Talk:South Tyrol/Archive 3

message: South Tyrol → Province of Bolzano — This area is shown on the majority of English maps and lists of provinces of Italy as Bolzano.  This province in English is referred to as Bolzano, not South Tyrol. This can be shown by looking at any good quality reference.  Also, this page should fit the convention where the provinces of Italy are listed as Province of Trento, Province of Rome, Province of Milan, Province of Venice, etc., etc.  If there is a strong desire for a South Tyrol page, it should be moved to South Tyrol (historical). Taalo 10:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
Please read: This page has seen tons of votes regarding it's name.  Basically all of the comments have been German speakers vs Italian speakers, who are indisputably influenced by their personal opinion.  Since I really think that this poll might work, I would like to ask (if you will) if you have an inherent bias as a German- or Italian-speaker that you please identify that somewhere in your comment.  This is not mandatory, but would help a lot.  I would like to remain neutral in this dispute and hopefully I can try to keep things under control.  Thank you. —METS501 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
* Map from the Encyclopedia Britannica: . Taalo 10:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see this not so relevant list is used as "proof" again. See the comments and test results at Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol/name#the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige. Markussep 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: No, you are wrong. There are at least four defenders of the status quo, and the others have no real problem with the present title, except for Checco and Taalo. --PhJ 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And sadly the defenders are all German-speakers, so it is just degrading again into a POV battle.  I saw what you wrote on Martin's page about keep fighting.  Why don't you instead try to compromise.  Every major English reference lists the provinces of Italy, including Bolzano.  A compromise would be Province of Bolzano (Bozen).  A non-compromise is South Tyrol which is an English translation of the German name for this region.  Why don't you bring up an equal list of English references that list the provinces of Italy, and say South Tyrol?  why?  Because Wikipedia is based off English references, not having twenty of your friends some here and fight. Taalo 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you folks need to stop making fun of users like PhJ and start respecting others, it's really sad how this discussion goes and how you try to superimpose Italian names at all costs. This is not some Italian nationalist irredentism you need to fight out here. Gryffindor 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gryffindor, you have to be kidding.  You accuse others of Italian nationalism when the names we have now soley support a German nationalism.  You have Italian speakers that are largely looking for a compromise, but you are summoning German speakers to push for this status quo.  You have grown a strong bias over this situation, that you think that you must protect the Germans?  Why don't you look after everyone?  Just remember, you initiated the move in the first place where you unilaterally decided to remove Alto Adige and put only South Tyrol.  Its forgivable, and I hope your intentions were good, but we have to come up with a shared solution now.  I've said before that the irony in pushing for "German" names like Meran, is that they are in fact the local Italian language/dialect words going back to even pre-German migration into the region.  I'm not trying to say Roman > Germanic, I'm just saying it isn't so black and white as a lot of you would like to believe...Taalo 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like fights either, but this name simply won't do. The region is called "South Tyrol" and it's even part of the official name, check the homepage of the government of South Tyrol. Gryffindor 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But every major English reference that lists provinces of Italy lists Bolzano.  How do reconcile this?  If you want to talk about the region then you have to say Alto Adige/South Tyrol as well.  Anyway, the regional name is accounted for at what would be Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol.  The province pages can be Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano (Bozen) and we are done.  We have proper English usage in the titles and we also have proper sharing of the names. Taalo 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the homepage in Italian, which is the official language in Italy and also in the Province of Bolzano. Did you know it? --Checco 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone dislikes Alto Adige, some others South Tyrol... we need a compromise and what is better than sticking to the official name of the Province, called (Autonomous) Province of Bolzano in the Italian Constitution. Every Italian province is named Province of XXXX both by the Italian government and by en.Wikipedia (from Province of Sondrio to Province of Trapani). So what's the problem? --Checco 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But all the major English references that list Italian provinces use Bolzano, so that is the English usage.  There are none that use Bozen-South Tyrol.  The official name of the province is Bolzano (aka Bozen).  South Tyrol is now a name for the region, and which is included in the name Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol.  (i.e., we don't say Province of Trento-Trentino).  They translate it this way on the BZ provincial website, but that page already has some unfortunate bias, and we shouldn't use one non-native English website as the beacon of truth.  They could of just as well translated it as Province of Bolzano-Bozen.  I would of had a much better impression had they done so!  Taalo 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
Please read: This page has seen tons of votes regarding it's name.  Basically all of the comments have been German speakers vs Italian speakers, who are indisputably influenced by their personal opinion.  Since I really think that this poll might work, I would like to ask (if you will) if you have an inherent bias as a German- or Italian-speaker that you please identify that somewhere in your comment.  This is not mandatory, but would help a lot.  I would like to remain neutral in this dispute and hopefully I can try to keep things under control.  Thank you. —METS501 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support Any basic list of provinces has Bolzano listed, as well as Trento, Rome, Verona, etc.  This page should be moved to Province of Bolzano as this is what is used most often in English to refer to this province -- simple.  South Tyrol, if kept, should be restarted as a South Tyrol (historical).  An attempt to recast this province as South Tyrol is just complete partisan politics.  If South Tyrol is used, why not Alto Adige or High Adige?  Regardless, the point of en Wikipedia is to use what is commonly used in English, and again, any English list of Italian provinces has Bolzano, not South Tyrol. Taalo 10:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # Oppose. See all the discussions above. Markussep 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
* Map from the Encyclopedia Britannica: . Taalo 10:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this not so relevant list is used as "proof" again. See the comments and test results at Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol/name#the REAL name: Trentino-Alto Adige. Markussep 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: So fare we have 8 users out of 10 who dislike the current title of the article, 6 of them would accept Province of Bolzano and 2 would accept it, if the article is split in two: a article about the Province and an other one on the historical South Tyrol. We need a compromise solution, but what is sure is that we need to change the title to this page, as only 2 users out of 10 staunchly defend the status quo. --Checco 08:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are wrong. There are at least four defenders of the status quo, and the others have no real problem with the present title, except for Checco and Taalo. --PhJ 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And sadly the defenders are all German-speakers, so it is just degrading again into a POV battle.  I saw what you wrote on Martin's page about keep fighting.  Why don't you instead try to compromise.  Every major English reference lists the provinces of Italy, including Bolzano.  A compromise would be Province of Bolzano (Bozen).  A non-compromise is South Tyrol which is an English translation of the German name for this region.  Why don't you bring up an equal list of English references that list the provinces of Italy, and say South Tyrol?  why?  Because Wikipedia is based off English references, not having twenty of your friends some here and fight. Taalo 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you folks need to stop making fun of users like PhJ and start respecting others, it's really sad how this discussion goes and how you try to superimpose Italian names at all costs. This is not some Italian nationalist irredentism you need to fight out here. Gryffindor 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gryffindor, you have to be kidding.  You accuse others of Italian nationalism when the names we have now soley support a German nationalism.  You have Italian speakers that are largely looking for a compromise, but you are summoning German speakers to push for this status quo.  You have grown a strong bias over this situation, that you think that you must protect the Germans?  Why don't you look after everyone?  Just remember, you initiated the move in the first place where you unilaterally decided to remove Alto Adige and put only South Tyrol.  Its forgivable, and I hope your intentions were good, but we have to come up with a shared solution now.  I've said before that the irony in pushing for "German" names like Meran, is that they are in fact the local Italian language/dialect words going back to even pre-German migration into the region.  I'm not trying to say Roman > Germanic, I'm just saying it isn't so black and white as a lot of you would like to believe...Taalo 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intepretation of the results so far

