Talk:Provinces of Italy

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Italy B‑class High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Order of provinces[edit]

Just as a sidenote, when you are a kid in Italian elementary school and they make you learn provinces, you are required to name the capoluogo di regione first, and then the other provinces in alphabetical order (e.g. Naples, Avellino, Benevento, Caserta, Salerno for Campania). There is nothing really wrong with the purely alphabetical order used on the page. You probably just might want to know 75.80.96.205 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

Worksheet for full set of redirs; the first listed is the main name, the others should redir as the main article is created. After studying Google results for randomly-selected provinces, I found an average of about 50% greater preference for the "Province of X" form; in addition, it better matches the "Provincia di X" in Italian, seems to be preferred on "official"-type websites, and (to me anyway) reads a little better in typical uses. The other forms are also reasonable though; but, if you have an irresistible urge to convert to one of them, please do all the articles the same way, not just one or two. Note that these were script-generated, and some of the names have embedded Italian words that might need to be translated first. Stan 07:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The provinces of Italy are one of the rare cases that use "Province of X" instead of "X Province", see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming. That it more resembles italian is nice, but do we want this? Will we allways align english with local speech? So using italo-english, germano-english, sino-english, thai-english, bantu-english, resulting in maybe 3 variants like "Province X", "Province of X", "X Province". For the word "Province" Italy is the only one using "Province of X". The only other entities that use "... of X" are the Swiss cantons.
"X Province" is three characters shorter than "Province of X" and only has one space/underscore
Googling: 1) just for info: one of the pages that was on top for both variants uses "Province of X" ( http://en.comuni-italiani.it/079/ ) but further down they switch to X Province ( http://en.comuni-italiani.it/079/lista.html ). Maybe because it is shorter they used it here. 2) what does googling tell us? Do we want to speak like majority or do we want to have consistence? Of course we want both :-)
Sometimes even if majority calls it X Province it might benefit the whole system more to give the article title in the same way as it is done for almost all other subnational entities.
For the sake of easy maintainance, easy, coherent linking from in and outside, for the sake of lean instructions on naming - I favour moving to "X Province". KISS Tobias Conradi 21:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't rename it just in order to make it comparable to names of entities they are not usually compared to. Besides, the current solution (Province of X) seems is easier to use in sentences and http://en.comuni-italiani.it uses the same. For any other use, we could (and probably should) upload redirects in the variations below. – User:Docu

maybe for Italy this is true, but it is not that easy for other entities. Giving things the same naming schemes helps to detect possible wrong links, by standardizing the parishes in central america from "Parisch of X" and "X parish" to "X Parish" I found some bad links. See Saint George Parish and now imagine every country uses its naming scheme. Same is true for spanish and Latin american provinces and departments e.g. Tierra del Fuego Province, Córdoba Province. Tobias Conradi 03:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As my original comments imply, my preference isn't strong either way, but I considered all of Tobias' arguments previously, and didn't find them convincing. For instance, the consistency argument is weak because many of the subnational naming schemes have been made up for Wikipedia, don't have much justification in real life (such as a government document decreeing correct usage). Also, it's not necessarily a bad thing to adopt local names, in fact we even have a general rule not to translate names unless there is a common English version ("Johann Sebastian Bach", not "John Sebastian Brook"). Of course, by that rule, they would be "Provincia di X", maybe not a bad thing. Stan 22:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

how could you have considered all of my arguments previously, including the one that "Province of X" is a rare case? more than 100 entity-types use the form "X Province". why is the consistency argument weak, because "many subnational naming schemes have been made up for Wikipedia"? Isn't it the other way around, especially if the schemes were made up, there is no reason to stick to google results for Italy, but to have an easy to apply rule?

if we want to use local names do it for ALL entities including historic ones and have fun in areas with more than one official language. Do you call Sebastian Bach Herr or mister? Tobias Conradi 03:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reasons I said "studied Google results" is that I disregarded amateur websites, ones where the English competence was clearly too low to be of any use, etc. The problem with arguing for consistency with other parts of WP is that you have to assume they're correct, and I don't think that's been assured for many of the countries, for instance by checking against English-language scholarly literature on them. But in the case of Italian provinces, I didn't find anything that suggested that there was a correctness issue involved, so we are free to choose the one we like. If you do the work to change all the province articles (including the interwiki links from it: and de:), I'm not going to complain. Stan 04:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

;-) ugh. I will do my best. Of course I will remove all double-redirects. With changing it: and de: I will maybe ask for bot help. Stan, nice to have you not against me :-) . maybe you would also support me? I need some supports because I have to go WP:RM. Tobias Conradi 05:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I favor the current solution ("Province of X") as it fits much better many of the articles. The present article names ("Province of X") can be inserted much better in sentences than "X Province" and "X (province)". Imagine having the article at one of the later and people starting to use:

