Talk:Portobuffolé

Name

Is the name Portobuffolè or Portobuffolé? The official site uses the former name ([1]), and so does the Italian Wikipedia. However, Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia ([2]) uses the latter name, but it has much less Google hits. Which name is the correct one? Peter238 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I can help you with that: the correct spelling is with "é" (acute), but Italians aren't taught to use correctly accents (like French instead) so it's likely that the official site just has got a spelling mistake, just know that most of us use an apostrophe or some strange "scribbles" instead of the accent when they write in Italian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.53.39 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with that: é with acute, though part of the orthography, is seldom used by Italians, even in common words such as perché ("because" or "why"), often replaced by (wrong) perchè, so I think in this case we'd better rely on the dictionary. イヴァンスクルージ九十八 _{（トーク）} 15:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

correct pronunciation is with è. I can check with the local townhall, and let you know which one is the official written name. --Helichrysum Italicum (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Helichrysum Italicum, why do you say that "è" is the correct pronounciation? We are talking about the same topic here, and it is not clear what official sources say, considering that they are inconsistent (ovvero incoerenti). Thanks ;)--Lucas (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98, "é" is not seldom used, there are bright examples like "perché", "affinché", "sé", "né", and so further. Due to the pc's keyboard structure, "perchè" is often wrongly written even by Italian people, but it is still a mistake. --Lucas (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that correct pronunciation and correct written form are two distinct matters. I can guarantee that the correct pronunciation of the town name involves using an Open-mid front unrounded vowel as the last vowel. It's a letter that, according to italian grammar, should be written "è". The thing is, given the fact that most italian nowadays are not trained in the formal use of accents, many people write that vowel wrongly, using "é". This may be the reason why we find so many contradictions even in the documents of the town council itself! --Helichrysum Italicum (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lucas:: that's what I was trying to say; I didn't mean to justify the mistake, but the exact opposite: it should really be avoided, so if a dictionary reports the right spelling is with é, that's the one everyone should use. イヴァンスクルージ九十八 _{（トーク）} 14:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