message: Could everyone agree with Province of Bolzano (Bozen)?  This satisfies 1) English usage of Bolzano for the province name 2) shares the Italian and German naming.  I feel like I'm running a kindergarden! :}~~ Come on guys, compromise, none of this ridiculous keep fighting. Taalo 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like fights either, but this name simply won't do. The region is called "South Tyrol" and it's even part of the official name, check the homepage of the government of South Tyrol. Gryffindor 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But every major English reference that lists provinces of Italy lists Bolzano.  How do reconcile this?  If you want to talk about the region then you have to say Alto Adige/South Tyrol as well.  Anyway, the regional name is accounted for at what would be Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol.  The province pages can be Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano (Bozen) and we are done.  We have proper English usage in the titles and we also have proper sharing of the names. Taalo 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the homepage in Italian, which is the official language in Italy and also in the Province of Bolzano. Did you know it? --Checco 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone dislikes Alto Adige, some others South Tyrol... we need a compromise and what is better than sticking to the official name of the Province, called (Autonomous) Province of Bolzano in the Italian Constitution. Every Italian province is named Province of XXXX both by the Italian government and by en.Wikipedia (from Province of Sondrio to Province of Trapani). So what's the problem? --Checco 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But all the major English references that list Italian provinces use Bolzano, so that is the English usage.  There are none that use Bozen-South Tyrol.  The official name of the province is Bolzano (aka Bozen).  South Tyrol is now a name for the region, and which is included in the name Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol.  (i.e., we don't say Province of Trento-Trentino).  They translate it this way on the BZ provincial website, but that page already has some unfortunate bias, and we shouldn't use one non-native English website as the beacon of truth.  They could of just as well translated it as Province of Bolzano-Bozen.  I would of had a much better impression had they done so!  Taalo 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: * Province of Bozen-South Tyrol
: But all the major English references that list Italian provinces use Bolzano, so that is the English usage.  There are none that use Bozen-South Tyrol.  The official name of the province is Bolzano (aka Bozen).  South Tyrol is now a name for the region, and which is included in the name Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol.  (i.e., we don't say Province of Trento-Trentino).  They translate it this way on the BZ provincial website, but that page already has some unfortunate bias, and we shouldn't use one non-native English website as the beacon of truth.  They could of just as well translated it as Province of Bolzano-Bozen.  I would of had a much better impression had they done so!  Taalo 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather use true English references such as Britannica, Michelin, etc., than a few translations like this.  You can indeed use Google to find many variations, but I don't know how it really helps.  Like a few of these translations are from a .de or .at website, so that is how they translate into English.  A simple solution is that the regional name contains all the historical names: Trentino, Alto Adige, South Tyrol.  The province doesn't need to have Province of Bolzano (Bozen) - Alto Adige/South Tyrol.  It is redundant, and no different than  using Province of Trento-Trentino.  Anyway, back to the references you found yourself (above).  Major English references that have a list of provinces of Italy list Bolzano.  Bolzano (Bozen) is a nice way to share.  Taalo 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: # Support: As in the survey above. --Checco 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Province of Bolzano