'''Paderno Ponchielli''' is a town and [[comune]] in the province of [[Cremona Province|Cremona]], in [[Lombardy]], [[Italy]]

instead of the current:

'''Paderno Ponchielli''' is a town and [[comune]] in the [[province of Cremona]], in [[Lombardy]], [[Italy]]

Most Lombardy stubs currently start that way. – User:Docu

'''Paderno Ponchielli''' is a town and [[comune]] in the [[Cremona Province]], in [[Lombardy]], [[Italy]]

110 sets of subdivisons go that way. Tobias Conradi 07:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Italian subdivisions? It still reminds me of:

'''Paderno Ponchielli''' is a town and [[comune]] in the [[Cremona province]], in [[Lombardy]], [[Italy]]

but it's better than the stuff I cleaned up the other day that read like

"Paderno Ponchielli is a town and [[comune]] in [[Cremona (province)|Cremona]] & [[Lombardy]] & [[Italy]]"

User:Docu

no not italian subdivisions but that in other countries ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming ). Yeah, there are crazy things out there ;-) Today someone suggested that if we use Région in France we could also use Regioni in Italy ... current standard being "Regions of XY " Tobias Conradi 14:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

I plan moving in the following steps:

ask for admin help on WP:RM - DONE, Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
move all that can be moved and fix double redirects - DONE Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
change template links (also for unmoved pages) - DONE Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
change names in articles with lots of references (e.g. lists) - DONE for the four lists that I could find. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
fix interwiki (will see how much, ask for bot or respctiv WP help) - done for it:WP Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
wait for the WP:RM-moves, fix double redirects if necessary - DONE (moved all without admin)Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

status of moves itself can be watched at Category:Provinces of Italy

Tobias Conradi 05:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There isn't much a point in moving them, if there is no clear consensus. – User:Docu

Stan did not oppose, you did not. I was in support. That is 1:0:2. Tobias Conradi 07:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be 1:1:1 ? I was more looking for a consensus to move them.-- User:Docu

Supp:Oppo:Neut = 1:0:2, I said this because I was in support, nobody opposed and Stan and you were neutral. If there is no clear consensus then there is also almost no point to leave it. Please tell me if you oppose, than I will go for voting and ask other people. With more than 120 sets of subdivisions working differently there should be some support. Tobias Conradi 03:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is just one person in support, and two others prefering the status quo. – User:Docu

who are these two? I only see Stan,Docu,Tobias talking about it. Tobias is in Support Stan is neutral. Before your post on ??? (you do not put dates) I thought you were not opposed. Than you said 1:1:1 now you say 1:2:0 , what is next? and who is the 2nd opposer? Tobias Conradi 13:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is in favor?

As someone very heavily involved in Italy and her geography (see my site), I'm completely neutral on all of this per se. "Novara province" and "Province of Novara" are 6 of one, 1/2 a dozen of the other to me. The only advantage is the esthetic one of consistency across Wikipedia. Bill 01:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ragusa Province[edit]