there is an element I forgot to mention...and that is the local accent. So...when I was saying "correct pronunciation", I meant the pronunciation in the area, according to local accent. The difference between the former name and the local accent may be the source of the change in the name reflected on the official website. After all, language is an everchanging structure...so it is reasonable to assume that the pronunciation changed in the span of dozens of years...and that the "é" became deprecated. hence the low number of hits on google. Should we adhere to wikipedia principle of the "most recognizable form", we should keep the "è" in the title. A note could easily be added, explaining the reason for the decision. --Helichrysum Italicum (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote in the Italian discussion, we shouldn't rely on the local use, but on the official name. I think we could ask the comune to publish an official statement on the website (really: it is a very little town). --Lucas (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Portobuffolè → Portobuffolé – I would've thought this would be sufficiently uncontroversial to do it myself in all Wikis (as already it was in en.wikipedia) by copying each language content in the new created page and replacing the old page with a redirect... Unfortunately, one (1) single Dutch admin has decided that I'm a vandal who deserved to be globally blocked and substituted all of my edits again and even the pages which already had the correct spelling. Just because (sarcasm) I didn't provided sources demonstrating that the most correct spelling is "Portobuffolé" with acute accent... The following sources, I mean: the 2 most important Italian dictionaries as orthographic and pronunciation guides also for proper nouns (DOP - Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia & DiPI Online - Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana) and the main on-line Italian encyclopedia (Sapere.it); the famous Treccani, unluckily, doesn't show the accent in the related voice, but in other pages such as this uses the acute accent only. The official web page of the comune uses both grave and acute accents. I think that both spellings could be used, but "Portobuffolé" is clearly the most correct one, "Portobuffolè" should exist as redirect in all other Wikis. This isn't a request for English Wiki but an Interwiki request. 151.20.13.138 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• You're blocked on English Wikipedia too? You were blocked for just this one page move across many Wikipedias? What's your blocked User ID and what's the difference between these two accents - is it related to Veneto dialect? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Lots of questions! Yes, I don't have a static IP so after some time it changes, but the IPs I used when I made the changes are all blocked. I was blocked for nothing else than trying to correct the accent over that single name, and from the very beginning I've always been providing the first 2 sources above in the edit summary. You can understand how frustrated I felt. I've already stopped trying moving the pages manually yesterday before starting this request, that admin and his/her friends made a systematic ereasing so I've understood it was the wrong way to deal with it. I'm asking here, following Wikipedian rules, to move the page for all Wikis because of the reasons I've explained above. The Italian name is "Portobuffolé", as indicated in pronunciation and orthography manuals, "Portobuffolè" is a wrong variant but actually used due to the fact that in Italian accents are always grave except for final "E"s where it may be acute; the Venetian name is "Portobufołè" with grave accent, but it's a different spelling too and it's the dialectal name, not the Italian one. If it'll be decided in the end that the page must keep the wrong accents, I'll accept that and won't do anything to change it. I hope I've answered exhaustively to all of your questions, if you have others please ask. 151.20.13.138 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support okay, seems reasonable. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Only. (NB I followed IIO here for anybody watching IIO or me!). I notice that all the Wikis including the Italian wiki (where there is a similar discussion) there's also hotel and tourist guides, even the official Facebook page for Borgo di Portobuffolè, Google maps, a search of Google images showed all as Portobuffolè. I would argue that WP:COMMONNAME must apply irrespective of any information that 151 has brought to the table. The reason this is a comment only is that I have enough trouble with English, without thinking about Italian. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply to Richhoncho & AjaxSmack. Shouldn't Wiki report the most correct form? An erroneous spelling is used just because more common? Also "Nicolò Macchiavelli" is more common than "Niccolò Machiavelli", but the correct name is used in en.wikipedia... Besides, as I said the point is that letter E is the only vowel using also acute accent in Italian, all others use only the grave accent, that's why "Portobuffolè" is such a common error. And I think that almost all Italian names ending with an accented E are more commonly found with grave accent, even if the only correct spelling has the acute accent. An explicit example? Right in the official Portobuffolé page you can read "perchè", a wrong spelling of "perché", reflecting also a typical Northern pronunciation of the word meaning "why/because". That's the reliability of the official page. You can vote and choose to keep the current form, but you have to know that you're suggesting to readers a wrong spelling, not supported by any dictionary or encyclopedia, and Wiki-pedia should be an encyclo-pedia, not a pot collecting everything found on the Internet, maybe written by uneducated people, without verifying its correctness. 151.20.13.138 (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Generally, I agree with you but in this case it is not English Wikipedia's job to prescribe usage in another language when it is not reflected in sources. In this discussion at the Italian article's talk page, it seems that Italian Wikipedia users cannot agree either. If you had sources stating something to the effect of "the grave accent is wrong even if common", I would not oppose a move (the DOP - Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia you cite gives both spellings and none of the other sources proscribe the è). —  AjaxSmack  03:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll answer in three points for a better reply. About Italian Wiki, it's unluckily known for being one step below English Wiki, both for the exhaustivity of contents and for, I have to admit, sysops' behaviour towards contributors; this talk could be a chance to fix one of the many mistakes which couldn't find a solution in there. About the DOP, the very page you linked gives only the correct spelling, Portobuffolé, and its conventional phonetic transcription for Italian, you can check it yourself. About the other sources, they don't even proscribe the ê spelling, the spelling "Porto Buffolé", etc...English dictionaries don't proscribe the spelling "luv" for "love" either, this doesn't mean it's as correct as it, dictionaries just give correct spellings so there's no need to proscribe uncorrect spellings, isn't it? I think I'm not being unreasonable in answering like this. 151.20.13.138 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
        • First(ly), I won't argue your point about Italian Wikipedia but it's telling that native speakers of the language in question dispute the spelling. Second(ly), sorry that I linked the wrong dictionary. The è is a parenthetical here. Finally, the love vs. luv case is not a good analogy. It would only be if luv was/were far more common in reliable sources but dictionaries were using love. —  AjaxSmack  01:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Ok, I've understood your point(s). What I'm saying is just that even if "Portobuffolè" should be accepted it'd be anyhow secondary, the spelling that should be used as main and as page title is the not uncommon "Portobuffolé", because in 3 sources out of 4 is the only one given and in the last one is between parenthesis as a lot of other less correct spellings of words ending with accented E in DiPI ([3]). 151.20.13.138 (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although the acute accent may be technically correct, the grave accent is far more commonly used in most sources including official ones (e.g. the comune, the province and the region and as well as here). —  AjaxSmack  01:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the IP's thesis because being Italian I well know that this is the state of things about accents. Bolgitalianissimano (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comments: Sometimes, sadly, the Wikipedia criteria is verifiability, not truth and the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong may help. The article title is Portobuffolè with the alternate as Portobuffolé (that redirects back to the first) with a "note". The Notes section states "Locally, Portobufolè". I do not know the Italian language but the article could use more references (hint-hint). There is some good news in that although AjaxSmack gives valid reasoning in opposition, as well as Richhoncho in the Comment Only. I am also only making comments but with three in support a closing admin could swing either way. The better news is that the issue appears to be only technical, and the difference is provided for in the lead, so feel free to expand the article as I have seen some references above that might be included. Otr500 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No consensus, crosswiki moving pages (by sysops) nevertheless

Can someone please explain why and how so many sysops in such little time all deceided to move the article on they're respective wiki's (if Lucas or an ip starting with 151 didn't already), when clearly no community consensus has been reached, neither on enwiki or on any other wiki (including itwiki)? EvilFreD (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

EvilFreD, I want to clarify your doubts.

The correct spelling is Portobuffolé. It's not me saying it, it's all the pronunciation and ortography guides I've consulted and brought as sources. Here they are: DOP (the most important pronunciation/ortography dictionary of Italian language), DiPI (another big shot, even more complete), Sapere.it (the main on-line Italian encyclopedia), Treccani (the most authoritative Italian encyclopedia). They all say that the correct spelling is "Portobuffolé", with acute accent. Just one puts in parentheses the grave accent as alternative spelling, and it does the same with all Italian proper names.

You ask why admins have moved the pages also in other Wikis. Let me make you an example: "IJssel". If another language Wiki had the article "Ijssel" and repeats "Ijssel" in all the article, wouldn't you want to correct it? And, since "IJssel" IS the correct spelling, do you think you need to ask for a consensus in each single language Wiki (there are 33 in total) for such an evident truth, accepted both in the main Wiki (en.wikipedia) and in your own language Wiki? I don't think so. One more thing: I have no idea why in Dutch you write "IJ" with both capital letters, it looks strange to me, but it's not just because I think you're wrong since I don't see any sense in writing the first 2 letters in upcase that I dare to claim to know things better than you, mother-language. The same for you (plural): you don't know anything about Italian accents, and anything about the ignorance of the medium Italian about accents orthography and pronunciation, so please let "us" do this work about our language. And overall trust the authority of the pronunciation/ortography guides which were brought as sources.