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

message: # Support - the translated name from the provincial government website into English is "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol". The Italian name is Bolzano, but the translated English name is Province of Bozen-South Tyrol (as the French, Ladin, and German names also differ slightly). This is English wiki, we should use the proper translated English name. Rarelibra 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Province of Bozen-South Tyrol

message: Is the above a straw poll, in that we add our choices, or is it similar to where you only offer support for one choice? Rarelibra 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it seems at this point we have a much wider set of bounds than we have on the regional page.  It seems there we have been able to narrow down quite a bit.  The province page is still in a bit of a flux. :} Taalo 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I would very much appreciate if Martin Se would stop deleting the WikiProject Italy header.  This is the second time already. Taalo 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin Se has been warned on his talk page. Even by deleting the warning, he is recognizing that he has read the content and understood - whether he chooses to abide by it or not. If he continues, he will be reported to an admin and will quite possibly be blocked for his vandalism. Rarelibra 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Italy

message: It literally took months to push people into a compromise, and then you read stuff like this?? 
Hi, here (unfortunately) I am afraid it looks like the question has been settled. However, I think it will need to be soon posed again towards the contrary move. Now I will lobby a bit for South Tyrol. See you soon, --Clamengh 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse me, but is this how we are going to do things? 

message: It's just funny to see that this discussion comes out every now and then, just like a recurrent disease... :-) No offence intended, of course! 
Seriously speaking, I do not know -and I still cannot understand- why a name is so important, and I would like that all of you explain this point -to me and to yourself. As long as we use one of the names (in this case South Tyrol. I'd rather use the Province of XXXX version, but there are redirects and so I don't care) and as long as there are proper redirects from the other options, why bother?
A brief explanation on the first line, saying that "South Tyrol, also known as Province of Bolzano etc." would serve to the point, wouldn't it?
Does it really make sense to spend time and energy on a trivial issue, such as what should be the main article and what should be a redirect? 
OK, then someone would say, "But the right version is...", citing proofs supporting their idea, etc. as happened several times in Wikipedia. Fine, but let's be practical. We could underline the different opinions in a paragraph inside the article, something like "there is non consensus on the name of this province in English. South Tyrol seems to be more widely used, although the official name seems to be Province of Bolzano/Bozen, following the general rule for Italian provinces etc."
Then, if it really is the case (but I don't think so), search terms could be monitored in order to see after some time which version is the most widely used by English speaking people using Wikipedia.
Once more, I do not intend to offend anyone. All opinions are worth to be respected; but why don't we simply use what I call common sense and solve this -and other- disputes in a time-saving, stress-saving matter, being then free to concentrate on contents?
:Adriano, you forgot to sign. :-)  I think the point is that it isn't the case that South Tyrol is more widely used.  I usually see Alto Adige used in an English context when referring to the region, and Bolzano for the province.  Using South Tyrol has the location of this page will forever cement one particular point of view.  I believe something like Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Alto Adige/South Tyrol, or Alto Adige/Südtirol is more fair.  Note that if there had been a basic compromise before with something like Province of Bolzano-Bozen which comes straight of Encyclopedia Brittanica, reflects modern reality, and is also a shared Italian-German name (as used in the region), this debate would of ended a long time ago. Icsunonove 01:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fancy a guess to why the name South Tyrol is so important to some.  It is a matter of stating the land is, and is only, Südtirol/South Tyrol/Austrian Tirol.  I remember people saying, "why do you all want to get rid of the name Südtirol?".  But the case really is: why are these very same people the ones who are apparently trying to remove the name Alto Adige from Wikipedia?  Remember when it was only Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol and basically all references to Alto Adige replaced with links to South Tyrol?  You can see many pages where the same users have listed South Tyrol almost as its own Republic, along with Austria, Luxembourg, etc.  There is a political agenda there.  My opinion is this sort of push is just really sad.  It is just ironic that you have users who say that Italians are trying to erase the Germans from BZ, but the truth is that it is the other way around and has been for a long time.  Bottom line, the game has gotten old.  Using the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, or my preference of Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen reflects reality.  It reflects what you find in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.  It follows along the lines of how every Province of xxxx in Italy is named (after the major town).  It also gets away from the debate of what is used more in English: Alto Adige or South Tyrol (where the former actually is..hah! :).  You said it best, we are merely recording, and recording based on reality and proper English-based references.  I can't be the only one that has smelled something pretty fishy with the whole South Tyrol/Südtirol/Zuid-Tirol/Tyrol du Sud everywhere on Wikipedia, and the deletion of any name that is equivalent to Alto Adige/High Adige.. and even the Province of BZ.  It is surreal really... and I really pity people who must do such a thing to validate themselves, or whatever.  So, there ya go. :-) Icsunonove 01:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that "Province of Bolzano" is simly more precise, goes well both with those supporting "South Tyrol" and those supporting "Alto Adige", and is coherent with the titles of all the other 109 Provinces of Italy. --Checco 07:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Aosta Valley / :it:Valle d'Aosta? —AldeBaer (c) 12:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aosta Valley isn't one of the 109 provinces of Italy--Supparluca 12:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aosta Valley is both a Province and a Region, but actually a Region composed of only one Province. Anyway Aosta Valley has a regional government but not a provincial one, so it is more a Region than a Province. --Checco 12:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? On my encyclopedia it is explicitly written that Aosta Valley isn't a province, and if you count it as a province, you obtain 110 provinces instead of 109.--Supparluca 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed they're 110, but as the Province of Aosta has no provincial administration and it is in fact the same thing of the Aosta Valley Region, we should consider it primarily as a Region. --Checco 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asking because it appears in Provinces_of_Italy. —AldeBaer (c) 14:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because as Province of Aosta = Aosta Valley Region, we have one article about it. Aosta Valley is both a region and a province. --Checco 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Icsunove says there is a political agenda behind this name-war... Would a change in the name of an article on a free encyclopaedia be so decisive for people who - feel they live under the control of a foreign country, or - want to become independent from the country they truly belong to (have your choice! :-) )? I do not think so... so why is a name so important? And why bother?  As of the Province of Aosta, it seems from this document from the Italian Parliament that it ceased to exist in 1945 (). So any reference to the province of Aosta or of Valle d'Aosta seems to be wrong. --Adriano 15:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother? 

