Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 10:19, 10 January 2024

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Italy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Misplaced Pages requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Misplaced Pages requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

Fix the names

I don't understand how it is possible we have to discuss the name of this page when the official name of the region is written in the Italian Constitution Law. My proposal is to rename to "Trentino-Alto Adige", a simple copy and paste from the Italian Constitution. Not using the proper name is a gift to the enemies of Misplaced Pages who can say that we don't put "quality" in Wikipedi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.200.163 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana: Art. 116. (2) "Il Friuli Venezia Giulia , la Sardegna, la Sicilia, il Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol e la Valle d’Aosta/Valle´e d’Aoste dispongono di forme e condizioni particolari di autonomia, secondo i rispettivi statuti speciali adottati con legge costituzionale (3)." And thus ended this discussion. noclador (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 28 days, and none likely. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol → Trentino-Alto Adige — The current title was a compromise between Italian- and German-speaking interests. Titles in the English Misplaced Pages, however, should reflect English usage whenever possible. Misplaced Pages also disfavors dual-name titles. Here, the evidence strongly shows that the most common name of this region in English is "Trentino-Alto Adige". Note: this move request also applies to all other Misplaced Pages articles with "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" in the title. Dohn joe (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nom. "Trentino-Alto Adige" is by far the most common way to refer to this region in English. See Google Books: 17,300 for Trentino-Alto Adige; 894 for Trentino-Südtirol; 576 for Trentino-South Tyrol; and only 48 for the current title (many of which are Misplaced Pages mirrors). See also Google Scholar: 4,130 for Trentino-Alto Adige; 192 for Trentino-South Tyrol; 65 for Trentino-Südtirol; and 83 for the current title. Finally, this ngram also shows that "Trentino-Alto Adige" dwarfs all other names for this region in English. The proposed title follows Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGN, and follows English-language usage. Dohn joe (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is neither a dual title nor a bad compromise between Italian- and German-speakers, in fact it is the official name of the region (see Italian Constitution). @Dohn joe: It is amazing how you can be on the wrong side of the argument both here and at Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen, but at least no-one could question you intellectual honesty and good faith. I understood your arguments and, although I disagre, I enjoy reading your opinions and I hold you in high esteem. --Checco (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the kind words, Checco. I, too, appreciate your good faith and respect your opinions. Dohn joe (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME: Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We have discussed this issue many times and voted upon it and come to a final agreement in the end to go with the name given in the Italian constitution. I don't think this box should be reopened again. Gryffindor (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  But Gryffindor, in your request to move Province of Bolzano-Bozen to South Tyrol, your rationale was "Most commonly used name in the English language and literature and media for this region." And I agree with that. Isn't it also true for "Trentino-Alto Adige"? Dohn joe (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dohn joe, my argument is actually to have it under "Trentino-South Tyrol". Please read first all the arguments given in the previous discussions and votes that were held if you have not done so already. I am not interested in roling this up again since we came to a majority agreement after long and tedious discussions and the current name was the consensus that was reached. And I intend to keep the agreement that was reached by all parties. Gryffindor (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Checco. —Nightstallion 21:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The English name of the region is actually "South Tyrol" with a "y", however the boundaries are not as precise as administrative boundaries. Thus I'm okay with the current name, despite its awkwardness. --Bejnar (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The english name of the province is South Tyrol, and thus the region should be named Trentino-South Tyrol in english.--Sajoch (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The fact, that it is difficult to find references to the name Trentino-South Tyrol in Google Books or other sources, relies in the fact, that the name South Tyrol became official only after the second autonomy statute in 1972 (See Part 3 "South Tyrols new name and powers" of THE SOUTH TYROL AUTONOMY ). After the 2nd statute in 1972 the region continued to exist only de jure (and thus rare mention in news or literature), while the province South Tyrol has become a de facto region. So if you want, leave the administrative name Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, but do not change it to its old name Trentino-Alto Adige, which isn't appropriate any more. Hence I would strongly suggest a move to Trentino-South Tyrol by considering up-to-date data.--Sajoch (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think you mean that the new name only became official with the amendment of the constitution in 2002 (or was it 2001?) and since then the old name Trentino-Alto Adige is not used anymore. Please correct me if I remember the dates of the official introduction of the new name wrong. noclador (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The italian name Trentino-Alto Adige is still used (obviously). But you're right, the german name Südtirol (and thus also the english name South Tyrol) became only official in 2001 (when the name Südtirol was inserted in the italian constitution). The following table shows data from english Google Books, about two decades before and one decade after making "Südtirol" an official name:

