User talk:Checco

For past talks see:

• Archive 1 (January-December 2006)

Article request

It seems you know a lot about Italian political parties and Italian politics. Could you write articles about the Democratic Party (Italy) (it:Partito Democratico (Italia)) and the Freedom Party (Italy) (Partito della Libertà), the proposed unified parties of Prodi's left and Berlusconi's right, respectively? Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

They are only futurible proposals and it is not sure that they will be effectively launched, so, as you can understand, it is difficult to write an article about something that does not exists yet. Anyway, when I will have some time and, above all, when the formation of the two parties will become more likely (I strongly endorse the idea, 'cos a less fragmented Italian politics is a dream...), I would defenitely start articles on PD and PdL respectively. --Checco 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Good to know. And I absolutely agree... —Nightstallion (?) 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mh, well, I couldn't help starting the articles, but I haven't really been able to find any comprehensive sources in Italian, much less so in English. Could you help me out with referencing Freedom Party (Italy) and Democratic Party (Italy)? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 13:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this info on the date of the foundation of the PD correct? And have there been *any* developments at all regarding Berlusconi's PdL? —Nightstallion (?) 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PVV

The Party for Freedom article is not improving imho, I would appreciate comments on the talk page, as I feel somewhat isolated in trying to counter what I think is pov pushing. regards --Isolani 08:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with Sammarinese parties

Hi! Could you help at Talk:Table_of_political_parties_in_Europe_by_pancontinental_organisation#Sammarinese_parties with classifying a few Sammarinese parties politically? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well.

Look at that -- not only are there still plans for the PdL, but we can be fairly certain that both UDC *AND* LN don't want to become part of it. —Nightstallion (?) 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! Still, I think it wouldn't be bad if we could keep Democratic Party (Italy) and Freedom Party (Italy) up-to-date with whatever's the current status, so I'd appreciate it if you could do that. (Even through the internet, it's not that easy to keep note of all developments.) Keep up the great work, BTW! —Nightstallion (?) 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! —Nightstallion (?) 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

psiup

viene indicato come leader della corrente di sinistra del psi lombardi, ma questi divenne leader della sinistra del psi solo dopo la scissione, quando la sua corrente divenne la sinistra del psi non so se mi hai capito spero di si ciao --Francomemoria 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

sono iscritto da parecchio anche qui ma non agisco perché eng 1, quindi quanto puoi fallo tu anche se ti vedo impegnato su problematici in ita--Francomemoria 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Requests vs. Redirect Deletions

WP:RFD is to be used when you want a redirect actually deleted. When you want to reverse the target and the redirect, you need to use WP:RM. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 16:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Help you with what? -- JLaTondre 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you figured it out. At least, it looks fine to me. If you still think there's something wrong, please let me know specifically what it is. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol

hello there Checco, your move and edits of South Tyrol have been reverted. Gryffindor 10:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely believe you. However English Wikipedia does not go with official names. Article names are shortened, such as "Italy", and not "Italian Republic". And it's North Korea and not "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", correct? Check the articles and read through the discussion pages, believe me. Gryffindor 10:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see that you also did not move Aosta Valley into "Autonomous region of Aosta" or whatever, how come? The word "South Tyrol" is used in English, "Alto Adige" is Italian. We also have articles called Tuscany and not "Toskana". Gryffindor 10:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong by stating that I do not know "much things about Italy". The word "South Tyrol" (or Südtirol or Alto Adige) is part of the official name. So your first assertion is already wrong. And I said above that Aosta is an autonomous region, therefore why are you not moving it to the official name in that case? There is a simple rule on Wikipedia: use English whenever possible (and not Italian, or Esperanto, or whatever...) cheers Gryffindor 11:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, naming Trentin-Upper Adige/South Tyrol would be ridiculous, on that I can agree with you. Gryffindor 13:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest you read through the talk pages that have been posted previously carefully to get a better understanding of the discussion topic, because going through it again would probably take too much time here. Gryffindor 13:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

---

"I noticed that Markusseup, John k, you and me are in favour of changing the name into Trentino-Alto Adige. Do we need to start another survey? --Checco 09:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"

No, I'm neutral on such a move and it was already tried pretty recently. However, I'm against stroke/slash titles as with the current move proposal. —  AjaxSmack  09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, saw your message. Yes, I'll join the conversation. I do believe putting the page back to Trentino-Alto Adige probably makes the most sense, since everyone disagrees with something like Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. Taalo 09:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving Quebec party articles

Hi Checco, I have reverted your re-naming of articles that use the French names of Quebec political parties. I have reviewed the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and find no support for your decision to rename these articles without discussion.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles, the main section on article titles, uses the following example:

This example illustrates the use of boldface in an article on Río de la Plata:

The Río de la Plata (Spanish: "River of Silver"), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes (La) Plata River....