message: All the articles about the provinces of Italy are named "Province of [English name of the capital city]", so the title of this article should be "Province of Bolzano", otherwise it's POV, also considering that "South Tyrol" isn't the name usually used by reliable sources.--Supparluca 09:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order of rank, common English usage is 1) Alto Adige, 2) South Tyrol, and 3) Province of Bolzano and/or Province of Bolzano-Bozen.  However, it is difficult to really measure 3 because of the "Province of" part.  People may be using only the word Bolzano to refer to the province or the city of Bolzano.  People have claimed that South Tyrol is "English" but that Alto Adige is not English, but Italian.  This is simply not the case, just as Los Angeles and San Francisco are technically Spanish, but they are also certainly the English name for these cities (we do not use The Angels or Saint Francis).  Anyway, viable options for this page would be Alto Adige, Alto Adige/Südtirol, Alto Adige/South Tyrol, Province of Bolzano, Province of Bolzano-Bozen.  Only listing South Tyrol, when it is only one of the valid English names, and not even the most common, is just wrong.  My recommendation is still to use Province of Bolzano-Bozen, as cited through Encyclopedia Brittanica on the main page, so that we then match all the other 109 provinces of Italy.  Icsunonove 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not either factor out the section on the government of the Province to be Province of Bolzano, or put the categories on the redirect? Either will work fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is not a bad idea, and this has been brought up before (Ian just mentioned it too :).  We could finally do this split and have Trentino and Alto Adige/Südtirol focus more on history (as they are historical terms really).  Then have the Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano-Bozen pages.  This is what they do on Italian Wikipedia to some extend, and I've seen it on other Wikipedias as well.  The thing though, if we do this split, the historical page for AA/ST can not just be South Tyrol anymore.  It really has to be either the most common English term, Alto Adige, both English names Alto Adige/South Tyrol, or what we've done for T-AA/ST: Alto Adige/Südtirol.  I prefer the last one because then we have pages for Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Trentino, Alto Adige/Südtirol, Province of Trento (TN), and Province of Bolzano-Bozen (BZ).  Everything fits very nicely then and there is no term missing as well. :-) Icsunonove 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that Alto Adige is most common, especially in historical terms; and I object, as always, to double names. But please do make the article about the government of the Province. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose the use of double names.--Supparluca 12:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it is a matter of debate, definitely.  In the US I see Alto Adige used much more often.  In fact, the only time I've ever seen the words South Tyrol used were on a bag of Loacker Quadratini. :-) Also, if I do an English-only Google search, taking out Wikipedia, I usually get a factor of 2-4x more Alto Adige hits than South Tyrol.  The bottom line is both of these historical names are of relatively recent use as far as describing a territory; we should be able to at least be able to agree that they are both frequency used in English.  Anyway, I know you don't like the double names, but we did it for T-AA/ST, lets just do it once more..hah. Icsunonove 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: [Edit conflict: I hadn’t read the last three comments] I’d support the factoring-out approach. Administratively Italy is divided up very precisely into regions, provinces and communes and we need an article on each. But these aren’t always the best way to treat matters of history, geography or cultural affinity. The quattro province straddle also four regions. The territory of the contemporary Province of Alessandria is historically less of a coherent unit than a site of contest between the Empire and the Lombard League. The Province of Milan article is not the Duchy of Milan article. What we mean by Liguria or Calabria depends on which period of history we are talking about. Indeed the same applies to Italy itself—now, where was Garibaldi born?! —Ian Spackman 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree.  So if we make historical Trentino and AA/ST pages.  What is the preferred name?  Lets see: Alto Adige/Südtirol or Alto Adige/South Tyrol? :) Icsunonove 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On putting the category on the redirect. This is very ugly, actually. Certainly you could get a link called Province of Bolzano from the category :Category:Provinces of Italy by putting it on the redirect page. But the category wouldn’t show up on the main page (South Tyrol, for the sake of argument). Bad. So you would have to categorise South Tyrol also as a province of Italy. And both would turn up in the category. Very confusing to our readers. (There is an example of this at the river Soča / Isonzo and its double existence in :Category:Rivers of Italy.) —Ian Spackman 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I too endorse outfactoring of the governmental aspects. Also, I don't believe Alto Adige / ST counts as a double name, because it is officially being used (New York/Big Apple would be an example of a double name, or Germany/Deutschland, as those would be double names entirely of our own making). Why would we override the term when it was installed from the official side as a viable compromise? For that matter, I'd rather have Alto Adige/Südtirol than AA/South Tyrol, as South Tyrol seems to be less used in the English speaking world and simply because of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. It