Discussion moved from User_talk:Tobias Conradi

Please stop moving Province of Ragusa to Ragusa Province, it is not an American county such as Orange County it is very much the Province of Ragusa, if you want to keep applying some odd rules then try moving County Durham to Durham County, and watch the outcry there. Giano | talk 20:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim it to be an American County. X Province is the way, the naming is done for 95% of current subnational entities called "province". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most countries, especially those with Provinces say "Province of X" So where does this "X Province" come from, it sounds wrong, looks wrong and is wrong! Giano | talk 12:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them say "provincia de X", because most of them are in spanish speaking countries. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even Americans say "The State of Ohio" etc, not Ohio State, unless its followed by a proper noun. And provinces exist in many countries that are non-Spannish speaking. Giano | talk 16:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Giano! You are now talking about words like sheng, wilaya, oblast, län, khoung? Do you know the rules that apply there? X khoung? khoung of X? The oblast of X? I know some, but in general people won't. I think Wikipedia will be less usefull and have more wrong links when we use local rules. Maybe "Ragusa Province" is not the best sounding, but it follows the very simple rule to have the term at the end and to have it uppercase. It is not the original name, nor is it an official translation. It is something like following a wiki style guide translation. Other institutions might use their style guide. Maybe you have a look at the 10 naming variants listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Variants. Naming is now mostly harmonized and during harmonization internal inconsisteny and overlapping namings were resolved. There was "Córdoba Province" and "Córdoba (province)" the former in Argentina, the latter in Spain. There are a lot of terms for subnational entities (Template:Subnational entity). It would make things more difficult if there were to state different rules for each term, like "X Term" for County and Borough, vs. "Term of X" for Provinces and States. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever may be the case in China or Outer Mongolia, or wherever, for any Italian province "Province of Ragusa" is correct, "Ragusa Province" is wrong and sounds like a pretentious way of serving shell fish. Lower or upper case is immaterial, Wikipedia worries far to much about upper and lower case, and should concentrate more on correct and received grammar and expressionism, not to be confused with colloquialism Giano | talk 19:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly you seem to have received some higher wisdom or did you wanted to play with me? After which rule it is wrong? Why does this rule only apply to Italy and not to China or Outer Mongolia? Other people fight against upper case, you fight against having the entity term at the end of the name. Everybody seems only to consider "his" entities. Of course there are conflicts, but this is _one_ wikipedia. So looking for a broader solution might be more helpfull. As explained above country-solutions bear problems. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I am unable to follow your argument. What exactly are you saying? Giano | talk 21:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- After which rule it is wrong? (it is = "Ragusa Province") . Why did you not provide this rule earlier? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there was already a hard and fast rule this conversation would be redundant. The undeniable fact is that both the English and Italian speaking world refer to it as "Province of Ragusa" NOT "Ragusa Province" just as the Americans would say "The State of Ohio", of the English "County of Yorkshire". Personally I don't see why Ragusa cannot stand alone (like Ohio or Yorkshire) with the city being disambiguated as "Ragusa Ibla" or "Ragusa (city)". However, whatever Wikipedia choooses to do "Ragusa Province" is wrong to most ears and "Province of Ragusa" sounds correct. The same applies to all Italian provinces. Giano | talk 06:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You said "Ragusa province is wrong" but it was just a statement without evidence, only your italian heart and ears said so? You state this and that, e.g. saying it is not an American county on the other hand using the US states as evidence for your case. The world is much bigger then only US and Italy. I never claimed Ragusa Province to be the best sounding. How can YOU say it is wrong to most ears? Do you refer to the ears of Italy related people? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's move them back then. – User:Docu

It's true that, the more an English-speaker speaks Italian, the more likely we are to say, and hear as right, "Province of Ragusa" as opposed to "Ragusa Province". One reason is irrelevant to Wikipedia: that in Italian it is only possible to say "Provincia di Ragusa", the second order is not Italian; but English Wiki is for English-speakers, not for Italian-speakers: the main entry is Venice, not "Venezia".

The other reason, however, is more important, and is what underlies Giano's comments I think. In the States, there is a state called Texas, and its capital is Austin; or a state called California, capital Sacramento; but in Italy, there is no province called "Ragusa", since the provinces are artificial entities decreed from the top, and named after the main town: the provinceofRagusa is really the province of Ragusa — i.e., the province belonging to Ragusa. Therefore it is somewhat curious to say "Ragusa province", although in English writing, I've done it myself for euphony in some specific sentence.

The equivalents of American states, from this standpoint, are the Regions. The 20 Regions do have a real existence, and their names are different from those of the capital cities: therefore "Region of Lazio" would sound most bizarre to an English speaker, and "Lazio region" is far better, if there is some reason to state "region". —Bill 11:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I understand ;Bill, and User:Docu correctly I think there is a concensus of agreement that the Italian provinces should be titled "Province of X". Could we perhaps take a poll of those interested enough in the subject here, and if that is possible would User:Tobias Conradi be happy to abide by the vote? I think my feelings are very clear but I will abide by a clear view of opinion on the subject. I suggest a deadline of 8th June 2005 for all those interested enough to express an opinion. Giano | talk 20:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming of Italian provinces[edit]

The proposal is: Provinces of Italy should be titled "Province of X" NOT "X Province" please add support or oppose below:-

Support[edit]

Support Giano | talk 20:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Bill 21:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) (but does it really matter?)
Support --Bishonen | talk 00:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support – User:Docu
Support john k 23:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well the date is up, and the vote seems to have been pretty conclusive; before I waste time changing the names back to "Province of etc." over the next few days, will Tobias Conradi give me an assurance he won't start an edit war.Giano | talk 15:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ciao giano, granted (long live Prussia :-) ) even if I think this quick poll is stupid and I do not respect it as something that brings much value - edit wars against majority are not my business. BTW: The last and only edit war here, was started by you ... if you all would have stepped in earlier ... On the other hand I would give no assurance for a counter-voting somewhere else. But anyway I will leave WP for a while or longer, so I will not initiate it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

[will not respect this voting because it is biased Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

Against this voting[edit]

This voting is heavily biased. Because we have more Italians or Italy-related people here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon! would you care to elaborate on that stunning piece of information. Giano | talk 12:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if for subnational entities one can say Hamadan Province (Iran), Balkh Province (Afghanistan), Vientiane Province (Laos), Chiang Mai Province (Thailand), Taiwan Province (China), Arhangay Province (Mongolia), Masvingo Province (Zimbabwe), Adana Province (Turkey), Ararat Province (Armenia), Benguela Province (Angola) then it is biased to use other wording only because the provinces are of italian origin.