	1981-1990	1991-2000	2001-2010
Trentino-South Tyrol	26	110	322
Trentino-Alto Adige	3750	5080	3930

The use of Trentino-Alto Adige is declining in favor of Trentino-South Tyrol after 2001, but having passed less than 10 years, the evidence is not so strong and there's still way to go. Therefore I leave it up to others to decide, if we leave the unwieldy but politically correct Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, or if we look forward and consider the trend versus Trentino-South Tyrol.--Sajoch (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But your own evidence (and mine as well) shows that "Trentino-Alto Adige" is currently more than ten times more common than "Trentino-South Tyrol" - let alone the current title, which is hardly used at all in English. Perhaps usage is changing, and one day "Trentino-South Tyrol" will surpass "Trentino-Alto Adige". But that day has not yet arrived, and Misplaced Pages does not predict usage - it reflects current usage. Is there anyone who disagrees that "Trentino-Alto Adige" is currently the most common way to refer to this region in English-language sources? Dohn joe (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Any way you look at it still doesn't change the fact that the official name as given in the Italian constitution is in both languages. See also the case of Biel/Bienne as reference. Gryffindor (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True. But if you read WP:COMMONNAME (or Mai-Sachme's post above): Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. And Biel/Bienne is a separate issue. We use that title not because of a French-German compromise, or because of official usage, but because it is commonly referred to in English with the slash, which is not true for this region. Dohn joe (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What 76.89.129.139/Icsunonove wrote here and especially here includes many truths. I don't say it from an Italian standpoint because I don't identify myself as an Italian. Some users in opposition of this move are using arguments which are very inconsistent to their arguments in the other discussion. They are completely free to do it, but their arguments look a little bit odd. I think we are probably going nowhere and both articles will remain where they are (and as I wrote many times, I'm not happy with it because the hyphen in "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" is a misleading mistake). I will accept any consensus and, as most of you know, I'm a peaceful and honest editor. The only thing I find difficult to accept is how 76.89.129.139/Icsunonove was blocked. In 2007-2009 he was sometimes aggressive and offensive, but this time he was simply expressing his/her opinion in a colorful way. It is a very sad day for Misplaced Pages. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you being peaceful, Checco, but whining about Icsunonove is off-topic here. BTW: I too was in favor of changing the hyphen to a slash: i voted for it. It would have been a small, but necessary correction. But now that we are asked to fix the bigger picture, I'm all for it.--Sajoch (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be, but as Icsunonove's last message (directed to Dohn joe) was on this move, I wanted to have it linked here. --Checco (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very consistent with my arguments, and in fact I always try to back up my position with numbers: South Tyrol is several times more frequent than Alto Adige in english texts. And our guests which are non-native italian or german, know this province by the name South Tyrol - that's why this province is called South Tyrol in ALL tourism brochures and webpages meant for english visitors.

What I tried to explain above: the fact that the region's name Trentino-South Tyrol is hard to find in english texts (ngram-viewer returns no data!) has several reasons:

1. before 2001 only the name Alto Adige was allowed in official documents (fascist laws still apply). That's also why road signs had to show those italian names, and that's why road maps like TeleAtlas (used by Google Earth) favor italian names - but finally corrections to TeleAtlas and Navteq are under way.
2. if we do a Google search, it's difficult to narrow the results to documents written only in the last few years (less than a decade).
3. the region has become an empty administrative entity (I call it a zombie), since all powers (administration, legislation, finance, ...) were devolved to the two provinces of Trentino and South Tyrol. So there are hardly any new documents being produced about this anachronistic entity. That's why we have difficulty to apply WP:COMMONNAME.