seems like a good compromise to refer to the (geographical) region. Btw: If I understand this correctly, the idea is to make a seperate article on the political entity "Province of Bolzano-Bozen", right? —AldeBaer (c) 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's really not that important how other projects present the subject. Wrt to splitting the article (which I endorse), wouldn't you agree that the Italian province and the historical geographical region can arguably be treated as two different subjects? We could of course keep it the way it is, but our primary goal is to get over with this time-consuming debate and build consensus. Your idea of keeping the article as one and renaming it to "Province of Bolzano" has (i) apparently no consensus, and (ii) would, in my opinion, not eliminate what you call POV but instead simply turn it 180 degrees. —AldeBaer (c) 12:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the two articles would have the same content with different names, but it's just my opinion. What is not an opinion is that the name "Province of Bolzano" isn't POV, because it reflects the reality and is English.--Supparluca 12:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One article is for the political entity, the other for the geographical region. "Province of Bolzano" is not the commonly used English name, both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are far more common. —AldeBaer (c) 12:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, "Province of Bolzano" reflects the reality because it is an Italian province; "South Tyrol" doesn't because it is not part of the Austrian state of Tyrol.--Supparluca 08:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: South Tyrol is not a historical region. South Tyrol as we know it today is a result of the partition of the Austrian state of Tyrol (Kronland Tirol) in 1919. There was no "South Tyrol" before that event, the German word "Südtirol" was colloquially referring to the southernmost part of Tyrol, south of Bozen. Therefore, South Tyrol, Alto Adige and the Province of Bolzano are synonyms, denoting exactly the same territory and political entity. To have two articles would be content forking that is not permitted in Wikipedia.  Andreas  (T) 21:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andreas.  A couple questions for you.  You mentioned "the German word "Südtirol" was colloquially referring to the southernmost part of Tyrol".  Wasn't the southernmost part of Tyrol: Trentino (i.e. Welschtirol)?  I don't know for sure, but it makes more sense to me that the colloquial term of Südtirol would of come out after the partition of the County of Tyrol in the early 1900s.  The use of Alto Adige to refer to a territory, in an official sense, dates back to the early 1800s (during a brief control under France), right?  Of course it is difficult to ascertain how far back its use goes colloquially.  Anyway, I don't think we are saying Alto Adige and South Tyrol are historical regions, but saying they are historical terms for this territory (like Trentino is a historical name for the Province of Trento).  In that sense, having a Trentino page and a Alto Adige/Südtirol that spend some time on history, while a Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano-Bozen page that concentrate on the modern provinces, tourism, economics, etc.. makes some sense.   If you are really convinced this is still content forking (because of all these terms certainly still being used today) then we'd have to just have Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, because these are the actual names of these two modern-day provinces. ps. where we have some real content forking seems to be at History of South Tyrol. :) Icsunonove 23:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point wrt History of South Tyrol! As far as I'm concerned, it's a killer argument for having two articles as there's much useful material in that page. Why not simply rename that article to AA/ST and merge info not related to governance (particularly the material on historical and geographical aspects) into that page; then we could peacefully set up and move the ST article as an article on the political entity Province of Bozen-Bolzano (or "Province of Bolzano", in case people think that's the better name). What's funny is that right now different people are opposing the (already existing) split over diametrically opposed reasons... —AldeBaer (c) 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%.  Not to mention this page is currently so bogged down with "history", it gives the readers almost no impression of the wonderful area TN and BZ really are! Icsunonove 00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To bring up the only categorical alternative I see, I'd like to know if those who expressed their opposition wrt a split would, following the same logic, argue merging History of South Tyrol into this article? —AldeBaer (c) 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. By the way, maybe it's too strong to say that I oppose the proposed splitting; I just don't like the idea and I think that it would be difficult to create two articles that will not be proposed for merging.--Supparluca 08:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the word "oppose" for greater clarity only. You realise of course that if that's your opinion, you would logically have to nominate History of South Tyrol to be merged into this article? I'm asking because I believe that it's the basic question that needs consensus: Whether we keep the two existing articles and maybe re-organise them, or whether we want to merge. As I said above, I'd prefer Icsunove's proposal, but I'd like to know whether it has conensus. Since two articles already exist, it's the call of the people "opposed" to a two-article-solution to propose a merge. —AldeBaer (c) 09:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation requested by 32X