Portobuffolé is just the correct spelling, that's all. There's no point in keeping on with a war to change it to an uncorrect, or at least less correct, spelling. And all this started just because a pair of Dutch admins (not you, luckily) refused to admit that the name used on nl.wikipedia was wrong and started renaming not just it but also ALL other Wikis articles. The result is that now, following rules, it's been established both here in the main Wiki and even in the Italian Wiki (Portobuffolé is an Italian town) to use "that" spelling, not arbitrarily, but after verifying it's the correct one. Please, don't restart all over again... 151.20.83.140 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• This IP is just redirecting the pages to the new title (ignoring the history), without a clearly consensus. I don't know why too why some sysops are moving the pages, like this one. We don't have consensus even on Italian wiki, where they should know better then us. No consensus, no move. We have a conflict with these sources, probably very difficult to reach a consensus. - Editeur ^? 18:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the answer to your doubts is that, simply, Portobuffolé "IS" the right spelling (as proven by sources). And that, since it's the correct spelling (as proven by sources), there's no need to ask for a consensus on every each single Wiki. We already agree on the international Wiki (en.wikipedia) and on the town language Wiki (it.wikipedia). If there're no personal issues involved, then it's clear that moving the page from the uncorrect to the correct spelling (as proven by sources) is the most natural thing to do. If there're no personal issues involved so that people are free to think clearly, obviously: why on Earth a Portuguese admin would care so much about a small Italian town spelling? 151.20.22.229 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I'm just a rollbacker on ptwiki and I'm interested in this article because it's my "function" on my main wiki. You renamed the article with non covincing sources and was blocked crosswiki. This consensus is important to define what title we'll use. Besides the sources EvilFreD presented us, I'll give some more:

• http://www.borghipiubelliditalia.it/borghi-details?view=village&id=58
• http://tribunatreviso.gelocal.it/treviso/cronaca/2015/12/16/news/
• http://www.albaedizioni.it/mercatino-degli-editori-a-portobuffole/
• http://portobuffole.virgilio.it
• http://www.eventiesagre.it/Eventi_Storici/1126_Portobuffole+XIII+Secolo.html
• http://www.tuttitalia.it/veneto/88-portobuffole/
• http://www.tuttocitta.it/mappa/portobuffolè

Not always dictionaries are trusted and independent sources. We have many sources conflicting each other. That's why we need a consensus. - Editeur ^? 23:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Editeur:

Instead of "An admin acting against Wiki?" I'll ask "A rollbacker acting against Wiki?". Against Wiki because envolved in personal feelings towards a user. Otherwise I can't imagine why a Portuguese admin/rollbacker would let something like that (it's about a small Italian town!) bother him so much. And let me ask you something about your sources (I couldn't really believe a Portuguese/Brazilian had spent time searching for Italian pages probing he was right)...

What_about_their_bibliography??? I mean: THIS is the DOP's bibliography; THIS is the DiPI's bibliography; the Treccani has got a bibliography for every single page and sometimes more bibliographies per page (example), not to say the Treccani itself it's often cited in other works bibliography as source. Where are the bibliographies of your links? I mean: how do you know they're reliable?

I'm answering in your place: there's no bibliography. Let me explian what's your error, perhaps a "bona fide" error, but anyway an error: your equation is "more common = more correct". Just because you find more results for "Portobuffolè" doesn't mean it's correct, just because you read "Portobuffolè" at the top of the official site home-page doesn't mean it's correct. Answer this: since how many years do Italian municipal websites exist? About 10-15 years. The DOP exists since 1969, the Treccani since 1929, only the DiPI exists from 1999 (in fact it's the only one reporting in parentheses the alternative spellings, even if the main name is the same as the other 2 sources). Do you think they're less reliable than an official page where, again, you read: Portobuffole', Portobuffolè and Portobuffolé all in the same document, that is the official statute (not a decree about dogs' barking, "the official statute")??? Answer, please.

I'll tell you (again?) why the wrong spelling is more common than the right one in Italian webpages: a) because Italians are average ignorant about accents (we're not even taught at school the difference between acute and grave, so that we often write apostrophes in place of accents!); b) because "E" is the only vowel which can have also the acute accent, all the others can have only the grave accent, so errors are even easier; c) because Portobuffolé is a Northern town and Northern Italians, as Southern Italians, don't pronounce Italian according to the standard Central Italian pronunciation; d) from all these considerations derives that: even if dictionaries and encyclopedias, which already existed, have always been reporting 1 only correct form, when Internet arrived in our country the new sites were created by average Italians who weren't taught the difference between acute and grave accents and so it happened many and many times that the accents they wrote were wrong, and there was nobody reviewing them! Who on Earth would care about a grave or acute accent? Who on Earth would go and consult an encyclopedia or an orthography guide? So everyone just trusts that the more common spelling is the right one, everyone doesn't even know that in that town official statute, the most important document of the "comune" of Portobuffolé, there're 3 different spelling for the town itself!