Notice how the main part of the manual about article titles uses an example where the article title is in a foreign language, with English versions used in the introductory paragraph? Why is that?

Well, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

One never, ever sees "Quebecker Party", "Quebecker Block", "Rally for National Independence", etc. The French names are always used. Therefore readers will come to Wikipedia looking for the French names, rather than a translation.

You seem to think that English words are preferred over foreign language words in all cases. Please see what Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words has to say about this:

Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form.

In these cases, the native form is more commonly recognized that the English form. If you don't believe me, try Googling the French and English versions of the names, and see how often each comes up with a correct link.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) I hope that this helps you in your future Wikipedia editing. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have contested your uncontroversial proposals on WP:RM. I think these need to be looked into more carefully, for the reasons Ground Zero has listed above. Prolog 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question on my talk page, I will reiterate that English names do no exist for most of these parties: they are registered with the elections authorities under the French names, they use only the French names in all of their publicity, including that issued in English, the media use only the French names, and English-speaking people know them by their French names. Someone looking for information on the Bloc Quebecois will look under that name, and not under the name that you made up for the party.

Also, some of the names that you made up do not make sense. For example you moved "Ralliement Creditiste" to "Creditist Realignment". "Creditist" is not an English word. It has no meaning in English. And "ralliement" does not mean "realignment".

Finally, I have explained above, in great detail, why your changes are not consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you disagree with the Manual, you can propose changes to the Manual on its talk page. If you get consensus for a change, then you can make it to the Manual. Ground Zero | t 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot address the issue you have raised about the naming of articles in about political parties in other countries -- I have not been involved in creating or writing those articles. I can only speak about those in Canada: I have been involved in creating and writing many of these articles. For these articles, I think that it is appropriate for the Manual of Style to apply. I do not know why it has not been applied in other cases. Ground Zero | t 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If it helps any, let me explain it this way: the rule on Wikipedia isn't that the words in a title have to be in English, it's that they have to be whatever English speakers actually use to refer to the thing. There are some cases where English speakers translate a name into English; in those cases, yes, Wikipedia should use the translated English name. But there are also some cases where English speakers don't use a translated name, but use the original French (Italian, German, etc.) name for a thing — in those cases, Wikipedia needs to use the original title. In a nutshell, the rule is (a) what title is the reader most likely to actually encounter in the media or other reference sources, (b) what title is the reader most likely to type into the search box if they're looking for this thing? As an example, we don't translate Bloc Québécois, because the original French name is the only name ever actually used to refer to it in either language. We do, however, use Rhinoceros Party of Canada rather than "Parti rhinocéros du Canada", because in that case, even though the French name was the party's actual official name, the English name is how English speakers referred to it. In both cases, we've used the name that's actually used by speakers of Canadian English.

For an Italian example (which may help you understand better), note that while a lot of Italian political parties have been translated into English, notice that we've left some (Forza Italia, Fronte Nazionale, Lotta Continua, Ordine Nuovo, etc.) in the original Italian, because those are parties where a typical English speaker would actually recognize the original Italian name more readily than an English translation. I don't speak a word of Italian, for example, and I recognize the name Forza Italia as meaning "the Italian political party headed by Silvio Berlusconi" — whereas if you asked me what "Forward Italy" was I'd most likely guess that it was a World Cup song.

But at any rate, Ground Zero and I can only speak for Canadian political articles — if you disagree with the naming of Italian, French or German political party articles, you'd be better off taking up a discussion with the Italian, French and German contingents. Bearcat 04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Trentino-Alto Adige

Hello Checco, you must realize the history behind this region with respect to what particular users on Wikipedia have done. Gryffindor originally moved the page without consensus. Then rather than move back the page and have a vote to see if it should be moved, there was a vote to see if it should be put back to Trentino-Alto Adige. Nice logic, right? No consensus was reached so it stayed at Trentino-South Tyrol. The page history shows that Gryffindor and another Austrian admin Nightstallion were both involved with this. By Wikipedia rules, they should of had the page moved back and find consensus to move it. It was total convoluted POV hogwash.. discusting partisan politics. Regardless, there is hope that eventually things will be put right. Assume good faith, just don't be naive. :} Taalo 09:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Province of Bolzano