message: The "History" article is indeed a content fork. It would not be a content fork if the main article (under whatever name) contained only a backbone of history and a reference . This is done for other geographical atricles, too.  So either merge the history article, or radically reduce the Histroy section of the main article.  Andreas  (T) 13:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the question, yes. Which solution would you prefer? Would you propose the merge or could you agree to Icsunove's two-article-solution? —AldeBaer (c) 14:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The History section is long enough that it merits an own article. But then, the History section of the main article should be merged into the History article. And the History article should have a title that conforms with that of the main article.  Andreas  (T) 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the History section into the History article. Needs some proofreading.  Andreas  (T) 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal, I'm on it. —AldeBaer (c) 08:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do something similar on the Province of Trento page (i.e., a History of Trentino).  This really helped clean up the BZ page a lot! Icsunonove 23:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History content fork

message: There is an obvious need for splitting the articles into two - one for the Province, one for the historical region. Who is going to do it? I don't mind taking the lead in this muck, if it will please most. They did it for a district in Turkey that the people kept warring over, and it works. I know they can do it with this one as well. The only thing is this - there are some still pushing POV. POV is one thing, official naming is another. The provincial website translates the name into English as "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol". That is how it should be. The links to the other wikis will have the various names in other languages (like "Bolzano" in Italian). That is how it should be. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, for God's sake - for people to LEARN, not to go around and continually push to change names back and forth. If you want to spend your time that way, than do so - but realize it's a waste of talent. I, for one, will continue to trudge and map where no maps have gone before. Happy editing. Rarelibra 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm, no: .--Supparluca 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm, yes: Official site of the Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol (taken from the provincial website). Good day. Rarelibra 15:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Rarelibra, you are pushing quite a bit for a name that basically no other editor agrees with. :-)  Look, even at http://www.provincia.bz.it/english/default.htm it says at the bottom of the page in clear English: "Description of the autonomous legislative and administrative powers of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen.".  Supparluca pointed out the official translation of the autonomy laws says Province of Bolzano, again in clear English.  You have gotten yourself locked onto only what is on that splash page, which has many errors. As the Anon editor mentioned above, the translations given on this website on the splash page are almost all incorrect.  The French don't use the Germanic word Bozen, and they definitely use the term Haut Adige to describe this region.  This is a strong example of it being necessary to go by what is English-usage (i.e., my English-based reference from EB).  We have actually already split the page if you hadn't noticed, and that is what was discussed above.  One page for Province of Bolzano (or Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Province of Bolzano/Bozen, whatever).. and we split of the History of AA/ST page just a few weeks ago. Icsunonove 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Call me "basically no other" then. The webpage you cite says South Tyrol about ten times, only once Bolzano, and at the very bottom - "Official site of the Autonomous Province of Bozen - South Tyrol -- © 1995-2005 Südtiroler Informatik AG". The autonomy statute talks about Provinces of Trento and Bolzano as the Italian name, introduced and confirmed by the Fascists, is still the only legal one. Double naming is only make-up for the public, sadly, to be shown on signs and webpages. As there was no Entnazifizierung, Fascism is still alive in Italy. It should not be allowed to creep into English Wikipedia. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Italian name is the only legal one". This is interesting, because all this discussion (double names, names of the speaking majority, ...) started because there wasn't a clear preference for the names of many places in this province, and that both the Italian and German names were equally official, so you couldn't apply the "use the current local name" convention. But if what you say is correct, then there's really "nothing left to discuss": just apply the naming conventions and use the Italian (English) names.--Supparluca 08:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Matthead, if you really want to have a discussion about this, feel free to drop by my talk page.  Regarding your last couple statements... absolute nonsense.  It is completely opposite of what has happened on English Wikipedia. Icsunonove 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious need for split

message: (+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)
thread_title:  '''Province of Bolzano''' 

message: (+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)
thread_title:  '''Province of Bolzano-Bozen''' 

message: (+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)
thread_title:  '''Province of Bolzano/Bozen''' 

message: (+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)
thread_title:  '''Province of Bozen-South Tyrol''' 

message: (+0 + -3 = -3 pts)
Just for grins...
* neutral Icsunonove 17:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Province of Bolzano/Bozen-Alto Adige/South Tyrol''' 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, this is the region; Province of Bolzano is the provincial government, duly catted into ; 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: "it's unbalanced towards the twentieth century": there was no South Tyrol or Province of Bolzano before 1919. What was before is found at Tyrol. The history of South Tyrol is identical to that of the Province of Bolzano or that of Alto Adige or of Tiroler Etschland. (For comparison: the History of the German Democratic Republic starts in 1945 and ends in 1990.)  Andreas  (T) 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Interesting. What did the article say?  Andreas  (T) 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Icsunonove 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Again, if you use Southern Tyrol, you get as many hits. Before 1919, "South Tyrol" meant the same as "Southern Tyrol", i.e. the southern Part of Tyrol, it was not a term per se. See also  Northern Ireland (did not exist before 1921, still 889 hits). South England (all times) gives over 700 hits. So "South Tyrol" (or "Northern Ireland" or "East Germany") as terms did not exist before partition. Therefore, the idea to have an article about the "historical region of South Tyrol" does not make sense. What is sensible, however, is an article about the history of the political entity that is called "South Tyrol" or "Province of BZ" or whatever.  Andreas  (T) 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wait

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Alto Adige also connotes ethnic ("annexationist") issues. Don't shy away from the facts, none of the names are neutral, else we wouldn't have this controversy here. The administrative term is Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (s:Constitution of Italy#Art. 116, s:it:Italia, Repubblica - Costituzione#Art. 116.  Andreas  (T) 13:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  (T) 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this s clear.--Supparluca 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Two-article solution?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: <Tongue into cheek>Leaving us with only the Italian nationalists? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make me come over there Septentrionalis. :P  Have a good weekend, Icsunonove 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article name 

message: *Support. for the article on the provincial governemt only. No double names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title:  [[Province of Bolzano]] 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  [[Province of Bolzano-Bozen]] 

message: *Support. English usage as per the official provincial website. Rarelibra 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Province of Bozen-South Tyrol]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of consensus Icsunonove 21:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Sorry, this is genuinely what I support. Of the other three, I support Province of Bolzano. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of consensus Icsunonove 21:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[South Tyrol]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move Request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Trentino was part of the Bishopric of Trent until 1801. john k 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Whither South Tyrol?

message: *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)
thread_title: (1)Redirect to [[Province of Bolzano-Bozen]]?

message: * 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)
thread_title: (2)Redirect to [[History of South Tyrol]]?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: (4)Move History of South Tyrol to South Tyrol?