You want to split english Wikipedia into italo-anglo-Wikipedia and non-italo-anglo-Wikipedia.

There are thousands more examples where the subdivision term is used at the end. Tibet Autonomous Region (China), Kyoto Prefecture (Japan), Abuta District, Hokkaido (Japan), Brussels-Capital Region (Belgium), Kogi State (Nigeria), Uppsala County (Sweden), Matam Region (Senegal). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all please do not insult those about whom you know nothing of being biased. My name is of Italian origin, but for all you know my mother may have been born in Saudi Arabia, and I have no idea or interest in the parentage or passports of others who wish to see "Province of X". That so far it appears others agree with me would suggest that your view is not universally upheld. People would hardly be editing in this field if they were totally disinterested in the subject. I will abide by the majority. - The important thing here is that every geographical region is correctly referred to, one blanket rule for all can never work, for instance most Irish counties are "County X" many American regions are "X County". Some Chinese provinces are traditionally referred to as "X Province" and most Italian even in English as "Province of X" that is just the way things are, and you cannot alter it because it does not suit your seemingly methodical, tidy way of thinking. I am sorry you are unhappy about an opposing view to yours, but correct naming is more important than your bulldozing attitude. Giano | talk 16:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not unhappy about an opposing view to mine. I am only unhappy that some people do not care about a broader view of the subject and say they do not care about naming of provinces anywhere else but in Italy. My only aim was to reduce naming of subnational entities from 14 (syntax-) variants to 3. I know that Irish counties are called "County X". But this is in english speaking country. So it might be the real name of the county. This is not true for translated names for subnational entities. The real name is "Provincia di X". BTW Tradition is nice, but would there be an wikipedia if only traditionalists like you ruled the world?

Be your mother born in Saudi Arabia or not, you wrote about yourself My name is Giacomo (known as Giano to most people). I am a Sicilian, I live both in the UK and Ragusa, Sicily. I was educated in Italy, England, Switzerland and U.S.A. So what is wrong calling yours ears italian? Should I have called them sicilian? What was the insult?

I never claimed that my view is universally upheld. Why do you say this? You are out of arguments and now just playing ping-pong. It is annoying. You still did not provide any evidence that "X Province" is wrong. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comity and civility, folks.... It really matters very little, as long as it's internally consistent; if someone wants to go to all this trouble, I don't mind, after all. One is more consistent (with Japan and Senegal and the rest of the world), the other is slightly better on sense grounds. (And the argument that knowing something about Italy disqualifies someone from expressing a valid opinion about her kinda blows me away....!!!) People who know me, by the way, find me too obsessed with consistency and order; yet — See the perils of consistency: nothing, but nothing, is simple in this world, alas. Bill 17:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I only meant that in italy engaged people are biased, I did not say at all that those interested in Italian provinces do not have to say anything. Please do not misrepresent facts.

Comity and civility, folks.... It really matters very little, as long as it's internally consistent;

what? You are combining a general statement with a statement about the thing itself. Do you thing I eat this? It is only your view and that of some others that internal consistency ends at the Italian borders. I do not believe this. Internal consistency in article titles of subnational entities for me ends at the borders of en.wikipedia.org Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