This is why I don't care much, if the region remains under the bilingual name Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. But we shouldn't move it to the old imposed name. And yes, as soon as the name province of Bolzano-Bozen will be moved to South Tyrol, it will be logical to change also the regions name to Trentino-South Tyrol, being the region the sum of the two provinces.--Sajoch (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment this move request is awkward as is the current name... a) the most common name in English is Trentino-Alto Adige for it was the official name since World War II until the new name was introduced in the Italian constitution in 2001, b) but all official publications now use the new name Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and I assume in the future many English publications will adopt the name as it is now the sole official name c) however I also take in consideration that the region is made up of the two provinces of Trentino and South Tyrol, with the region today being an empty political shell with its former executive and legislative powers devolved to the two component provinces and d) as this is the English wikipedia I believe we should stick with English, which would mean that both Alto Adige and Südtirol be ineligible for the name... In short:

• Trentino-Alto Adige = WP:COMMONNAME but a name which has been officially superseded and it is not WP:Naming conventions (use English)
• Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol = new and sole official name, but neither WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:Naming conventions (use English)
• Trentino-South Tyrol = based on the WP:COMMONNAME names of the two component provinces and also using WP:Naming conventions (use English)

Taking into account the above considerations I would prefer to move the article to Trentino-South Tyrol as per WP:Naming conventions (use English) and because it would be in line with the most common names of the two provinces; however as this move request does not propose such a move I am unwilling to either oppose or endorse this move request. Notwithstanding I believe that of the three possible options given Trentino-Alto Adige is the worst (as per inconsistency with the provinces names and as it is not English). noclador (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment as nom. It may seem odd, but "Trentino-Alto Adige" is not actually inconsistent with WP:Naming conventions (use English), which begins like this: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". Later on, it states "Where there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title." Also, "It is not our business to predict what term will be in use, but rather to observe what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers."

  Here, it seems that everyone agrees that "Trentino-Alto Adige" is the most common name in English-language sources. So even though an English term - "South Tyrol" - exists for part of the region's name, it should not be used in the article title. If some other name becomes used more often in English, we (or future editors) can revisit. But for now, the best title in English is "Trentino-Alto Adige". Dohn joe (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Dohn joe, we base the claim that Trentino-Alto Adige is the most used name in english texts (not the most used english name - please note the subtle difference!) on Google Search results. But Google Search has several handicaps:

• A search for "Trentino-Alto Adige" includes results for "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" and "Trentino-Alto Adige/whatever"
• A search for "Trentino-Alto Adige" cannot be restricted to recent publications (less than a decade), and if so, the numbers wouldn't be meaningful
• People refer to either South Tyrol or Trentino but hardly ever to the region as a whole (you don't spend your holidays in Trentino-South Tyrol, and also the apples come from either Trentino or from South Tyrol)