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The Trentino was part of the Bishopric of Trent until 1801. john k 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Something else?

message: :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)
thread_title: Disambig page option

message: Why was this page moved when Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Don't worry, you can abuse your admin powers as usual.--Supparluca 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Hehe, Rarelibra, you are funny.  You say you are tired of the Italian-POV pushing, but almost everything in this province has been named in German here on English Wikipedia.  It seems Italians have been content to use Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, where Austrians like Gryffindor want only Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol.  To me the former is a neutral/multi-ethnic view compared to the latter which is a very one-sided POV.  Also, about persistence, you have pushed this "Province of Bozen-South Tyrol" like "a kid who screams until they get their lollipop".  No one supported it, except recently Matthead, yet you unilaterally decided to update all the maps and links.  I've never seen something so childish.  You even took my name off your main page, after I updated the link to Bolzano-Bozen (obviously no real friend would do such a thing!), and said you just update your page so often.  I mean, can't you even grow the orbs to say why you really did that?  That is truly pampers behavior.  You completely ignore the vast majority of editors who say we should use what is in English references such as Brittanica.  You can't get more neutral than that.  If "good people" (you mean you and Gryffindor??) are so pissed off because this page is at the properly referenced Province of Bolzano-Bozen, then I'm not sure they are such good people afterall.  Also, if you can, prove to us all that South Tyrol is the most commonly used term in English, versus say Alto Adige?  I know you've had personal conversations with Gryffindor over e-mail, he must really be good at spreading political hatred afterall (well, it was his major in scohol I guess). :-0 Icsunonove 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Why don't we have an "ignore" button on wikipedia?--Supparluca 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And Province of Bolzano in the English version.--Supparluca 13:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: *Hmm, interesting idea, considering that in this case both the establishment of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen and use of the term Südtirol started in the early 20th century... Icsunonove 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **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)

text: 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)
replies: text: *Yeah, especially when the aforementioned provincial website also uses "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" in plain English  Icsunonove 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Or Brittanica, which on English Wikipedia outweights both the Italian constitution and the Bolzano-Bozen website. Icsunonove 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Gryffindor, your standards are both flat-out racist and utterly divisive.  You flaunt Wikipedia guidelines to push your crude nationalistic agenda.  You are going around saying that "Italians" moved this page to the "Italian" name.  Bolzano-Bozen is the Italian/German name, and the users above are not all Italian (including myself!). You go ahead with your crusade, but this time the truth about your behavior is coming out.. my friend.  Every last bit of it. :)) Icsunonove 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: did you just call me racist? Gryffindor 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  South Tyrol 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "... like a chump (hey), like a chump (hey), like a chump (hey)..." Rarelibra 23:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Bravo. Icsunonove 20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, sooooo WP-LAME as well. Rarelibra 21:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Ladin - the regional Italian language????? LOL, Icsunonove, please don't start to invent new linguistic terms ;-) Mai-Sachme 13:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Don't get frisky Mai-Sachme. :P~  Check out  when you have some time. :) Icsunonove 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Commons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * "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 Wikipedia for stirring up horrible feelings on this particular region.  If anything we can only hope a user like Lar can put in time for mediation.  I do remember though a certain two users colluding over e-mail to stop the original mediation attempt -- because they had figured out the solution between themselves.  Nice one. :-)  We'll add that to the list. Icsunonove 05:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Just so everyone is aware 

message: 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)
replies: text: Very much agree. —AldeBaer 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Straw poll for South Tyrol