And THIS is Wiki-pedia, it should be an international encyclopedia, it should provide the most correct information, not the more common. Do you think that DOP, DiPI and Treccani have always been wrong? There's no middle way: either they're right and the more common spelling is wrong, or they're wrong and the more common spelling existing since just a few years and never been existing before is right. Which one?

Well, you have a lot of question to answer. It's your function, you said it yourself: you're NOT here for personal feelings, you're here to make sure which one is the correct form, aren't you? Then answer my questions.

I'm not interested in the arguments why it should be this or that. I'm interested in how it's possible that so many sysops all deceided to move the pages where 151.. or Lucas didn't already moved the page. As for your response, yes, consensus should be reached on ALL respectives wiki's before moving the article there. When consensus is reached here or on itwiki, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a consensus on other wiki's, or that it can be assumed. Different wiki's have different communities who may deceide otherwise. It is certainly NOT for any one user to deceide what to do on all wiki's. As for your claims that other people, including a sysop on nlwiki, started all this. Nope, it was you. EvilFreD (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC) By the way, there's no such thing as a 'main wiki', and certainly enwiki would not be it if there was.

"I'm not interested in the arguments why it should be this or that."

There! Non interested in doing the right thing, just persecuting a user who, sources in his hand, is trying correcting a wrong spelling of an Italian town because he dared correcting your language page so it's become personal.

"I'm interested in how it's possible that so many sysops all deceided to move the pages where 151.. or Lucas didn't already moved the page."

Maybe because in en.wikipedia and it.wikipedia there was a consensus about the corect spelling? Maybe because the sources I've provided (and not only I) are strong and reliable enough? Maybe because other languages Wikis admins are not emotionally involved and so they're able to judge clearly instead of making edit wars "because Im right and ur wrong!"?

"As for your response, yes, consensus should be reached on ALL respectives wiki's before moving the article there."

Okay. So, if you read in the Swahili Wiki "Woshinton" you have to ask to correct the name and if nobody agrees with you you have to leave that spelling? So, if I create a page in the Swahili Wiki named "Ijssel" you have to reach consensus in order to be able to rename it to its correct spelling and if I'm the only one caring about that and I do oppose you aren't allowed to move it??? Good to know: maybe I'll really do it!

"When consensus is reached here or on itwiki, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a consensus on other wiki's, or that it can be assumed."

The one above was just a joke, my real answer is the following: if a spelling is proven to be right and even accepted in the main Wiki and in the more involved Wiki, there's no need for a consensus elsewhere! The spelling "IS" right, and this is enough. If it wasn't so, then EACH_EVERY_SINGLE information inserted on any Wiki should be submitted to a consensus request! Even the dates of birth and death! Even the citations from web articles! It's clearly absurd! The sources say the correct spelling is Portobuffolé, such sources are reliable about orthography and pronunciation and not about the dates of birth and death: asking for a consensus on ALL Wikis, when they've already been considered reliable in those 2 Wikis I said above, is just crazy!

"Different wiki's have different communities who may deceide otherwise."

If_a_reliable_source_says_that_the_correct_spelling_is_X_instead_of_Y_DIFFERENT_COMMUNITIES_CAN_NOT_DECIDE_OTHERWISE: Dutch can't decide that an Italian town spelling is wrong when SOURCES say it's right! This would be invert reality! If a spelling IS correct, there's no community who can establish it's not! Your speech reminds me about the Holocaust negationists: it's proven it happened, but they claim to be free to state it didn't! It's just crazy!

"It is certainly NOT for any one user to deceide what to do on all wiki's."

Not a 4th time, please... I've already answered 3 times above...

"As for your claims that other people, including a sysop on nlwiki, started all this."

All this mess started because of a pair of Dutch admins (admins or whatever). If they hadn't revert a CORRECT, let's repeat, CORRECT spelling when I changed it linking from the very beginning the sources proving it was CORRECT, all this mess wouldn't have ever happened. Or at least, if they simply reverted the changes of nl.wikipedia instead of going all aroung the Wikis and not only revert my changes but also MOVE PAGES WHICH HAD ALREADY THE RIGHT SPELLING AND I HAD NEVER TOUCHED, all this mess wouldn't have ever happened. Deny it if you can.

"Nope, it was you."

No(pe?), Eensteen: all this mess started because of those 2's stubborness and touchiness, and they're still going on. if I hadn't ever corrected the names, it's true that nothing would have happened but most Wikis would still have an UNCORRECT spelling and this would have been bad. If those 2 (insert_random_bad_word)s had let me do my contributions without assuming BAD faith about me, now it would be a month since all Wikis articles about Portobuffolé had a correct spelling. 151.20.70.94 (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Concidering the above, I think it is best you stay away from Wikipedia as far as possible, because you don't seem to understand any of it. EvilFreD (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Said (s)he. 151.20.65.106 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see these new messages before, sorry. There is no need to get upset for such a minor issue like this one, so: keep calm and WP:LOVE to everyone. :-) It actually doesen't matter what other wikis/users did, we only need reliable sources to lean on. We have them, so try to focus on them. That's all we need. --Lucas (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lucas: I do not see this as a problem but as a variant dispute. I still do not understand why Portobuffolè is incorrect if they use on their official website. Why should they do that? It's great to have here an Italian user (and sysop) to give us a convincing answer.. - Editeur ^? 01:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello @L'editeur:, thanks for your welcoming words :-), I also ping ErikvanB and MoiraMoira who spoke about this topic in different places.