That's why I wrote, that the new name of this region will be difficult to bolster with numbers, but the worst thing we could do is to change this regions name to an old/abandoned one.--Sajoch (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to point out that the current name of the article has apparently been subject to mediation in October 2006: here and here. I am not sure what exactly this means and to what extent the move from Trentino-South Tyrol to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol in March 2007 was based on the outcome of this process, but I'd like to know whether any such decision by a mediation committee is to be considered binding. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Decision of the Mediation Committee - It has been decided and voted upon to agree on the compromise "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol", which is the official name given in the Italian constitution." What does this mean? What is the procedure if there is a Mediation Committee case and one wishes to reopen it? Or is there even such a possibility to reopen a decision by the Mediation Committee?? noclador (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting questions. I would imagine a decision could be revisited (or a new case opened) after a while - it seems unlikely that any decision could be binding in perpetuity. Is mediation something that anyone would be interested in trying? Dohn joe (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reopening this case is not something that I would support. Otherwise we'll end up revisiting this over and over again... Gryffindor (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am totally sucking in WikiLawyering, but it seems to me fairly clear that a decision by a mediation committee should only be revised by a mediation committee (or even a higher authority) as courts verdicts in RL can only be lifted by a higher court. Otherwise, what would have been the point in establishing a mediation committee if its decisions can be lifted by a simple move request? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer to that is that Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change. Read that page, if you never have - it's pretty interesting. What I took away from it is that even things like the mediation committee are just tools in the consensus-building process. And if conditions change, if editors change, anything can be revisited. That's the beauty (and frustration) of Misplaced Pages - it's controlled by all of us, and whatever "we" decide stands only as long as consensus supports that decision. Dohn joe (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm,... but looking at the above opinions and the length of the debate already I think it will be hard to reach consensus for a move (or for that matter against a move). noclador (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, the region is of no interest to the average english user. It's only an empty administrative shell, and thus could/should remain at its administrative/official name. Maybe in a few years, when there will be enough sources that endorse the name "Trentino/South Tyrol", we could request a move to this name. For now I'm happy if I don't have to loose much time for another endless debate.--Sajoch (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To a certain extent such a floating concept of consensus makes sense. On the other hand, it ignores the amount of time and effort and also good will which are invested into mediation: a simple vote with a few users could nullify a monumental month long effort by a large group of editors. Wouldn't you say that, say, 20 users discussing and voting an outcome reflects real consensus more than five users voting on the same issue only a couple of months later? And, if the voting is done repeatedly and at the 'right time', as we have seen at the South Tyrol article, it may even acquire outright the air of misuse. Since WP is run by and dependent on men who, as anybody, only have a finite amount of time and patience left, this should be considered, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support: Support per WP:Commonname. While "South Tyrol" and "Trentino" are each more common, the compound name "Trentino-Alto Adige" appears to be more common than a combination of the two. I hope that with South Tyrol, Trentino, Trentino-Alto Adige and Euroregion Tyrol – South Tyrol – Trentino we have found the most common names each and something for everybody, thereby bringing the year-long naming row to an end. However, I reserve the right to change my stance into an Oppose in case the earlier mediation effort turns out to be more binding than it now appears. Mediations are an important part of the WP problem solving procedure and undermining their significance and binding nature would have an undesirable adverse effect on the stability of article names. We must aim at less not more discussions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Again Firmly Oppose. The reason why we settled on this compromise after many debates and discussions was that it confirmed to the guideline WP:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English and the policy of WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming. WP:Commonname can apply if there is no controversy to the name (clearly there was and is), and where is the clause that states it overrules the aforementioned two rules? The name "Trentino-Alto Adige" is not an English but an Italian word that is used in English, whereas the term "Trentino-South Tyrol" is English and the only logical sum of the two provinces. Also the term "Alto Adige" in itself was not acceptable for the wider region, since the article was and now again is called "South Tyrol". After User:Taalo/Icsunonove/76.89.129.139 started his campaign by plastering every discussion full of his POV did we agree to compromise to the official double-name given in the Italian constitution. This was accepted by everyone including Taalo, who then proceeded to the other article "South Tyrol" to have that moved, but that's another story... Gryffindor (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  Gryffindor - would you please show me the language in WP:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English and WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming that supports the current title? I've read both, and I've even quoted from the naming convention - to me they seem to agree with WP:COMMONNAME in this case, and support "Trentino-Alto Adige". (Also, WP:COMMONNAME is a WP policy, and thus on equal footing with WP:NPOV.) Dohn joe (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean with "show you the language"? It says it quite clear. This topic was discussed over months in detail and voted upon multiple times in the past and settled, under the given policies and guidelines. User:Taalo/Icsunonove/76.89.129.139 constantly harassed the debate, that in the end a number of users who voted or were involved quit, such as User:Fantasy and User:Rarelibra (I know this for a fact since those users have communicated to me about this, ask yourself if you wish). I could easily start arguing for "Trentino-South Tyrol" again, but this is what was agreed and it should be honoured. Gryffindor (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Checco and Bejnar. - Darwinek (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Also oppose, again per Checco.