Hi, even though ideally having Autonomous Province of Bolzano and Autonomous Province of Trento would be most correct, this has proven to bring out the users who don't like long titles. :] I'd suggest moving the page back to Province of Bolzano and just keeping a discussion for now. The most important thing for now is getting things corrected. The fine details of Autonomous can be taken care later. regards! Taalo 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe just leave the Autonomous Province of Trento as you have moved it. That is really the correct name. Bolzano, hopefully we can fix later, because it is much more touchy. Don't worry, I am no better at tactics than you. I've just been around this argument long enough to see how they operate... :( Taalo 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really appreciate some help in this. I'm just disappointed that many times there is just German users who come in to tow the National line. You'll see it in the voting. Some users had even removed their German babel notes on their user page to deflect criticism. o_O Taalo 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I saw the one vote on Bolzano, where one in opposition said, "Also, I think the whole "Autonomous Province of..." part is a non-starter in any event, official name or no; we don't, for example, list the UK at "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern". So maybe it is better to just use Province of Trento and Province of Bolzano and have redirects from Autonomous Province of... It seems just too many people hate the long names. Do you mind to move the page back to Province of Trento? Anyway, small stuff. The main thing is to get South Tyrol and Trentino-South Tyrol corrected. It is just so one-sided POV that I can't understand how the backers of this don't see it. They take a rough translation of the German and declare it the official name in English. It is completely unethical. Taalo 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

piccolo aiuto

mi potresti fare un favore? controlleresti se quello che ho scritto nella mia home page è in un inglese coretto? (please, you can see if my home page is in a good english? se eventualemte qualcuno dice che bisogna scrive solo in inglese sulal wiki.en)--Francomemoria 17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks--Francomemoria 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for telling me about the straw poll, didn't notice it. Regards, Húsönd 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

polls

I'm thinking to take Mets advice and redo the move requests to Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol and Province of Bolzano (Bozen). This contains the most-used English usage (Trentino-Alto Adige and Bolzano). It is a shared solution, which I like because it has both names. It also clearly retains in the regional name Alto Adige/South Tyrol. What do you think? I don't see how people can argue against a solution like this which includes Wikipedia requirements and also is a fair compromise. Well, you'll get plenty of arguments anyway. :} Taalo 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, I was already trying to update the requests, as was recommended by Mets. It really annoys me how Gryffindor makes accusations of Italian nationalism when it is the Italians who are working on a shared solution. I don't need to hear those accusations either, because I have Austrian heritage as well -- and am from Trentino. I'm really saddened to see just a flow of German speakers from who knows where coming in and saying, nein, nein, nein. I think they should request to move Northern Italy -> South Tyrol! :} Taalo 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

polls (2)

I think that three-way poll you setup on Trentino-Whatever is good. I'm happy if we can finally get some consensus to go with Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. That is good for me. Do you want to setup something similar on the province page? What would be the options? Province of Bolzano, Province of Bolzano (Bozen), Province of Bolzano-Bozen. I guess we could add Alto Adige/South Tyrol, though it seems redundant given the regional name. Good work though, amazing if we can get all these people to finally be happy.. and hopefully Martin Se doesn't have to leave English Wikipedia. :} Taalo 18:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I like how we have some nice Italian-style chaos going on. HAH! Anyway, I have finally a good feeling of getting everyone on board and satisfied. Taalo 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Upload image

I replied on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

TAA

I've said whatever I had to say. So please stop signalling every little thing. Cruccone 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Polls

I guess one thing to do is make everyone aware of the poll, which we will let go for awhile. I suggest contacting a wide variety of users and not making the similar language-based call to arms that individuals like Gryffindor has done. Taalo 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Trentino-South Tyrol

In the straw poll those against the current title of the page won 6-2, in the survey those proposing Trentino-Alto Adige are winning 9-8 (but pleas note that between those 8, there are 2 users who explicitly said that they dislike any title not comprising both Alto Adige and South Tyrol, so they oppose the status quo too, making those against the current title win 11-6).

Thus there is a clear majority of users against the current title. This is a point of no turning back. From this point we won't need to discuss anymore about Trentino-South Tyrol, 'cos this option has been refused by 11 users out of 17.

Now we need to move the discussion on only 3 options: Trentino-Alto Adige, Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. If none of the 3 options reaches the majority, we'll have a second round with the 2 most voted ones. What do you think about it? --Checco 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! Let's see if it works! —METS501 (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell this is really difficult to get everyone to come up with a fair and correct agreement. I need to stop thinking idealistic with regards to other's behavior though -- that is for sure. :) Anyway, I really appreciate that you have also been so active to try and navigate a solution. Taalo 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

calm

Yes, of course you are right. Overall, I like this system we have implemented to narrow down a solution. I'm just disappointed that it is just a few of us that do this work to try and find consensus. Others are happy to have their way and let the other side feel unsatisfied. But, that is something we can discuss another time. Good to meet you as well! Didn't get that chance in all this chaos. :} Anyway, I will stay calm. I just hope I don't have to witness anymore of this extreme nationalism, isolationism, seperatism, blah blah blah. :} ciao. Taalo 08:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For sure, my main hope is to see a compromise. Hoping that people can be genuine in that compromise is already a whole different issue... Anyway, we'll see what happens. Taalo 09:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

hey

checcho, lets be fair and let fantasy and gryffindor vote for trentino-south tyrol if they really must. i believe most people don't want this one-sided solution. we should be the last people to impede the democracy in this situation. i.e., i don't want to do a single thing that these others have done to push a one-sided agenda. Taalo 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, well, i know your point as far as an efficiency standpoint. also, i feel 95-99% that people prefer a shared AA/ST solution. it is just i don't know if we need to be so strict, plus that fantasy (who is from AA/ST) didn't get a chance to have any say in the matter. i've asked him if he can possibly support the T-AA/ST solutions. we'll see. Taalo 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