I will try to explain how this problem is usually approached in Italian. In Italy, there are different dialectal pronounciation of words and names, but only one is considered correct in the Italian language, the other ones are - or may be - local variants, if at least a linguistic source reports that official use. We use prominent dictionaries or encyclopaedias to determine which one is the correct national pronounciation.

In this particular case (a very little town), there aren't many official sources. In fact, the Official Council Statute uses "Portobuffolé" (the statute seems clearly more authoritative than the local website), but other local sources are inconsistent: they randomly use Portobuffolè, Portobuffolé and even Portobuffole'. Anyway, they are fairly inconsistent and none of them is a linguistic source. Please note that the use of "è" instead of "é" (and of "e'" insead of "è/é") is a very very common mistake in written Italian, even in official documents, since the first available letter in the Italian keyboard is "è" instead of "é" (here you will find a very short explaination in English on why this happens so often).

There are also some of the most respected Italian publications that use "Portobuffolé" as the correct national pronounciation (the Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia and the Treccani, the most respected linguistic authorities in Italy). That's why Portobuffolé seems clearly to be the correct form in the Italian language. Portobuffolè may be a local variant, but we currently don't have any lingustic source that states this and the official statute uses Portobuffolé. Hope this helps to determine the best solution. :-) --Lucas (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, Lucas. Something similar happened here in December (compare Daniele Bertè in an Italian newspaper). This caused much unrest cross-wiki and we thought about requesting a global block for the whole 151.20.0.0/17 range. See the IP addresses listed here. The user who uses dynamic IP address 151.*** is obsessed with accents. Regards. ErikvanB (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Lucas, now you clarified the things. If something about Italian spelling happen again, I'll be more careful. - Editeur ^? 16:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to quote a message left by a Dutch admin (Akadunzio), not one of the admins involved but an external one who could give a neutral opinion: "You are suddenly all become specialist Italian spelling? I do not think so. So your actions can be mentioned not really productive. Let the Italians this fight and take the spelling of the Italians over instead of you misplaced cross wiki actions." (Google Translate). Instead, the following is a comment left by the Dutch admin who wrote on this page (EvilFreD): "But a community may also decide to use a different spelling because they judge that the spelling is more usually used by the language, even despite the fact that it is an obvious error." (Google Translate). These are the 2 points of view, the unbiased and the involved, the first saying basically "it's an Italian matter, they're more suited than us to resolve it, we should entrust their judgement instead of opposing a piori against anything they say", the second saying instead "even if there's a consensus, even if there're sources, even if the correct form is clear, every community is free to choose even a wrong spelling if they decide it's all right for them". I won't comment, I'll let readers make their own judgement. 151.20.21.105 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Btw, both Akadunzio and EvilFreD are not admins. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was about Portobuffolé, not other pages/articles or unrelated things happened last year... Some people try everything when they're proven to be wrong. By the way, now can you see the difference between me and those Dutch admins? When I'm sure I'm making a correct edit I do it, but when my opinion is proven to be wrong and a different consensus is reached I stop doing it. Simple and correct. Those Dutch admins, instead, even when everyone else agrees about the correctness of a spelling and sources are brought proving it, continue considering it "personal" and refuse to "give up" on their "war", going against other Wikis admins and consensus and claiming they're free to choose a wrong spelling... Once again, I'll let the readers make their own considerations. 151.20.64.47 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But you haven't proved anyone wrong, have you? There was only a "sort of consensus" on itwiki, based on an argument from silence (apparently a common way to settle disagreements on itwiki), which you thought to be a justification to change the spelling on all other wiki's. So, it has yet to be proven that the é is the right spelling, and even then it is not up to anyone from one wiki to deceide that all other wiki's should follow the example of the one wiki where a consensus has been reached. EvilFreD (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please... Don't make me repeat the "Holocaust paradox" again... The sources linked above (I won't link them any more) ALL say "Portobuffolé". Check, if you haven't yet; check again, if you've already. The spelling "Portobuffolé" according to such authoritative sources IS the right one. And an encyclopedia such as Wiki has to report correct information, that is in this case the spelling "Portobuffolé". And I want to add: even if the request on en.wikipedia was accepted, even if on it.wikipedia nobody disagreed, when something is proven to be right there wouldn't even be the need for a consensus. Berlusconi DID call Merkel "Unfuckable lard Ass" ([4]), a FACT can't be made unreal just because some people agree it's unreal! Portobuffolé IS the right spelling, you Dutch can't change reality just because you don't want to admit I'm right! And it's not "me" right: "sources" are! What's that you still don't understand? 151.20.37.218 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any facts. We just have evidences, for both spellings. Do you have a prove that é is the correct spelling? So, neither I. - Editeur ^? 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have the prove that "perché" (why/because) is spelled with "é"? All Italian dictionaries agree on that spelling, but for "you" isn't enough... Indeed, if you search Google for "perchè" you'll find almost 80.000.000 results. So there's no prove that "perché" is the correct spelling, right? No comment. 151.20.58.113 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Because Google doesn't index accents. - Editeur ^? 23:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please... 151.20.60.167 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So, that link (really) proves what I said. Anyways, that's enough. This discussion is over. - Editeur ^? 23:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No comment (the link inside "No" and the one inside "comment" are different: click them and watch) (I'm ashamed to teach a Wikipedian how to use Google). 151.20.67.220 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