--Autospark (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Any solution is better than the title we have now. As Gryffindor said "Trentino-Alto Adige" is Italian but (I add commonly) used in English, "Trentino-South Tyrol" is English and the sum of the two provinces (I add less common). Südtirol is German but the problem is that it is not used in English. Why do we have it in the title? That makes no sense to me (and according to any convention). The Italian Constitution does not count (otherwise we must move Italy to Italia or Repubblica Italiana). If we want a compromise, then it cannot be but Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. But I do not see why we should search for a new compromise or keep the present compromise here, whereas in the case of South Tyrol a compromise was even adversed with the argument that German and Italian interest count zero. Why should we apply double standards? Therefore I think we should apply the same rule which prevailed in order to rename South Tyrol and Trentino: common usage. There is no need to make any poll - I even think it would not be allowed according to policies -, the data provided show quite clearly that Trentino-Alto Adige is the most common name in English. Trentino Alto Adige is still used ten times more often than Trentino-South Tyrol. I would rename the article Trentino-Alto Adige and in the introduction I would mention Trentino-South Tyrol immediately after. But the even greater point is: clumsy and Un-English (in terminology and usage) Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol must be replaced.---Patavium (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I can follow your reasoning, which results in "Trentino-Alto Adige". But "Trentino-Alto Adige" is a pure italian name, neither english, nor a compromise between italian/german, nor does it respect the mediation outcome, nor does it take into account that the mentioning of this region is declining (having it become an empty shell). The second sentence states, that the region consists of two provinces: Trentino and South Tyrol - let the name respect that fact, or leave this page alone.--Sajoch (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We must follow common usage, as we did in the case of South Tyrol and Trentino. No double standards please. By the way, Trentino is also pure Italian, it is not a compromise, it is common usage. We need no mediation (Misplaced Pages is not a democracy) if common usage is clear: in this case it is clearly Trentino-Alto Adige. As to the alleged decline, Trentino-Alto Adige is still used 10 times more often than Trentino-South Tyrol. But as I said, even Trentino-South Tyrol would be better than the solution we have now, which blatantly goes against English usage. English usage is Trentino-Alto Adige in first place and Trentino-South Tyrol in second place. We should not invent artificial titles which are used by nobody but Misplaced Pages, which must instead reflect common usage.--Patavium (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We can follow common usage if it is not in conflict with WP:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English and the policy of WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming. Common usage does not override that. In this case we take the official name as given in the English version of the Italian constitution. Gryffindor (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see your point. When it was about to rename the province of Bolzano-Bozen into German-like South Tyrol WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming did not matter at all. In the case of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol you do not agree with the move to "Italian" Trentino-Alto Adige (common usage in English) because in your eyes it would go against WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming. Double standards, what was to be demonstrated.--Patavium (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Most common name goes if it adheres to the policy of neutrality. In this case it clearly does not, so please do not accuse anyone of double standards. Gryffindor (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It was not an accusation, but a simple constation.--Patavium (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't make a secret out of my deep dislike for the invented name "Alto Adige" and how it was purposefully created to destroy German-Tyrolean culture south of the Brenner, but we have to remain consistent in our standards if we don't want to lay the seeds for yet another discussion in the future. We have to break the cycle of naming and renaming debates and the only way I can see to achieve it is by applying one and the same standard throughout the entire debate. Although "Alto Adige" is, unlike "South Tyrol", a purely Italian name, it appears to be nonetheless much more common in English usage as far as the region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is concerned. Since the naming convention is not about where names originally come from, but how often they are used in English, "Trentino-Alto Adige" is preferable over "Trentino-South Tyrol" which is more English, but – this is the point – much less common in English. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We need no mediation. This whole vote goes against conventions and cannot be regarded as valid. Trentino Alto-Adige is used more often in English. Such as South Tyrol is used more often than Alto Adige, which is why the constitutional name Alto Adige/Südtirol was rejected and any possible compromise was blocked due to common usage. Full stop.--Patavium (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ah sorry to chip in Patavium: we actually already had a mediation and the current name is the result of this mediation 4 years ago (see above for the links) and because of that I am unwilling to change the current name, as all parties involved back then agreed to this compromise. noclador (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For 4 years we had province of Bolzano-Bozen as title for South Tyrol. 4 years without edit wars, 4 years of (at least implicit) consensus. It was decided to change it according to common usage. I have no problem with that. But in the case of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol things seem to be immutable. That makes no sense and it goes against the common usage rule. Sorry, but we cannot hold a poll to subvert wikipedia standards. I repeat for the nth time: this is not a democracy. Any alternative is better than the clumsy hybrid Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, for the simple reason that its usage in English is extremely limited if not totally absent. Unless we want to operate double standards.--Patavium (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Gryffindor. The current name is the correct name. Outback the koala (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support move/rename - I agree with the reasons as outlined by the nominator. This is the English Misplaced Pages, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME, this article does not, and should not, use the subject's name as it might be spelled in non-English languages as its article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Dolovis (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request at Province of Trento