guide the people to this page, and they will now that consistency is not all for you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to settle this once and for all if we had some kind of English-language authority to reference. For instance, we often know how to refer to entities in the US because the USGS has a "Board on Geographical Names" that publishes rules, such as the one requiring Pikes Peak instead of Pike's Peak, even over objections of the locals. What I'd like to see is partisans of "PofX" or "XP" come up with something that we can all agree is concrete and authoritative, and that we can quote to future editors that come along and question the choice. If no such authority exists, then consistency with the rest of en: is about the only objective criterion to use; personal opinion favoring one or the other is interesting input, but can't usually settle an issue, because there will always be new people coming along who have the opposite opinion. So let's hunt for an objective basis for our preferences. Stan 21:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I absolutly agree with Stan. Nothing to add here, beside I would like to settle this issue as far as possible for all subnational entities. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please Tobias read what is written, I am not in the least insulted at being called Italian, if you read what is written the insult is alleging anyone with an Italian connection is incapable of an unbiased view. Secondly if you read my CV which you have quoted that should tell you something also. Could you also keep to the subject in hand and stop attempting to bring this down to a personal level. A final request could you add further comments in a timed order so that the subsequent edits appear relevant. Now,to the matter in hand: Each country has to be viewed individually according to the historic and political traditions which have resulted in its naming of regions and areas. As Italian Provinces are historically the province of the city which is their capital, does that therefore not make them the Province of that city i.e. "The Province of X"? Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are in political practice if not name provinces of Britain, so are they to be renamed "Province of Scotland", or "Wales Province"? - No of course not, it would be ludicrous and wrong for historic and accurate reasons. Which is why we have to accept that national, traditional and historic practices have to be observed, a blanket description for all areas is not possible. As this is the talk page for Italian provinces it is not the place to air one's views on other country's practices. My advice to you is: as you are concerned with this issue world-wide why do you not launch a well publicised vote on the subject globally yourself in a more public Wikipedia forum, and in the meantime let Italy's provinces be decided here until a global Wikipedia consensus (organised democratically by you) is reached on how to handle this subject, it is too large a responsibility for one man, like you, alone. Giano | talk 22:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On Stan's useful idea, my candidates for regulatory bodies for this kind of thing would be (1) the United Nations office of translation and interpreting, that follows very strict rules on how to render just this sort of thing into each language; (2) any Italian government rules on how to render geographical names into foreign languages (the Government of Côte d'Ivoire, for example, is the authority for calling that country Côte d'Ivoire, even in languages other than French, rather than Ivory Coast); (3) said USGS Board of Geographical Names if they cover foreign countries. These authorities may be difficult to dig up. In their absence, a makeshift is the consensus of people writing English on the Web.

I didn't run every province of Italy thru this, just 10. Here are the results, Google, "province of X" and "X province" (in quotes, of course); in italics, the results favoring NO. (number after # added by Tobias with additional [-wikipedia])

Brescia: OF 6560, NO 1290 #4910,880
Catanzaro: OF 1390, NO 422 #1370,349
Firenze: OF 6930, NO 8850 #1090,619
(Florence: OF 1590, NO 774) #5680,6640
Gorizia: OF 648, NO 401 #573,322
Lucca: OF 6900, NO 3020 #4840,3130
Oristano: OF 674, NO 557 #612,461
Palermo: OF 9230, NO 2190 #6530,2050
Perugia: OF 4490, NO 1330 #847,915
Roma: OF 1840, NO 2870 #815,726
(Rome: OF 13,600, NO 12,400) #11.100,4.650
Venezia: OF 878, NO 523 #474,482
'(Venice: OF 929 NO 3990) #715,3980

Statistically, my guess is that it's inconclusive, although it's anecdotally interesting that the three that favor the NO form (i.e., "X Province") are the more touristed places.

I also ran some of the non-Italian provinces mentioned above; the results are overwhelming in favor of the "X Province" form:

Adana: OF 571, NO 1540
Ararat: OF 43, NO 301
Benguela: OF 280, NO 4180
Hamadan: OF 154, NO 841
Taiwan: OF 8,300 NO 821,000 (special factor here, mind you)
''Vientiane: OF 51, NO 7950

From all this the only thing that can be reasonably concluded is that while there is overwhelming consensus among writers of English (native or other) that non-Italian provinces should be "X Province" rather than "Province of X", there is nothing like such a consensus for Italy, and by and large the reverse: which accords with my own experience.

Overwhelming? Ontario Province, New Brunswick Province, North Holland Province? john k 00:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

your comment is of limited use, because Ontario usually is reffered to without "province" at all. Nobody contested that in official documents people prefer "Province of X" instead of "X Province". Officially it is Republic of South Africa but in wikipedia less official, shorter forms are used as article tiltes to the convenience of the editor and reader. Whether official names or short names or standard names are the most convenient has to be decided. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia does, however, is up to Wikipedians; and ultimately, again, hardly matters. Bill 23:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