151.20.67.220, please don't be so "acid", this is not helpful if you want to discuss your opinion with others, even (if you think that) they are wrong. EvilFreD and L'editeur, please note that in Italian (not on "it.wiki", but broadly speaking), prominent dictionaries and encyclopaedias are used to determine which pronounciation is nowadays the correct one. When thare are local and relevant differences, the aformentioned sources report them. The most important linguistic sources say that "Portobuffolé" is the correct spelling. This is a fact, not an evidence. Perhaps, the council is locally called (or written) differently, but we have only inconsistent evidences about that: some official sources use Portobuffolè, some other Portobuffolé (the official council statute is one of them). You may say that Portobuffolè seems to be more common on the Internet. This is probably true, and you may prefer it for this compelling reason. It is just a question of which source you/we consider the most reliable/important. In these rare unclear cases, I think that a couple of clear and authoritative sources are more realiable than many inconsistent ones. I would also cite WP:RS and WP:GNUM.

Talking about it.wiki: this is not simply a case of argument from silence. As I said, in Italy we always use prominent dictionaries or encyclopaedias to determine which pronounciation is the correct one. Now that we found what these sources say, there is no need to discuss further the matter, at least on it.wiki. :-) Hope this clarifies better the general and the "it.wiki" situation. Cheers. :-) --Lucas (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Lo so, Lucas, e quando ti ho detto che non sempre gli amministratori si comportano come dovrebbero con gli utenti mi riferivo proprio a quelli come loro. Partono dal presupposto che io sono nel torto, anche quando gli si dimostra di avere ragione rivendicano il diritto a non dartela e continuare a tenere gli occhi bendati, ne fanno una questione personale e cercano in tutti i modi di tarpare le ali al "nemico", anche tentando di screditarlo, inseguendolo ovunque. Su altre Wiki ne ho trovati di cortesi e bendisposti verso gli utenti, per esempio su quella ungherese dove è bastato segnalare la questione dello spostamento di pagina che mi hanno pure ringraziato per il contributo! La vedi la differenza fra un amministratore interessato al bene del progetto Wiki e questi mocciosi che giocano coi poteri di amministratore? 151.20.70.101 (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I fixed your message. Please write in English here on en.wiki :-). I do understand your frustration but don't forget to talk about contents instead of users behaviours: I just can say that - broadly speaking - this one is not a huge issue, and if we all presume good faith from other users everything could be easier. Sometimes, when a user moves page on many wikis, sysops and experienced users tend to think that it could be a vandalism or a pov-pushing. This is not always true, of course: everyone has its own personality and its level of acceptance. Usually if you explain your reasons it works, sometimes not. It just takes more patience and dialogue. Please don't forget to put a signature at the end of your comments. Thanks! --Lucas (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that out Lucas. My main concern however was not which is the correct spelling and how one should deceide which one is, but the crosswiki-moving of articles based on the consensus found on one wiki. Whatever the itwiki-community deceides is fine by me, and whatever any other is also fine by me, as long as it's a decision made by the respective communities themselves.

On another note: I have just now checked all wiki's for incorrect moving, since there seemed to be a lot of them. As a matter of fact, most of the articles were copied from their original article to their new location, without actally moving the page. Such is a violation of the CC-BY-license and thus should be restored. Ip user 151... made quite a mess of things actually, so I hope I did things correctly (not easy at all with all the languages and different protocols involved, I may have violated some). Whenever things have been restored each community can deceide for themself what to do (or the can choose to do so while restoring the mess). I'm not taking sides here since I wish to remain neutral, just trying to restore improper moving of content. As for the remaining wiki's: some have deceided to follow the example of itwiki, some haven't deceide themselves yet and they should be given the chance to do so. EvilFreD (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Calling other users as "children playing with admin powers" definitely it's not a behavior that we expect from a user here (by the way, who are the children?). With such comment you may be blocked (at least on ptwiki). Lucas explained well what happened and what you (151 IP) must avoid to do. - Editeur ^? 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Facts: an admin, or user working on the Wiki project, who, instead of spending time giving positive contributions to pt.wikipedia, preferes stalking a user all around the Wikis who just succeeded in making an article be renamed against his opinion, preferes writing in a discussion which should be about a spelling just to attack such user as if somebody else cares as him, preferes going on in a war which has already ended even on his own Wiki (and even after saying "This discussion is over.")... What contribution could ever give such user (a very not-childish user clearly) to a free encyclopedia if he just acts following his personal feelings, wasting time against an "enemy" who has actually gien a positive contribution by correcting a wrong spelling? Stay here all night waiting for my replies, I know that for you the discussion is not over and will never! :-) 151.20.33.146 (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

NEVER it's waste of time. I'm not exclusive of ptwiki, I have a global account, I'm a rollbacker, not a stalker. I prevent vandalisms, here, or on any other project, and I'll contribute as far as I can speak the language. - Editeur ^? 20:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And as I predicted the discussion is not over yet! Good boy, you're really contributing to this encyclopedia with these replies of yours :-) 151.20.33.146 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I don't know why I'm still answering you. Maybe I saw a good faith and a potential user, but you're decreasing my hopes. Anyways, it's enough. - Editeur ^? 21:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bye 151.20.46.30 (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please talk some sense into 151...? I'm trying to clean up the mess he created by copying contents of articles, in order to make it possible to move the articles should local communities deceide to do so. I don'know what he doesn't understand about it, but if a page is moved the history of that page should be moved along with it. He has copied the contents of the article on a number of wiki's and is reverting my efforts to restore the mess he made. EvilFreD (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@EvilFreD could you please link me the messed page? it's ok, I found them I'll try to help you too. Now I will write a short message in Italian to 151 [...], sorry for that but I think it's more pragmatic in this case.