• As it is connected to this discussion I would like to invite editors to please check out the similar move request at Talk:Province of Trento#Requested move 2011 where a request has been made to move the article to Trentino. noclador (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

More appropriate name

The current name gives the impression that there are two names for this region #1 "Trentino-Alto Adige", and #2 "Südtirol" (that is to say, that all of it can be called "Südtirol"). Its a bad idea. Its also a bad idea to call it simply "Trentino-Alto Adige" per the many valid arguments listed above. Since on this project "Alto Adige/Südtirol" is named South Tyrol, this article should be renamed to "Trentino-South Tyrol" per WP:EN (among other things). -- Director (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you (and most others), that the article should be renamed to "Trentino-South Tyrol", but due to different opinions it was subject to mediation in October 2006. Please see above. There's hardly any reference to the regions name, sources mostly talk about one of the two provinces Trentino or South Tyrol. If you find some prominent sources citing "Trentino-South Tyrol", you're welcome to report it here.--Sajoch (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How about 1,300 sources? I despise mediations: they're a useless, contemptible waste of time and contributions, and they often do far more damage than good. Lets just move the damn thing.. -- Director (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I did that too (see the table above, which I inserted on 17 April 2011). Others will then search for the occurence of "Trentino-Alto Adige" and argue that it appears much more often... You really should re-read the above discussion. This page is on many people's radar, and I suspect another endlesses discussion will follow. Though the new view-point you bring against "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" is, that it gives a wrong impression that there may be two names... --Sajoch (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sajoch's right, of course. You can show 1,300 results for "Trentino-South Tyrol", and I'll show you 419,000 results for "Trentino-Alto Adige". :) Dohn joe (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fellas, I've been around the block here: I'm not saying its the most common. I'm saying its in-line with WP:EN and WP:NPOV. We're supposed to look for the most common, neutral English-language name. -- Director (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if I think we should care more about the content, which is severely omissive with respect to history of the region between 1943 and 1988, than about the title, any solution is definitely better than artificial and exotic Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Trentino-Alto Adige works very well, Trentino-South Tyrol works well, even Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol would somehow work. For sure, the present solution does not work in an encyclopaedia written for English-speakers. Therefore I agree with DIREKTOR that a more appropiate name should be used.--Patavium (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad, Patavium agrees using "Trentino-South Tyrol". The only problem remains, that "Trentino-South Tyrol" isn't used much in literature. My advise: there's no hurry: the region is a topic of modest relevance - and the single provinces use already their correct name.--Sajoch (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If the final name is to be Trentino-South Tyrol (sounds more English), Trentino-Alto Adige (is more common) or Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol (common and sounds English) needs to be assessed. For sure, Trentino-South Tyrol is miles better than Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. I even would suggest to move the article immediately to any one of those titles while we are discussing. For sure, the present pseudo-compromise must be removed the sooner the better. The old mediation went against WP:EN.