@Giano: you said if you read what is written the insult is alleging anyone with an Italian connection is incapable of an unbiased view - there was no hard coded facts, you only brought in your feelings that it is wrong. Feelings about how does a phrase sound might be biased, that's what I said.
@Giano: you said A final request could you add further comments in a timed order so that the subsequent edits appear relevant. - I try to do my best that stuff is readable ;-)
@Giano: Nobody ever suggested to write things like "Wales Province". Italys provinces officially bear the term "provincia" in the name and cannot be reffered to without. Use of "province" in article title is uncontested except of those people that prefer "provincia di X". The discussion is only about syntax.
@Giano: you said Each country has to be viewed individually according to the historic and political traditions which have resulted in its naming of regions and areas. - That is your personal view. I do not share this view with respect to article titles.
@Bill: thanks for googling, and the touristic stuff was new for me. google stats are nice but may be heavily biased by wikipedia and its mirrors. Maybe the google stats just resemble the practice of wikipedia as it was last week. mmmh, let's wait a little until all mirrors update and Italy may have different results ;-). I once tried it with ["X Province" -wikipedia] but still got wikipedia results because mirrors did not follow the license rules. I think the results for touristic provinces are not only anecdotally.
my conclusion: No evidence that "X Province" is wrong for Italy. That's the reason why I moved them.
@Bill: I did a new search with [-wikipedia] on english pages. for Rome I did not get your tourist effect result. Florence/Firenze it seems you mixed numbers. On some searches I was far away when I tried to get your google results (I occasionally checked without -wikipedia), maybe inconsistent data from google. Palermo changed a lot, Perugia had reversal, Catanzaro made your result stronger.
if we have nice naming, wikipedia can become authorative. We can have a "Subdivision Naming Style Guide". How about this? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Tobias, The result of the vote on this page will be the decider in this. I will respect it as I hope will you. Giano | talk 18:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you said The result of the vote on this page will be the decider in this. - Once again: this is your point of view. I do not agree here. Wikipedia is not a democracy experiment. It is about quality. Voting on italophil feelings is biased. Nevertheless I respect that wikipedia is a votipedia and I have no better idea. But which voting is relevant? A 6 people voting seems not to be very relevant in the long run. Maybe soon there is a 7 people voting on subdivisions in general and everything has to be reverted. As I said I liked Stans approach not just to vote down something, but look for something more stable. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a note on Google results - personally I don't like to rely on them unless the numbers are at least 3-to-1 favoring a particular usage. There is just a lot of randomness in what Google does and doesn't index. Google's results for WP itself vary according to much our servers are loaded even - the spider doesn't get back a page quickly, it moves on to something else. Stan 00:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further debate[edit]

A more global debate on this subject is currently taking place here: [1] Giano | talk 12:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's another global debate here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (subnational entities). All contributions welcome. –Hajor 14:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing provinces[edit]

BTW, why are there three provinces with no articles? john k 05:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

maybe because some provinces are going to be created in the future Tobias Conradi 06:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Worksheet[edit]

provinces marked by * need admin help if moved.

I have reverted most of the provinces back to their correct naming which is "Province of X" (one or two remain as they need admin help to move) I am unsure what the above "worksheet" refers too, can it now be deleted, or is it of some relevance to anyone? Giano | talk 21:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provinces of Veneto thumbnail map[edit]

The Provinces of Veneto thumbnail map does not display properly although the full-size map does. Any ideas? Nunquam Dormio 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard abbreviations[edit]

There would appear to be standard abbreviations for the various provinces, used for instance in postal addresses. For instance Lucca province is LC. Could someone add these?

--rossb 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC) I believe you mean ISO_3166-2:IT Gioto 14:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino-Alto Adige/Suditirol, etc.[edit]

For one, how can the provinces be listed as South Tyrol and Trento. The provinces are Bolzano-Bozen and Trento. How did we come up now with the Province of South Tyrol?? This is like changing the name of a State in the USA. Taalo 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that you live in the region, please realize a few things. First, this is an English wiki article, and thus this shows the English name of the province (i.e. Tuscany) and the Italian name (i.e. Toscana). The English name of that region is Trentino-South Tyrol. It even states this in the main article. To keep fluency with the main article, this will remain as such until the main article reflects the change through consensus. If you have a website for us to go to, for example, that shows the English equivalent, we will be happy to see this. Same with the name for Trentino. Please assume good faith and don't take offense to this. Thank you! Rarelibra 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rarelibra, I think you have really missed the point. I am stating that in this region there are two provinces: the Province of Trento (TN) and the Province of Bolzano/Bozen (BZ). This is without question. These two provinces are named after the major cities, as is common in Italy. There is no Province called South Tyrol, Sudtirol, Alto Adige, etc. Do you follow? I have posted quite a few pages on your talk page that show what the provinces of Italy are. Better yet, I'd like to see someone post some websites that list the provinces of Italy and show South Tyrol instead of Bolzano/Bozen. This would be entertaining. :) take care. Taalo 02:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have to make it clear, since no one appears to be actually familiar with the provinces of Italy. Yes, the Province of Toscania is known as Tuscany. But there is no English translation for Bolzano/Bozen. Bolzano (Italian)/Bozen (German) is the main city of this province. The province is called the Province of Bolzano/Bozen. You can say it in Italian or German, it always has the name of the city. Just like the Province of Trento, where the major city is.. tada, Trento. Now, the REGION these two Provinces are a part of is Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. There is some odd campaign to try and convince English speakers the English is Trentino-South Tyrol, but this is a whole different debate. Anyway, back to the topic at hand: seriously, did no one even bother to dig up a list of Italian provinces?? It seems these few Austrians who are pushing a POV are being quite successful at manipulating fact.. at least on the WP. Taalo 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian: Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano; German: Autonomen Provinz Bozen; English translation: (Autonomous) Province of Bolzano-Bozen