really checcho, it is fine. we shouldn't have to come up with clever tactics in this case. the right solution should prevail. give the discussion on south tyrol time. i believe there are enough people who will come to accept a shared solution. also, there are people who need to be educated some also. noclador thinks that the rules are like 100 years ago. he doesn't realize that german has very official status in bolzano. Taalo 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• yes, i must admit i was a bit too hasty at one point. it started when i saw how your move requests were slammed the way they were.. and i even took an extreme approach to say, ok, lets just go with trentino-alto adige and p. of bolzano. anyway, i'm sorry if you feel i made a bad decision on the province page. i guess what is done, is done. i still feel confident that common sense will prevail and a name that satisfies both sides will be found. look, right now the main people voting for south tyrol are markussep, gryffindor, nightstallion, and martin se. this is nothing new.. :} i would already be very surprised if even one of them would compromise a bit. anyway, the south tyrol page should be allowed to vote for even until the end of march. a lot of people havn't had a say. also, i would prefer non-italian and german natives coming to offer their solutions as well. Taalo 18:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• by the way. i think maybe it is not correct to delete the oppose of gryffindor and fantasy. i'm not sure about the rules. they are placing oppose in an incorrect section, so maybe it is better to simply move their oppose votes out of the area, rather than delete them. i don't think we are supposed to delete others comments unless they are on our own user pages, or they constitute vandalism or personal attacks. anyway, just a thought. Taalo 18:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• yes, you do make a good point though, i wish people would read the poll rules better. Taalo 18:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• lastly, because i need to get back to work. I consider the poll on south tyrol to be a) go with a province of ...bolzano/bozen or stay with the status quo. right now it is five to five. also, i don't see any valid arguments on the south tyrol side. saying "obviously" or "ack gryffindor". what does this possibly add to the debate? Taalo 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

p. of BZ

Look, already six people back a name that is something Province of BZ. You have any disagreement using Province of Bolzano-Bozen instead of Province of Bolzano? Please refer to the discussion I made under your vote on the page. Even in Britannica it lists Bolzano-Bozen. Taalo 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sud Tirolo

ho notato che qualcuno nella discussione fa presente la relativa diffusione del termine equivalente inglese tramite ricerca su google ma sarebbe da far presente che fino all'annessione all'italia tutto il trentino alto adige era sud tirolo /sempre se non ricordo male) da cui un errore di base nel confrontarlo con provincia di bolzano (oltre all'errore già segnalato) ciao --Francomemoria 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Trento and Bolzano-Bozen were both part of the County of Tyrol during the Austria-Hungary, before becoming part of the modern Republic of Italy. I'm not sure now if there was ever someplace officially called South Tyrol. I believe it was more of a "zone" within Tyrol. Trento was referred to as Welschtirol and Bolzano-Bozen was Südtirol. [1] I don't think there was ever an entity that was officially Province of South Tyrol or Provinz Südtirol. I guess... :} Taalo 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ha ragione taalo non c'era nessuna divisione amministrativa (oltre ai distretti) in tirolo e a quanto pare con il termine sud tirolo era inteso solo la parte dell'attuale provincia di bolzano ma non riesco a capire come facevano ad esse gli italiani il 42% in tirolo--Francomemoria 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In the County of Tirol? Or in T-AA/ST? Taalo 17:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

...and since we all know our Italian, get this piece of vintage article explaining just that: "Mentre nel 1900 la popolazione della provincia era distribuita fra Oltrebrennero, Alto Adige e Trentino nel rapporto di 28 : 29 : 43, nel 1910 tale rapporto risulta modificato in 29 : 29 : 42 e per la prima volta l’Oltrebrennero superò in popolazione l’Alto Adige. Dal 1880 al 1910 la percentuale della popolazione tedesca salì dal 54.5 al 54.9, al 55.6 e al 57.3, mentre quella dei Romani scese dal 45.5 al 45.1, rispettivamente al 44.4 e al 42.1. Il numero dei Tedeschi è ora di 525.115, quello dei Romani 385.700; dieci anni fa i primi erano 460.840, i secondi 368.020. L’aumento dei Tedeschi fu dunque più che triplo di quello avuto dai Romani, mentre il loro numero è di appena un terzo maggiore di quello degli ultimi." Gino Onestinghel, I risultati del censimento nazionale del 1910 esposti per distretti giudiziari, Pro Cultura 1911. You have to remember, nature was much harder to tame then than now, Trentino could afford a density that long to come especially for Northern Tyrol. Regards, Tridentinus 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