message: * Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. :-)  If we get 200 people to come here from the UnionFS and vote for what they are in favour, we simply change?  This is English Wikipedia.  The most common English-language usage is Province of Bolzano or Alto Adige.  Would you like us to change the location to one of these?  We are not a  mirror of another Wikipedia project using de:Trentino-Südtirol, de:Trentino and de:Südtirol.  Though at one point we had Trentino-South Tyrol, Trentino, and South Tyrol, respectively pushed on us.  The most common English usage is Trentino-Alto Adige, Province of Trento (aka Trentino), and Province of Bolzano (aka Alto Adige).  We have compromised with Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Province of Trento, and Province of Bolzano-Bozen; all which I'm personally satisfied with.  Both Italian/German are represented, along with the modern present-day English-language names of these regions/provinces.  The articles themselves in the intro paragraphs are very clear to the different names associated by language or history.  We came up with a solution that was based on modern reality and also in a way where the majority of users were satisfied.  We do not need again to have this battle over one nationalities view over another.  We have used English-usage first and second made sure to have a neutral solution respecting the Italian and German POV.  The two or more users wanting to use only South Tyrol or Province of Bozen-South Tyrol should really think about this. Icsunonove 05:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You contradict yourself: how can you create a historical name ;-) ? For the record: the names were created long before the word fascist existed. See Prontuario. What the fascist did was to ban the German names. (However, I do not want to minimize the wrong that the fascists did to the South Tyroleans). To understand the rationale of the creation of these names, read Tolomei's introduction to the Prontuario included here. Still, most names are invented. They are different from the original Ladin names. Name changing was in vogue with nationalists at that time, for example the Greeks changed the names of most places in Macedonia in the 1920's, as did the Turks in Kurdistan (this fact has not found its way into Wikipedia because it is poorly documented, but see here.  Andreas  (T) 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not make myself clear. My proposal to read Tolomei's writings does not imply that I agree with his ideas. Sorry for giving out-of-context comments. I will reply to Pcassitti on his talk page.  Andreas  (T) 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: Let me check your talk page... oh yes, that Gryffindor's message!--Supparluca 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? -- PhJ 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ok. I kindly ask Gryffindor to avoid hidden conversations via email.--Supparluca 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Come on Mai-Sachme, we don't maintain a list of everyone on Wikipedia to notify of discussions. :-)  The vast majority of participants were not contacted when a few editors went page-to-page changing article locations awhile back, for example here, here, and here.  You might also note that in those cases the majority of editors were native-German speakers (Gryffidor,PhJ,Matthead,Emes,Markussep), which can obviously lead to some bias.  Also, "supporters"?  This isn't football my friend. :-)  So do you have some ideas to add to this debate?  I think we'd all like to hear at least one argument to why South Tyrol is more neutral than the other terms used in English.  cheers, Icsunonove 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Markussep is Dutch, not German; and I am neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Quoting and agreeing with Lar: I said I did not want to babysit the lot of you. I'm disappointed that I keep getting calls to do just that. Please everyone try to work together here, try to review the many attempts to resolve this and find a compromise that works. Remember that redirects do help a lot. Wikipedia assumes that you're all adults here. Live up to the assumption and Don't make me stop this car! --Adriano 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Hi Pcassitti, I see your point.  However, even though they aren't literal translations into English, you don't think they should/could be kept if labeled as literal translations in those languages?  Though I suppose a German speaker would likely visit the German Wikipedia and see that translation provided.  I'm just not exactly sure how we should list Sudtirolo, since it isn't really proper Italian, correct? Icsunonove 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: EVERYBODY needs to stay focused on the ideas and article related matters and NOT on each other's behaviour. Everyone needs to keep their house in order here. Annotating the entire discussion: (and I'm annoyed that I find it necessary to do this)
* PhJ, rather than characterising things as farces, speak instead to how consensus can be achieved going forward.
** Supparluca, your comment in response to PhJ was not helpful at all, as it is mocking and inflames the situation.
*** PhJ, how did your response to Supparluca help matters?
** Icsunonove, your reply to PhJ wasn't bad, it sought input to help move things forward, it is a valid approach to seek input from someone on an alterative phrase if they placed a tag complaining about one.
*** Gryffindor, focus on the way to move forward, not on user behaviour. You can do better. Your emails to me raise valid and substantive issues, keep to that tone here and it will help. I know you are very frustrated with how long and how repeatedly rehashed this matter is.
**** Icsun, your last comment slipped partly back into the old way of talking. You can do better, you know you can.
I said I did not want to babysit the lot of you. I'm disappointed that I keep getting calls to do just that. Please everyone try to work together here, try to review the many attempts to resolve this and find a compromise that works. Remember that redirects do help a lot. Wikipedia assumes that you're all adults here. Live up to the assumption and Don't make me stop this car! ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I kindly ask Gryffindor to avoid hidden conversations via email.--Supparluca 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Come on Mai-Sachme, we don't maintain a list of everyone on Wikipedia to notify of discussions. :-)  The vast majority of participants were not contacted when a few editors went page-to-page changing article locations awhile back, for example here, here, and here.  You might also note that in those cases the majority of editors were native-German speakers (Gryffidor,PhJ,Matthead,Emes,Markussep), which can obviously lead to some bias.  Also, "supporters"?  This isn't football my friend. :-)  So do you have some ideas to add to this debate?  I think we'd all like to hear at least one argument to why South Tyrol is more neutral than the other terms used in English.  cheers, Icsunonove 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Markussep is Dutch, not German; and I am neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Quoting and agreeing with Lar: I said I did not want to babysit the lot of you. I'm disappointed that I keep getting calls to do just that. Please everyone try to work together here, try to review the many attempts to resolve this and find a compromise that works. Remember that redirects do help a lot. Wikipedia assumes that you're all adults here. Live up to the assumption and Don't make me stop this car! --Adriano 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi Pcassitti, I see your point.  However, even though they aren't literal translations into English, you don't think they should/could be kept if labeled as literal translations in those languages?  Though I suppose a German speaker would likely visit the German Wikipedia and see that translation provided.  I'm just not exactly sure how we should list Sudtirolo, since it isn't really proper Italian, correct? Icsunonove 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Sounds reasonable, but IMO Ladin should be included as well. Pcassitti 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't I include it? Anyway Ladin should obviously be included.--Supparluca 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian translation of Südtirol - Alto Adige

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  pov tag 

message: I've e-mailed the Editor, but is this city in China perhaps twinned with the city of BZ instead? Icsunonove (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, but where can we check? Maybe in the website of the Commune of Bolzano, http://www.comune.bolzano.it... --Checco (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had looked there a bit, with no luck.  I'll try again later. Icsunonove (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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