I think it's time to bring out sources here. Taalo's contention seems most plausible, though, in that Italian provinces are generally named for their capital - I can't think of any exceptions to this. john k 03:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

john k, if you havn't already, can you make some comments on the discussions going on at South Tyrol (aka the Province of Bolzano/Bozen) and Trentino-South Tyrol (aka Trentino-Alto Adige. Some neutral feedback would really be appreciated. Thank you. Taalo 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taalo, you're quite right. Pity this is such a sensitive issue, and a pity that they chose a confusing name for the Regione, building it out of two parts, just like the region is comprised of two provinces; however, since they used the name of the one province and added to that another name, which is not the name of the other province, confusion is easily born. 130.37.61.52 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regions and Provinces[edit]

Because I know that WP is based on references, I have found these (which I think should be cited on this page, as well as others). http://www.countriesandcities.com, where they actually have the correct English usage for the regions: http://www.countriesandcities.com/countries/it/regions.htm, and the provinces: http://www.countriesandcities.com/countries/it/provinces.htm Note that where there is an English translation availble: Naples (Napoli), Venice (Venezia), the English is used. It should be noted there is no English translation of places like Trento and Bolzano (or the German Bozen). Definitely the translation of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen is not South Tyrol. Actually it makes no sense at all considering the region is referred to in German as Sudtirol, and the city/province as Bozen. So where South Tyrol can now become a province of Italy. Man, I'm confused just explaining this. heh. Also note that in the majority of English references (check out the CIA factbook, etc.) the region is called Trentino-Alto Adige. But to be fair to how things are actually done in the region (bilingual), it should be Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol, just as Bolzano should be Bolzano-Bozen. Taalo 03:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official site (http://www.regione.trentino-a-adige.it/) has no listing of "South Tyrol" - only the Italian version (Trentino-Alto Adige) and the German version (Trentino-SÜDTIROL). The proper English equivalent is "Upper Adige" (as "alto" is "upper"). So that is what it should be. I am getting administrators involved to stop this nonsense and to make it correct, and to get rid of "South Tyrol". Rarelibra 16:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references are as follows:
http://www.statoids.com/uit.html
http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gmap&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-108&srt=npan&col=aohdq
http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-108&srt=npan&col=aohdq&pt=c&va=x&geo=-1956
http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-1956&srt=npan&col=aohdq&pt=c&va=x&geo=491419135
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Italy_Autonomous_regions.htm

The region is "Trentino-Alto Adige" (alternate name "Sudtirol"), and the province is "Bolzano" (alternate name "Bozen"), and the town is "Bolzano" (although the Italians list it as "Bolzano-Bozen" for the dual-names method). That is INDISPUTABLE and solves this. Rarelibra 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two-column table?[edit]

I'm not so good at html myself, but I think the individual regions with their provinces might be best off in a table. I enlarged the maps somewhat today, hoping at least something can be read on them, but if that doesn't fit the table, maybe they should be scaled back again. 130.37.61.52 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozen-South Tyrol--Bolzano edit war[edit]