Ciao 151 [...], non capisco cosa stia succedendo. EvilFreD dice che tu stai copiando il testo di una pagina senza rispettare la cronologia, anche se non ho capito su quale wiki: questo è un mancato rispetto della licenza Creative Commons e porta a un rollback istantaneo. Potresti spiegare cosa vorresti fare e dove prima di agire? Ripeto che capisco la tua frustrazione, visto che i motivi dello spostamento di questa pagina sono giustificati dalle regole della lingua italiana, ma agire scontrandosi contro gli altri utenti non serve a niente e porta solo a conseguenze negative, blocchi, e rigidità. Fammi sapere, grazie, ciao. --Lucas (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that and don't worry about writing Italian. The problem is that the way 151.. has been moving pages, is a violation of the license agreement on which they were published. It's a copyright violation to copy and republish articles that were previously published under a license that includes attribution in a way that the authors of formentioned article are not attributed. By copying the articles and republishing them on another location, 151.. gives the pretence that he wrote the articles himself, whilst he merely copied other peoples copyrighted material (an open license does not mean that the author has renounced his copyrights).

With that said, I still believe that the respective wiki's should be able to deceide for themselves wether or not to follow the Italian wiki. Deceiding for them, as this is basically what 151.. has been doing, is what we tend to call crosswiki pov pushing, even if he's right. Since I prefer to stay neutral on the issue of the spelling I deceided not to revert his actions for that. The violating of copyrights however is a more serious problem wich I therefor deceided to act upon, still remaing my neutrality on the spelling issue. EvilFreD (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I have found the pages and reverted the wrong edits (and also tried to explain everything in Italian). I definitely know very well the Wikimedia's copyright policies since I work on this topic every day, and I am known to be "adamant" on the subject. :-)

To be honest, even if I agree with the spelling choice, I don't like the "strong" way he's proposing the renaming either, but I try to assume good faith and I think that if he moves a page and the local community doesn't oppose, there is no need to discuss the same topic again (per WP:BOLD). Speaking in general, I do strongly agree that each Wiki should do what it wants. --Lucas (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Official names of Italian municipalities?

In regard to the previous discussion, and my comments on the same topic about this on dutch Wikipedia, I wonder if there is an italian government institution responsible for the official names of cities, towns or municipalities? In The Netherlands this responsibility lies with the municipal council according to the municipal law (art. 158). That is why I find it strange that move requests here are based on dictionaries. Names do not necessarily follow the same rules as language. LeeGer (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

According to article 133 of the Italian constitution, but please someone correct me if I'm interpreting it wrong, the region (which would be the region of Veneto in this case) can create new municipalities and modify their names. Considering this municipality's history though, it doesn't seem likely it was named by the region. It might be relevant to know, however, what it's called by Veneto. If you look up the name on its website (http://www.regione.veneto.it/), it appears to use both Portobuffole' (i.e. with an apostrophe to the right of the e, so neither an accent grave nor an accent aigu) and Portobuffolè (see for example this pdf file). Unfortunately, the website does not allow me to see past page one of the search results under 'Tutti' or 'Documenti'. Instead it switches back to 'Web', which doesn't contain the relevant documents. Woodcutterty (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Woodcutterty:@LeeGer:What Woodcutterty says is correct. But consider also the following facts:

The Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) is the most reliable source concerning administrative matters, and this table ISTAT - List of statistical codes and official names of territorial units is explicitly presented in the website of ISTAT as containing the "official names" of territorial unit (i.e. cities and communes. See here. In this table this commune is present as "Portobuffolè". NB this source has also been recently deleted without reason from the article by the anonimous user.

In the official bullettin of region Veneto (Bollettino Ufficiale Regione Veneto) an official organ publicising administrative decisions, this placename is cited more than 400 times as Portobuffolè and 16 as Portobuffolé.

In this pubblication, edited by the the Historical Archive of Treviso and the University of Venice, describing historical records of the "Podesteria" of Treviso, the placename is Always cited as Portobuffolè (or Porto Buffolè when citing historical documents), never -é. And this seems to be phylologically very accurate, judge yourselves.

The intra-wiki changes have been mainly done on the basis of the decision taken by the italian wiki, where the user @Lucas: said that he considered those dictionaries as a "fonte bomba". A few days later, following another discussion, Lucas changed opinion and admitted that after having viewed the ISTAT source, his opinion is now very conflicted about what source should be considered as more reliable or more fit to the usage we need. In my opinion the decision to make those intra-wiki changes was taken too soon, further research was needed.

The mentioned dictionaries proved several times not reliable about "official names". Commune's statutes (indisputably primary source) like those of Erbè, Dolcè, Roverè della Luna explicitly state that their names is terminating in -è, but dictionaries invariably say -é.

Sorry for my horrible english... :-/

--Ninonino (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to repeat one more time here too.

• The main point is that the "official" sources DO_NOT_CARE_AT_ALL about accents. In municipal sites you can find different spellings for the same town (with "è", "é" and even "e'" with apostrophe), both in web pages and in documents. Ergo: unreliable. The ISTAT doesn't make at all distinctions between "è" and "é" but just reports all names with the grave accent, except the french names from Valle d'Aosta. Ergo: unreliable.