T-AA/ST and BZ/ST

Hey Checco, so the idea is to vote now between T-AA/Südtirol and T-AA/South Tyrol? I don't really want just T-AA, but in some ways a bad part of me wants to see if Emes will really live up to his threat (ok, just kidding). The BZ/ST is hard to figure out from the poll. I would tend to say that it is close enough that it requires a split of the page. Maybe one page for the modern province (Province of Bolzano or Province of Bolzano-Bozen). Then the History of South Tyrol to concentrate on the 1800s, etc. One thing that is clear, is there should be a Province of BZ page. Fine if there is a page focusing on the history of South Tyrol as well -- as was commented by some users. Taalo 17:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

major-medium-minor

Hi Checco! What's going on? Why are you reacting so aggressive, fast and unreasonable to my edit? You reverted it here and flagged it as minor, as though I'm some sort of vandal and here again as minor, within two minutes of my action and before I could finish my own explanation. I think you are overreacting, please remain civil and open for debate. C mon 08:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

new poll

Hmm, well, give it time. I guess people have other stuff to do outside of Wikipedia. :} I'm still trying to decide which to vote for to be honest. I'll go ahead and place a vote now, though I may change it later. :} Taalo 17:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• ok, i placed a tentative vote. If you have the time, you may want to do a bit of housekeeping on the talk pages. I think the previous move requests can be archived, for example. Also, placing the poll at the very bottom of the page may be easier for people to find it. It is kind of in a difficult place now.

stirring the pot

did you notice the message i posted to trentino-south tyrol? I find it a bit interesting that the User Gryffindor goes and makes a proposal to do Province of Trento to Trentino and Trento to Trent. Then Emes deletes Nones and Solardo, and PhJ insists on adding German translations to Trento. I hope I'm seeing something which is not there, but does it seem like some sort of revenge for the debates regarding AA/ST? Trent is old English for Trento, but Trento is the common English usage now. We want pages to all follow the Province of ... convention, but now Gryffindor tries to reverse another page? Boring... Taalo 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a very valid option is Autonomous Province of Trento. But for Trento it should be at Trento. Trent is the old English name for the city, but common usage today in English is indeed Trento. Taalo 17:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Province of BZ

Any ideas on how to proceed with this page? There is a slight advantage now to the Province of BZ solution, which also appears to find fairly broad consensus amongst English speakers. My feeling is there is enough voters that want South Tyrol though that we need a split of the article (even though I think the voting clearly shows a strong German POV). I believe this means we can concentrate the history of South Tyrol at History of South Tyrol. Then South Tyrol itself can redirect to the Province of BZ. The two leading options for this page are Province of Bolzano or Province of Bolzano-Bozen. If there is consensus for Autonomous Province of Trento, these pages could eventually be moved as well. What do you think? Taalo 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are right regarding the rules. Though I think it is fair to say that common Wikipedia practice is if there is a big split like this in the poll, that a split of the article is usually in line. We can consult Mets501 about this. Also, having a History of ST and some Province of BZ satisfies all the information people need. I need to work though, do you want to ask Mets501 if he can help us out with a reasonable solution? Taalo 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

motion to close mediation

hello there,

there was a mediation offer quite a while ago concerning the issue of Trentino-South Tyrol. I am happy to announce that the issue has been discussed, voted upon and settled. However the mediation offer still needs to be officially closed. Please take a minute to visit the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol and put your signature at the bottom if you agree with the decision, thank you. sincerely Gryffindor 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• A very important note. This mediation offer concerned the greater overall naming convention to use in this region, not just the name of the region itself. We came up with a very good compromise for the regional name itself. I for one am still looking forward for Lar to help us out. Taalo 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Province of TN

Hey Checcho, would you mind to setup one of your nice straw polls on Province of Trento as well? I feel perhaps we will need a split on this page as well. Taalo 05:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. I moved the multiple polls to an archive and setup a proper straw poll page. Taalo 07:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kl4Uz

I've warned him too. Nevertheless, deleting another editors' messages, no matter the provocation, isn't allowed. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I think that any decent editor would pretty well disregard anything he has to say anyway; that he's almost certainly a sock-puppet or similar only emphasises that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither; the comments should be left, but discounted (with a reason given) when the poll/discussion is close. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Votes (and remember that the poll shoudl be treated as far as possible as a discussion rather than as a crude vote) can be given more or less weight according to the reasons given and the person making it. I have removed the personal attacks, by the way; that's acceptable — just not removing the comments wholesale. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the strikeout (and replaced the comment by Pmanderson that Rarelibra had removed) because it was unwise and uncalled for. I've already explained the procedure, and you seemed to be happy with it; why have you changed your mind? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

ciao

hello my friend, a quick hello. Icsunonove 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

your friend from Trentino. I'm so tired of the fighting, I needed a rebirth. Icsunonove 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise good to hear from you. Anyway, it has really been too much to read the things people say. It is all so political. We can look at a better way from now on, hopefully. Icsunonove 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am reloaded; I finished making my user page. Now we try to get good work done. Icsunonove 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol

Please don't misunderstand what I'm doing. I am going through all links that point to Italian, except those in user space, to change them so that they point to the correct page. Italian is just a Disambiguation page: it links to pages about Italy, Italian language and Italian people among others. Many users add a link to Italian presuming it is about the language or presuming it's a link to Italy, but where the meaning is clear and the link does not match it, it is perfectly acceptable to change the link. The link is "piped" so that the text that appears is the same as that written by the user. Sam Blacketer 10:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Province of Trento

Did you see what Gryffindor did on this page? He removed the straw poll and put a move request. Icsunonove 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Do you mind to bring to Mets501 attention what Gryffindor did on that page? I am in shock that he went and "archived" a straw poll that was in progress. Icsunonove 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of all the politics and fighting. I think we need an unbiased Admin without the baggage to help arbitrate a naming convention. Everyone now has their own baggage and thinks their way is right. We will go on forever like this. Icsunonove 18:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think something like Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen is probably the most neutral. It is what is shown in the English Encyclopedia Brittanica. That is good enough for me. Plus, yes, there is no ideology. It is simply the name of the province named after the largest city. Like you said once, why should BZ be treated differently than the other 109 province pages? When you have Province of South Tyrol and Province of Bozen-South Tyrol, there is definitely ideology attached -- there is no doubt. It is all so funny in the end. I really never realized that there were people over in BZ (and in Austria and Germany) who were so obsessed with this. The province itself is a wonderful place: beautiful scenary, a brilliant Austrian/Italian/Roman/Germanic mix of culture. Good economy, life, etc. But still you have people red in the face? o_O Icsunonove 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think (hope!) it is just a very small minority who come and use Wikipedia as a pulpit. I've never seen this in reality in BZ. You obviously know that all over Italy there are so many languages/dialects spoken. Actually in BZ they have more linguistic rights than many other places, so why complain? Maybe next Sicilia people can start the blah, blah, blah. :-) Anyway, I'm still convinced we need a neutral and relaxed Admin to arbitrate a convention. Names like Province of Bozen-South Tyrol just look really odd to me, both as an English speaker, and someone with roots in Italy. Ok, I need to work! :-) Icsunonove 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the thing I am most surprised about this week on Wikipedia is... just how long Gryffindor has been an Admin without being seriously reprimanded and/or stripped of his priviledges. :-) Icsunonove 06:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

TN

My advice is to boycott/abstain from that poll on Province of Trento. You can see what they are trying to do and it only makes anyone as small as them to participate. It is all the usual suspects.. Icsunonove 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Union Real Politics

The party doesn't receive money from public budget (other parties takes public money) and it has financial problems. It consistently enjoys the support of approximately 2-4% of voters. UPR'candidates were starting from a new conservative-liberal organisation Janusz Korwin-Mikke's Platform (Platforma Janusza Korwin-Mikke). PJKM didn't manage to cross the required 5% threshold in the 2005 parliamentary elections. It party had the support 2% of voters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.142.72.100 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Three questions

• Is this here correct? I'm not quite certain...
• Is Association for the Rose in the Fist an attempt to found a new leftist party...?

Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• It seems there will be a new party, Socialismo Democratico...? (http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2827839)

—Nightstallion (?) 10:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberals merging?

Judging by your edits to Federation of Italian Liberals, it seems the liberal parties might merge, too? —Nightstallion (?) 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian parties

Let me just check whether I understand Democrats_of_the_Left#IV_national_congress correctly: There'll be three mergers. The Democratic Party, a socialist party under the leadership of Fabio Mussi, and a social-democratic/radical/reformist party based on the Association for the Rose in the Fist? —Nightstallion (?) 08:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your expertise

is needed again. I just went through all articles on Italian political parties on Wikipedia and made sure that the respective party was linked to from either Template:Italian political parties (complete) or from Template:Historical Italian political parties. I also included past coalitions in the latter template.

I've got two requests:

1. Could you check and confirm whether all of the minor or non-aligned parties in the first template are really still active? I somehow suspect the one or the other might have disappeared without anyone noticing.
2. Could you see whether I classified all parties correctly in the historical template? If you've got even more time, it would be great if you could check whether I got the chronology right; I tried to sort them by the first time they were active, if possible.

Thanks a lot for your great contributions! —Nightstallion (?) 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again

Social Christians -- active or historical? If active, an actual member of the Union? —Nightstallion (?) 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There's more. According to it.wiki (I know, not completely reliable), there is a Demo-Christian Federation (it:Federazione Democristiana), which is formed by Popular–UDEUR, Christian Democracy (new) (it:Democrazia Cristiana (nuova)) and Refoundation Christian Democracy (it:Rifondazione DC). Furthermore, we haven't got articles nor links to the Centre Federation – Christian Democrats (it:Federazione di Centro – Democratici Cristiani), Christian Democratic Party (it:Partito Democratico Cristiano) and the Party of Christian Democracy (it:Partito della Democrazia Cristiana). Could you help with any of that? What I would do:

• add PDC and PdDC to the template as "other" parties;
• add the FD as a federation containing Pop-UDEUR, CD(new) and Rifondazione DC.

