interesting hypothetical case, and I understand where it comes from but I have to warn other potential readers that considering it an argument against the move without further evidence amounts to a conspiracy theory. Complainer (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: There is no mention of the major cities or other population centers, as measured by population, political influence or economic influence.  Indeed there is no discussion about how the population is distributed. I think such a section should be added. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of major cities 

message: something has gone wrong with the flag  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.142.11 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the flag 

message: In response to a template suggesting that they should be pruned I looked at all but two of them and removed all that I saw as (often grotesque, but at best marginally relevant) linkspam. I left the official site of the regione as inherently relevant and left the Lega ambiente site without looking at it because I knew that I would be biased in favour of it. Could somebody have a look at it, decide whether whether it should stay or go, leave it or remove it as appropriate, and finally remove the  header to the article. Thanks in advance Ian Spackman (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Neighbouring countries across the sea are sorted alphabetically, bot the sentence says "across the Adriatic and Ionian sea, respectively". So it turns out that Montenegro is across Ionian sea, but it is on the cost of Adriatic sea. It would be better instead of using alphabetical order, to use N-S direction (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Greece). --Caer-Caveral (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Neighbours 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Apulia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140424084354/http://www.greenreport.it/contenuti/leggi.php?id_cont=11969 to http://www.greenreport.it/contenuti/leggi.php?id_cont=11969
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090821143316/http://circa.europa.eu:80/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/itf4_eco.htm to http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/itf4_eco.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721132805/http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/itf4_pop.htm to http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/itf4_pop.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apulia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212013333/http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/11/28&type=HTML to http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/11/28&type=HTML
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It says it comes from " Ἀπουλία", but doesn't give the meaning of this word! That's absurd!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology is not complete 

message: In such a short history section, this quote stands out as particularly odd. Turin was only the capital of Italy from 1861 to 1865, then it was briefly Florence, and finally Rome since 1871.
But the historian is correlating 1861-1865 to the modern political map. This has been altered a lot by the breakup of Yugoslavia - but in the 1860s there wasn't even a Yugoslavia to break up into pieces. What relevance has the modern Balkanised Balkans to the early 1860s?
Even if you looked at how many capitals were closer to Otranto than Turin in 1861, this is nothing particularly unusual. Look at a map of most countries - France, China, USA, Australia, Canada to begin with - and look how many people are far away from their capitals. This statement plays so much mental gymnastics it has practically no meaning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:E586:EF10:1FAE:7D0A (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turin was "so far away that Otranto is today closer to seventeen foreign capitals than it is to Turin" 

message: The difference in material between the it.wiki page (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puglia) and this one is absurd. Is the reason that many of the references in the it.wiki article aren't valid enough? JacktheBrown (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd