Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Trentino-South Tyrol and others
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	User:Lar
Parties involved	User:Rarelibra, User:Taalo, User:Wknight94, User:Adriano User:Supparluca, User:Asterion, User:Pmanderson (Septentrionalis), User:Markussep, User:Gryffindor, User:Olessi, User:Fantasy, User:Emes User: Tridentinus et. al.
Mediator(s)	User:Lar
Comment	Lar volunteered to mediate this naming dispute, decided to use MedCab mechanism and format. Case just getting underway.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Trentino-South Tyrol and others]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Trentino-South Tyrol and others]]

Mediation Case: 2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Trentino-South Tyrol and other articles related to the geographical region.

Who's involved?: See the parties list.

What's going on?: There is a long running controversy about which names should be used for what. The region has changed hands, and there have been efforts within the region to cause names to be used differently. There have been several efforts to reach an amicable solution among the parties but they have failed. Background can be seen on Talk:Trentino-South_Tyrol, User_talk:Lar, and even on Commons in the admin noticeboard area, et. al. This area will be enhanced wiht more accurate pointers to information.

What would you like to change about that?: Lar volunteered to try to work with all parties to see if some soultion could be arrived at by consensus. He also offered to mandate a solution if all parties agreed to accept decision but that does not have consensus,so solution will be proposed and nothing more.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: User_talk:Lar, or work pages of this mediation (preferred once set up)

Mediator response[edit]

MedCab note: The conflict here was agreed to be mediated by Lar before the case page was created. He's using this case page to record the mediation attempt ongoing elsewhere. If possible, please give this case unusually wide berth. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No activity, closing. --Ideogram 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite correct, there has been much activity which was taking place on the discussion page of Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol. Case has been agreed upon.

Lar is not actively mediating this case, and it doesn't have to be listed at MedCab for him to mediate it anyway. I'm going to close it since it is so old. --Ideogram 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol

Discussion[edit]

see discussion on talk page of article

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

It has been decided and voted upon to agree on the compromise "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol", which is the official name given in the Italian constitution.

Motion to close this case:

Accept Gryffindor 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject ~~Definitely.~~ Actually, Taalo and Lar pointed out that there is much more to this than than that one name, and I agree. So that's a reject from me. —METS501 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject . We have come to a very good compromise on Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. I for one still wish for Lar to help us with the regional names as a whole; which is the point of this mediation. This mediation case shouldn't be confused with just the solution on the name of the region itself. Taalo 21:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject Pending waiting for a declaration from Lar. I fully accept the outcome of mediation, but as Taalo mentioned there's more to it. Municipalities can easily be named after the language of the township, and the same goes for districts and, even, valleys. However, what about lakes, rivers and mountains? Bottom ilne - I'm waiting for Lar to say if he'd still like to help, otherwise I still see something to be ironed out. Tridentinus 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation offer by Lar concerned only the above mentioned article was my understanding, correct me if I am wrong. If Lar wants to continue mediating all the other open issues as well, then another case would have to be opened. Gryffindor 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify for you (text taken from the body of this mediation request): "Article: Trentino-South Tyrol and others", also "Trentino-South Tyrol and other articles related to the geographical region" For further reading, refer to [1] and [2]. Hope that helps you. Taalo 22:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help with further mediation (although you may want to find someone else, I've done very poorly at moving this along) and I agree that this is more than just about the name of the region itself. I would hope that the region name being decided would be of some use to moving the rest forward. I think opening a new case is perhaps needless process though. Why not just note that this decision happened and reiterate what's left to be worked on? ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment perhaps if there is non consensus on this, the talk page should be used to discuss further? There is discussion now on my user talk that suggests maybe there is not consensus yet. I am not sure, and I'm fine with whatever the participants decide. User_talk:Lar#motion_to_close_mediation ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm, I reject the motion, especially as it seems the city naming convention has been just blown away on God-knows-which ground. Tridentinus 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept Aye, sounds fine to me. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept Ok, anything will do. IMHO, too much time and energy was spent on this and not on the article itself. --Adriano 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject , as explained above by Mets501 and Taalo. --Checco 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept - we have agreed upon a naming convention for the region, thus no mediation is necessary. We can handle the various cases below the same way - if consensus is reached, we change - if not, the naming remains. Rarelibra 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we came up with consensus on T-AA/ST, but what about rivers, cities, provinces? Are we going to do everything Bolzano/Bozen, Merano/Meran, Brennero/Brenner? I still think that if Lar can find the time, doing something like he did on the highway system would sort this out once and for all. later, Taalo 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Rarelibra that this can be discussed on the talk pages of the articles themselves. My proposal was to at least have this issue declared as closed officialy. Gryffindor 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the burning desire to have this issue officially closed officially, when for all intents and purposes it really is not. Also, what is the issue in leaving Lar's mediation page here? Taalo 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like you don't seem to be interested in finding agreements with your attitude. We should work the issues down, at least we can close one issue, since we agreed. Feel free to open next obviously. Gryffindor 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, there's no need to get heated. Why not note that one decision was made, and start working on others, here on this page? Some of this discussion, voting, etc, can go to the talk page. That's what I suggest. But it is only a suggestion. I am fine with whatever everyone wants to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 March 2007

Accept, as far as the Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol page is concerned. Mediation might still be helpful for other pages (Bolzano, Meran, South Tyrol, Trentino). -- PhJ 06:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept closure, not name Reject closure and name. "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" has none of the properties I would prefer in a name for that article; it's not English, it is double-barrelled, it is not used. Using official names is contrary to policy. But I have never felt this dispute needed mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad - you see, we've reached CONSENSUS on the page for the naming. It isn't up to what one editor "prefers", and this isn't the place to comment on naming (only closing the mediation). As far as use, check the Italian government, you'll see differently. Rarelibra 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Gryffindor's abuse of admin privileges in moving Bolzano without discussion and against previous consensus convince me to change my mind. But if he is stripped of the adminship he has abused, then we can close this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information Septentrionalis the villages and towns articles of South Tyrol were originally all with double-names, in order to be most neutral. Unfortunately that was done away with with great opposition. Since we now accepted a double-name I thought this the most neutral solution, fully in line with Wikipedia policy. If you want to accuse me of trying to find a neutral solution, then be my guest. Gryffindor 20:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that; the perpetual move requests between Bolzano-Bozen and Bozen-Bolzano usw-ecc./ecc.-usw convince me that that "solution" is WP:LAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Gryffindor's approach, he has had very useful input into the various discussions on naming, and he also supports the common name approach for the lingual majority. He simply tried the dual-naming due to the consensus reached on the region page. I don't see this as "abuse of admin privileges", and don't appreciate PMAnderson's accusations against him. PMAnderson has a history of vehemently pushing POV and reverting for his own viewpoint. In this case, he isn't happy with the discussion/consensus and chooses to attack Gryffindor. Rarelibra 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. In the end it was me who started this naming-problem on 3 March 2003 (Article moved from Bolzano to "Bozen-Bolzano"), and it is strange that after 4 (four!) years we still don't have an acceptable solution. If we settle at least the region-question, we have one step. I guess we have a solution for the local names in 2010, or maybe 2020? Or could a Governement-decision be helpful? I even thought about that, to officially ask the government of South Tyrol how the places are called in english... ;-) Fantasy 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal[edit]

I was contacted by a reporter from the Wall Street Journal who is interested in situations like this one that "mirror hotspots or geographic/political divides in the analog world" (his words). He wanted to interview me (and presumably others) about my take on this situation, and the value of consensus, mediation and working together in general, despite my pointing out that I have not done much to help resolve this. If anyone has feedback they'd like to give me, or if anyone has been contacted, I'd like to hear about it. Privately may be best if you are not comfortable with publicly. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! With all this mess, we have succeded in gaining attention from the press!!! :-)

Didn't understand exactly this analog divide and the hotspot mirroring, but still... I would suggest the reporter reads through all discussion pages, just to have an idea about it. In any case, the fact that a sort of consensus was reached in wikipedia does not mean that the problem "in the analogue world" is solved... --Adriano 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it embarassing that even the international media caught attention of this wasteful fighting. Gryffindor 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is embarassing... the world is such a diverse place, and the focus on wiki seems to be the instability of articles within the "hot zones". This is definitely one of those cases. Rarelibra 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this occasion I rather agree with with User:Gryffindor, and if I were the journalist I would take the piss out of each of us without mercy! The interesting question though is not why this particular case has been controversial, but why naming issues attract such disputation. The craziest example I have come across is one where there is no significant ‘analogue’ politics: what to call the National Portrait Gallery near Trafalgar Square. It is actually a gallery well worth visiting and if a tenth of the effort spent in disputing the name had been spent in extending the article…well we know the answer. —Ian Spackman 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a grain of truth in all the diverging opinions here above.

Sure, wikipedia is a mirror of what happens in real world, so we should expect nothing different from that.... But it should also be better than the real world: here there are rules to respect (such as consensus). Wikipedia should not be a battleground (WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND). But it has become so... And this IS not really embarrassing, but sad.

Did we expect too much out of wikipedia? Was I wrong when I thought that a name was not so important?

And why is a name so important? Maybe because we forgot Romeo and Juliet, and have become too attached to these labels we attach to everything we have around us...

So Shakespeare's question remains unanswered: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet".... --Adriano 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]