This doesn't mean it is wrong or unreliable. It only means that there is no "official names" that end with -é. --Ninonino (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • If it can mean that all names must officially end with "è", it can also mean that who wrote the name didn't care whether accented Es were open or close. The most probable is the second, since orthography/pronunciation dictionaries written by scholars and with a huge bibliography agree on the fact that some names end with "é".
• Staying on ISTAT's (un)reliability, you can find a lot of pages where the name of towns ending with "è" or "é" is written "e'" (with apostrophe). An example? Here. And almost always whenever the names are written with capital letters. Ergo: unreliable.

I meant a specific list where ISTAT states those are "official names". Not randomly browsing through istat related sites. --Ninonino (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • Let's say that your very list had used the apostrophe in place of accents as it happened in other pages of the site: would you have still considered the spellings with -e' correct because it was said by the most-uber-official source? Sincerely: coherence or hypocrisy?
• Italians, alas, have always been quite ignorant about accents: since school where hardly ever children are taught the difference between grave and acute accents, continuing when they grow up and use reading and writing apostrophes in place of accents (some of those children must have become web technicians or ISTAT employees when adults), not to mention the fact that depending on the region where they're born they also pronunce E (and O) in different ways.

Any source to support this? Fortunately ISTAT is far more a serious institution than what the anonymous user thinks... --Ninonino (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • 60 millions or something more results of the wrong version of one of the most common words with accents. And before I forget: "qual è".
• I forgot to specify that "è" has a different sound than "é" in Italian: the first is pronounced /ɛ/, the second /e/. As I've just said, out of Tuscany Italians pronounce Es either /ɛ/ or /e/ not respecting the official Italian diction found in dictionaries. A Genoan would call his city "Génova", but the official pronunciation of the town is "Gènova", for example. So: the fact that a city is spelled with "è" implies that city must be pronounced with an /ɛ/ sound, it's not about how "official" a spelling may be but how correctly the orthography reflects the standard pronunciation. And who or what established standard pronunciations? Dictionaries. There're dictionaries for words and dictionaries for names too, and if dictionaries say that a town name ends with "é" (even specifying the pronunciation with /e/ in IPA) then that town name must be written with "é", otherwise it wouldn't involve just a spelling mistake but also a phonetic mistake, misleading the reader so that he would pronounce a wrong /ɛ/ sound.

That's the point, I thought we were trying to establish which source we should consider as official, not strictly ortographically correct (that at a certain degree may also be arguable). --Ninonino (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • Whatever source would be established as official, it will always have to be reviewed for its orthography especially when an orthographic symbol implicates a particular pronunciation. No official source is above the correct Italian pronunciation, no law is, when an official source contradicts diction and spelling manuals it means the official source is wrong, not the orthoepic manuals: it's the official source that has to be corrected, not the manuals, and "we" must not suggest a wrong spelling and pronunciation to the reader.
• The ISTAT decides whether a town name must be spelled with 1 or 2 words (Valgardena / Val Gardena) (I know it's not a "town", it was just an example), when a new piece of name must be added or an old one must be removed (Santa Cristina / Santa Cristina Valgardena), which parts of the name must begin with capital letter (Santa Cristina in Valgardena / Santa Cristina In Valgardena) (just another example), and every modification of the official name. But it doesn't care at all about accents, as shown above (accents replaced by apostrophes...), neither it can establish, even if it paradoxically wanted to, the pronunciation ("diction") of town names which is a prerogative of "dictionaries", as no law passed by Italian Parliament or Government can establish that the correct spelling and pronunciation of "perché" (/per'ke/) will be from now on "perchè" (/per'kɛ/).

ISTAT decides nothing, ISTAT records a situation. It is up to local institutions (Region and communes) to decide commune official names. ISTAT only collects informations and publish data. --Ninonino (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • Oh, I've understood now, sorry! ISTAT has taken note of the spelling used in the official statute of the town and... No, wait, something's not right: if even in the official statute, not to talk in different documents, are used 3 (three) different spellings... But ISTAT uses the grave accent... Always the grave accent, no matter which municipality... And it "decides nothing", "records a situation"... Mmm... Well, reflecting about it, in the end I don't think it's me the one who didn't understand.

Is it clear enough the difference bewteen a conventional spelling concerning capital letters and spaces (not envolving phonetics) which doesn't hold in consideration the difference between 2 (3) diacritics, and manuals of pronunciation whose purpose is precisely to provide both the correct spelling and the correct pronunciation (interdependent) of names and words? I'm starting giving up hope about human comprehension of this not too difficult concept... And I'm receiving more and more confirmations I'm right :-( 151.20.54.168 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

è or é (finally)

Email from the government of Portobuffolè about the discussion about the name from June 8, 2016: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Email_der_Verwaltung_von_Portobuffol%C3%A8_zur_Namensdiskussion,_8.6.16.jpeg --TheTokl (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There´s a second email, based on my question, why some websites write the name as "Portobuffolé": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Zweite_Email_der_Verwaltung_von_Portobuffol%C3%A8_zur_Namensdiskussion,_8.6.16.jpeg --TheTokl (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portobuffolé. 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/20160122102346/http://incomune.interno.it/statuti/statuti/portobuffole.pdf to http://incomune.interno.it/statuti/statuti/portobuffole.pdf

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) 01:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)