the region is a topic of modest relevance. No it is not. It is a High-importance Italy article.--Patavium (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the article name should be either Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol or Trentino-South Tyrol. Like mentioned in the earlier move discussion, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is used in the Italian constitution, and it would be a compromise between the Italian and German languages, the latter of which is the majority language in South Tyrol. And I think there would be a problem with Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. That would translate the German name of South Tyrol but not the Italian name. If we want to include "South Tyrol" to the article name, then it should be Trentino-South Tyrol because Alto Adige is just South Tyrol in Italian. --August90 (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, the problem with the current "compromise" version is it that gives the impression that the two names of this region are "Trentino-Alto Adige" and "Südtirol". -- Director (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, historically Südtirol indicates today's Trentino-Alto Adige or today's Trentino. The province of Bolzano was Mitteltirol. So from this point of view the title is fine.--Patavium (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about todays region, not some entity in the past. 215 years ago "Alto Adige" was a district between Verona, Brescia and Mantova... So to avoid confusion, we should move to "Trentino-South Tyrol".--Sajoch (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would've already gone through with a good-faith move, but it seems the article is move-protected. -- Director (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Südtirol was established in the 1970s.
• As far as I know Trentino-Alto Adige is more common in English.
• Anyway, what the Italian Constitution says is relevant for the content of the article, not for its name.
• I agree with DIREKTOR. It is a pity that the title of the article was blocked.--Patavium (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and request an uncontroversial move? -- Director (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I would object to that. You can try an RM or an RFC. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disputed map

• This map is original research by Sajoch and a manipulation of the Census.
• Mocheno and Cimbrian are languages different from German http://www.statistica.provincia.tn.it/binary/pat_statistica/demografia/15CensGenPopolazione.1340956277.pdf 15° Censimento della popolazione e delle abitazioni Rilevazione sulla consistenza e la dislocazione territoriale degli appartenenti alle popolazioni di lingua ladina, mòchena e cimbra = 15th census of population and housing Enquiry about the number and the location of those who belong to the population of Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian language. Not a word about German language.
• There is no assessment of Italian language in Trentino.
• The statistic population of the census in Trentino and South Tyrol is different. Data cannot be mixed together.--Patavium (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for finally starting to discuss the topic. The first issue, however, is already explained in the article, citing the academic essay by Anthony R. Rowley whose title is more or less self-explanatory "Mocheno e Cimbro". Von Dialek(en) zu Sprache(n)? ("Mocheno and Cimbrian". From dialect(s) to language(s)?). He's explaining there how the legal recognition and and relation to the Standard German of these deutsche Sprachinseln (German dialect islands) is evolving. It is indeed a fact that the provincial laws avoid the word German, although the very first article speaks of popolazioni germanofone (German-speaking population) and first drafts still included the words tedesco (German) and di origine germanica (of German ancestry) and were only shortly rewritten. Anyway, in linguistics Mocheno and Cimbrian are still typically classified as German dialects and I don't see any kind of "original research" by Sajoch. The map provides the information where Mocheno and Cimbrian are spoken and reflects therefor the census. What Sajoch did is using a similar colour for Mocheno, Cimbrian and South Tyrolean German (which is linguistically justified) and subsuming them in the caption.
• I don't get what you are saying. Are you denying that Italian is spoken in the red coloured areas?
• I'll add that information to the file description. As long as we say clearly that the statistic population in the two provinces is different, we don't have any problems. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The document I took the data from, and we all are referring to, lists all communes with more than 4 persons declaring a minority language. And as no commune has less than 40 inhabitants, it's correct to assume, that there aren't any communes with less than 90% italian speaking people. Even if we assume there is a commune with 4 ladins, 4 mocheni and 4 cimbri (combined 12 minority-speakers), which is missing in the above document, and as the map shows language-ranges in steps of 10%, this commune can only be missing, if those 12 persons account for more than 10%, and thus the commune has at most 119 inhabitants. Such a small commune does not exist in Trentino (the smallest being Palù del Fersina with 169 inhabitants, where 93% declared mocheno btw.).--Sajoch (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is a statistical problem: the statistic population of the census in South Tyrol are the Italian citizens, in Trentino the inhabitants. It is not possible to mix them.
• In Trentino only minorities are assessed, i.e. Cimbrian, Mocheno and Ladin. There is no assessment of Italian language.
• The census does not say if in the rest of Trentino Italian in spoken. It could be Trentinian, Venetian, Lombard etc, but also Arab, Romanian etc. The census does not assess this.
• Cimbrian and Mocheno are recognized as different languages under the so called Second Autonomy Statute.
• In fact Mocheno and Cimbrian minorities have their own media in their languages.
• Separate maps for Trentino (of course not the one manipulated by Sajoch) and South Tyrol would be statistically and factually correct.--Patavium (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To Patavium: Please desist from dissing on User:Sajoch by publicly writing that he purposely "manipulated" facts, and keep a neutral tone. Assume WP:GOODFAITH and engage in a productive discussion. Gryffindor (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. But en.Wiki is not a planet out of this universe, if you know what I mean.--Patavium (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Patavium: if you have anything to object, please discuss it on Commons. As you are bad-mouthing any(!) map I created or updated, you aren't credible - it's only personal attacks.--Sajoch (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. You created some useful map, but you also created maps that simply do not correspond to what the sources say. The maps you created using the Italian census 2011 are not correct and should be therefore removed here. We already have much better ones. In fact, we are discussing about if your maps can be inserted into the encyclopaedia. Commons has different standards.