My problem is that this would add Rifondazione DC to the Union-affiliated parties, even though it does not belong to any coalition... What would you do? —Nightstallion (?) 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've got time, it would be great if you could help write some short stubs for the red-linked parties in Template:Italian political parties (complete), BTW. Thanks a lot for your help! —Nightstallion (?) 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And one more question... it:Movimento_Idea_Sociale#La_nuova_azione seems to state there's a new fascist federation called Pact of Action...? —Nightstallion (?) 21:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many questions, Nightey! Here come my answers...

• Social Christians. As the Labour Federation, the Republican Left, the Liberal Left and Reformists for Europe, they are a faction within DS.
• Small Christian-democratic parties. I don't know many things about them, also because they are so small and unrelevant parties that they won't probably partecipate to any important election. In Italy we have at least 100 parties like Rifondazione DC and if we will make an article in en.Wiki for every one of them, we would become crazy! I can't help you very much on this subject... I'm sorry!
• Pact between Mussolini and Rauti. It is something new, we'll see. As I said you before, I don't hold it.Wiki in high regard. Anyway, what is certain is that "pact of action" is not the name of the new alliance but a technical expression used also for the PRI-PLI alliance.
• Red-linked parties. When I will have time, I will do it. I wrote many new articles about parties which were red-linked before, the reason why I stopped there was that I didn't want to write stub articles. Anyway, when I will have time, I will work on them.

I see that you have moved Christian Democracy (Italy) somewhere, in order to make way for the new Christian Democracy, a small unrelevant party. I didn't like so much your decision, maily because now we have many red links everywhere. Can you rollback these edits? --Checco 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you move Union of Centre to Centre Union? The first one was actually a more literal translation. --Checco 08:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I made CD(I) a disambiguation page for new and moved the new DC page's location to DC(I,c) while leaving the older one at DC(I,h); I hope that's okay now.

I moved "Union of Centre" to "Centre Union" because the former does not really conform to how you would translate it into English; the same reason we don't have Italia di Mezzo at Italy of Middle. ;)

So the new fascist pact does not yet have a name?

Thanks for your help! —Nightstallion (?) 10:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Now it is better. I don't know very much about the new pact of action between neo-fascist parties, but I think that the pact won't probably have any name. At least for now. --Checco 10:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great. Well, then we'll just have to wait until it *does* have a name, I suppose... Say, how important are these federations? Do they just exist for the coming administrative elections and will be irrelevant again afterwards, or are they the basis for new parties? How's it been in the past? —Nightstallion (?) 10:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that most of these federations just come to existance for the coming elections. God only knows how many such things we had in the past that were suddenly disbanded. Think only about SI/SDI. It is an interesting small party and I have nothing to say against it, but see this chronology:

• 1994 (Europarl): SDI-Democratic Alliance (centre-left)
• 1995 (regional): SDI-Patto Segni-Democratic Alliance (centre)
• 1996 (general): SDI with Italian Renewal (centre, centre-right)
• 1999 (European): SDI
• 2000 (regional): SDI-PRI, somewhere also with UDR and UDEUR (centre, centre-right)
• 2001 (general): SDI-Greens (far left)
• 2004 (Europarl): SDI within Olive Tree fed. (centre-left)
• 2005 (regional): SDI within Olive Tree, somewhere alone
• 2006 (general): SDI-Radicals (centre, neo-liberal and libertarian party)
• 2009 (Europarl): ?

In brackets, you can read a description of the parties with which SDI was allied at the time. --Checco 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

One more question: see Template_talk:Italian_political_parties_(complete)#Possibly_missing_parties. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Merano

You may want to participate in the poll there. Gryf is going a bit mad trying to change things after the T-ST move. :-) Icsunonove 06:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You removed your vote on Merano, eh? Actually, I'm thinking of removing mine too. Suddenly I do not feel like to participate in these Nationalistic games that a few users seem obsessed with. It is really boring -- as they are. :-) Icsunonove 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your point. Merano and Meran are both names that are fine, of course. It is just that I dislike how these usual suspects simply try to push one language and flaunt the consensus found previously and the general rules of wikipedia neutrality. Icsunonove 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and that is probably enough of a goal. The rest of this stuff is just childish and depressing. :-) Anyway, speaking of the provinces, it would be nice to eventually have that corrected. I do think the way it has been done in it.wikipedia makes a lot of sense. Simply have: Autonomous Province of Trento, Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen, History of Trentino, History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol (or History of Alto Adige/Südtirol) which interlink to each other. Then have Trentino and Alto Adige/South Tyrol, Alto Adige/Südtirol, South Tyrol, etc. redirect to the province pages. It is a bit ridiculous now that the South Tyrol page has a link to the "list of Italian provinces". Go here and see what you see: Category:Provinces_of_Italy. I mean... Icsunonove 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding South Tyrol, these people are mad. :-) Icsunonove 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the discussions also on Province of Trento. Actually, it is funny that on the German Wikipedia they list all the provinces except for Province of TN and Province of BZ. They list them as Trentino and Südtirol. So it looks like they simply attempt to enforce the German POV on Wikipedia. Really amazing. :) You know what says a lot though, look at the Italian Wikipedia for Alto Adige some time. Almost all the pages have a very good multilingual layout. You hardly find this on the German Wikipedia for the same region. It would be kind of nice from a humanistic point of view to see some of these people actually calm down and open their eyes. Icsunonove 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FDC

Did I get Centre Federation of Christian Democrats right? —Nightstallion (?) 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is correct. In the website of the Christian Democratic Party (leader Prandini), they speak about the Federazione dei Democristiani e di Centro. I think that FDCC is a good translation. What do you think? --Checco 14:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I got it wrong, then; I thought that the federation initially mentioned on the FDC page was the same as this federation, but if this is the Federazione dei Democristiani e di Centro, then it's another federation... Unless the website is not up-to-date, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, now it's all correct. --Checco 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Referendum campaign for electoral reform

What's this I read here? A referendum campaign for electoral reform? —Nightstallion (?) 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the source is a little bit NPOV... anyway if the referendum passes, the majority premium will be given to the most voted party. I'll sign for the referendum, but I think that it is not real solution (indeed it probably won't change anything and the new system will be even worse than the current one). --Checco 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly would the changes be? No coalitions, higher thresholds, ...? —Nightstallion (?) 11:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No coalitions (but in reality only coalitions), treshold (I believe) at 4%. The result would be that there will be a list of the centre-right and a list of the centre-left. A step toward bipartitism or toward chaos... anyway everything that could shake the current poltical system is good, in my opinion. Unfortunately for Mario Segni, Arturo Parisi, Riccardo Illy, Giovanna Melandri and Antonio Martino, some of the supporters of the referndum, the turnout won't pass the 50% quorum, as many parties will campaign for abstention. --Checco 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image use

Re [2]: Copyrighted, fair use images may not appear on templates per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. I have reverted your change, re-removing Image:Logo unione.png and Image:Logo House Of Freedoms.png, both of which are fair use, copyrighted images. Please do not re-add them, or any other fair use images to any non-mainspace pages, including templates. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

confused

How is it that all these Lombard people seem even more aggressive than the usual group? Racism, anti-Lombard, anti-everything. The thing is these people apparently are convinced there is some conspiracy against them. boh! :) Icsunonove 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Help for Giuseppe Mazzini

Ciao! I just expanded to a decent level the biography of Giuseppe Mazzini. As I am not of English mother tongue, can I ask you help to correct errors and clean up language, if you've time? Bye and thanks for attention. (A note: places of birth/death should be placed in line, not next the dates of b/d) --Attilios 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Party factions

Could you help me with Template:Italian political party factions? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 12:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Complicated...

Let me just check whether I got them all:

• Democratic Party, obviously.
• The Association for the Rose in the Fist or "Socialist Constituent Assembly" or Italian Socialist Party (new).
• The two minor CD federations, Christian Democratic Federation and Federation of Christian Democrats and of the Centre.
• The liberal/reformist pact Republicans, Liberals, Reformers.
• The new neo-fascist pact between MIS, AS, FN and VN.

Are those all there currently are? —Nightstallion (?) 15:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservative liberalism

Checco, I'm very unhappy that Conservative liberalism is under attack, although I already noted that the article is too close to original research. I urge you to find sources which a) characterize the parties listed as conservative liberal b) say something about conservative liberalism in general. C mon 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So...

What happens now that the party congresses have agreed to found the PD? Will other parties join? When will the disagreeing correntoni break off? —Nightstallion (?) 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And talking about the leaving correntoni, which ones are there for DS and DL? —Nightstallion (?) 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Password

So what was wrong? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Was that an automated block or did someone find out by accident? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Brazil Collaboration

Template:BraCreminder JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Urgenza

Ho bisogno con urgenza che qualcuno blocchi l'utente Fotogian poichè rimuove i miei contributi firmati [Paolo esquilino] nella versione in italiano. Non so cosa voglia da me questo pericoloso schizoide ma bloccatelo e ripristinate i miei messaggi del 28 aprile in it:Discussioni utente:AmonSûl intitolato regolamento e in it:Discussioni utente:Ghino di Tacco intitolato commento. Ti saluto cordialmente certo della tua collaborazione. [Paolo esquilino] 28 apr