Maybe the problem is that the data of the census in Trentino are only in Italian, in this case we can find someone that helps.--Patavium (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the statistic data for Trentino are credible.--Patavium (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally it is not a personal, but a statistical problem.--Patavium (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Since removing this map was not possible due to massive editwarring, at least the biggest mistakes were corrected. Please notice my disclaimer:

Please note that the method of gathering statistical data on the population in the two provinces was different and the data aren't directly comparable

• In Trentino the statistical population is given by the inhabitants, in South Tyrol by the citizens;
• In Trentino only minorities are assessed. There is no assessment of Italian language.

Thanks. --Patavium (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! The map has been removed finally! I had tried to remove it previously, but edit-warring made this impossible.

If someone wants to reinsert, please consider this disclaimer. The best thing would be not to reinsert it.--Patavium (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at your edits Patavium, and you are basically objecting that Mocheno and Cimbrian are bundled together as Germanic languages? Gryffindor (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

°== Provinces in Trentino-Alto Adige ==

Hello! I am Italian, and I am just a bit confused about the name of the provinces that are mentioned several times in this page. You always take into consideration 2 provinces, which you name "Trentino" and "South Tyrol", while, actually, the official names should be "Trento" and "Bolzano/Bozen" (Italian/German names). I don't know the reason why you called them differently, but I just wanted to point out that the way you call them isn't official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.119.28 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not referring to the title of the article, but to what is mentioned several time in it. Personally, I think it's ok to refer to those provinces with the names that are used at the moment, but I do think that also the official names should be added, at least once, not to confuse the readers. At least, in the administrative section of the page, I think the provinces should be named using their real name, not their geographical name. Just a thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.105.78 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

First sentence of the chapter politics: The region is divided into two autonomous provinces: Trentino (Province of Trento) and South Tyrol (Province of Bolzano). --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Even the name "Alto Adige" is, I'd dare say, used more frequently than "provincia di Bolzano". And I should think this includes when speaking of the provinces' official institutions.--2001:A60:153D:1:95A6:D57E:4AA7:AD7 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070805181615/http://www.circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/itd2_geo.htm to http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/itd2_geo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201175658/http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/index.htm to http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311010226/http://www.consiglio.provincia.tn.it/consiglio/autonomia_trentina/picb/F5-1-5.jpg to http://www.consiglio.provincia.tn.it/consiglio/autonomia_trentina/picb/F5-1-5.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please move the page from Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol to Trentino-Alto Adige

The region is called this For the two provinces that are within this region in the South there is Trentino while in the North there is South Tyrol which in Italian is called Alto Adige therefore since in English the province is called South Tyrol the name Correct English of this region is Trentino-South Tyro please move it because it is also a bit strange that in the English Misplaced Pages page there is the name of the region in two languages ​​Alto Adige/Südtirol which is in German. 87.18.172.235 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" is the official name of the region, according to the Italian Constitution. I would not oppose a move to "Trentino-South Tyrol", to match South Tyrol, or the latter's move to "Alto Adige/Südtirol", to match "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol". The only option I oppose is "Trentino-Alto Adige". --Checco (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Article 131 of the Italian Constitution still says "Trentino-Alto Adige".--Holapaco77 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

And Article 116 says "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol". I don't have strong opinions about the matter, though... Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Geography
• C-Class vital articles in Geography
• C-Class Italy articles
• High-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• C-Class geography articles
• Mid-importance geography articles
• WikiProject Geography articles