I've watched the Bozen-South Tyrol--Bolzano edit war for the last two months, and I'd like like to ask both User:Rarelibra and User:Supparluca to voluntarily take a break from editing this article (and any related articles) for a while. I'm not an expert on Italian political geography and have no opinion on this topic, but the continual reverts aren't productive. So if you'd both agree to take a bit of a break perhaps we can find someone with a bit of knowledge in this area or get the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to resolve this dispute. --NormanEinstein 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one that won't seem to be solved. The region name was recently solved, including the much-needed "Alto Adige" to be included with the "South Tyrol" name. Supparluca (and others) don't like the "South Tyrol" name and wish to change it to "Bolzano". However, more recently I found that the official provincial name convention is "Bozen-South Tyrol" in English, which is proper usage similar to the proper usage decided upon for the region. Supparluca's attempts to change it to "Bolzano" were incorrected stated in attempts to justify it as being the "capital city name" when the names are actually the PROVINCE names, shortened past the pipe. The proper name is "Bozen-South Tyrol". If Supparluca (and others) do not like this, then they need to keep it as simply "South Tyrol" instead of lame attempts at justifying an incorrect change. Rarelibra 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), and please assume good faith. If you will move Bolzano to Bozen I will absolutely agree with the use of the name "Bozen" in this article.--Supparluca 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're both content to editwar and aren't looking for a resolution, so I'll get out of your way. Have at it, kids. --NormanEinstein 15:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very kind to offend people who try to counter vandalism (well, it's not kind to offend people in general). And, by the way, I agree with you that it would be better to have more people involved in this dispute. If, for example, you want to contribute, you just have to read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).--Supparluca 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real name of that link is "South Tyrol". It should probably stay that way, instead of having your insistent need to put in incorrect naming. Rarelibra 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you Supparluca need to stop calling other users edits "vandalism". I have already asked you a question on your talk page why you have removed content information on the article South Tyrol that had clear external references, I would appreciate to hear your thoughts on this. sincerely Gryffindor 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?? What's my talk page got to do with this? By the way I answered to you, though you will see that what I wrote was pretty obvious (=an answer wasn't necessary).--Supparluca 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning[edit]

The slow edit war must stop. I see there has been at least one pair of reverts per day for many days or even weeks. This is disruptive and may be met with blocks. Please nobody think that 3RR entitles you to one or two reverts per day like this.

Everybody: Stop. it. now. Any further continuation of this sterile revert war will be met with blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can we put the name chosen by consensus on the Bolzano talk page (that is, Bolzano)?--Supparluca 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO. The link name is to South Tyrol. There has not been a consensus to change it any different, therefore it stays as it is (which is the official name of the province, in English, from the province website). Bolzano is the name of the capital city - which you, Supparluca, are confusing with the PROVINCE links on the page. Rarelibra 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aosta province?[edit]

It seems from this document from the Italian Parliament that the Province of Aosta ceased to exist in 1945 ([2]). So I completed the relevant part with a reference to this piece of information. --Adriano 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that in the Aosta Valley could split into two provinces in the future (might be possibly in progress). Johnluisocasio (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm two provinces for 122,000 inhabitants does not make too much sense IMO... --Adriano (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current trend in Europe is for everything to separate down to finally city states. boh.. o_O Icsunonove (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

Howdy Rarelibra, you said "not vandalism - first, you CANNOT link to a redirect, the proper link is "South Tyrol", second, I provide an official, proper reference citation - therefore, you are violating wiki by removing it". I don't believe there is a policy against linking to a redirect, is there? Also, you were actually removing my own proper reference(s), so you are also violating wiki by removing them, no? I will add your reference, but there has been basically no editor that agrees with using Province of Bozen-South Tyrol. Note even on the provincial website it shows Province of Bolzano/Bozen on the main page. Relax a bit dude :) Icsunonove 17:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, actually we are not supposed to link to redirects. It's fundamental. BTW, your refs are still there, along with mine. So I didn't remove anything - just corrected 1) the link and 2) the naming to the properly translated English name, per the official provincial website. The fact that you spend all this time stubbornly refusing to accept this is not my problem. I came into this whole thing because of you - and have since educated myself with various resources and references. The name - like it or not - includes "South Tyrol" in English. And according to wiki policy, with the 'popular' name being the one promoted, "South Tyrol" is quite popular. So, unfortunately, I see the other side of things now (if there has to be 'sides'). I'm not stressed, other than the fact that this continues with efforts rather than having people accept things peacefully and move on to better editing. Rarelibra 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you can at least say we are both stubbornly refusing. I have had little time unfortunately to spend on Wikipedia for this year so my refusing has been limited as well. Do you consider though that the naming you want to use really has no support amongst other editors? It is always good to do that sort of self-reflecting, even if you think you are just 'being bold'. :) I'm glad you have educated yourself, and I'd like to know what you have learned (on my talk page). The way I see it, in English there is common usage of Alto Adige, South Tyrol, and Bolzano. The provinces name is officially something like Province of BZ, though the provincial website likes to append the regional name for some reason or another. It isn't the official name though, like it or not. If you go to the State of Virginia website and see State of Virginia - Virginia is for Lovers on everything, don't go and make a bunch of changes, ok? :-) Hope all is well. Icsunonove 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fully acceptable now (the new addition) - covers all grounds, I guess. Rarelibra 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalents[edit]

Hello,

Just curious, personal knowledge seeking, from what I am reading, would I be correct in interperting an Italian Province like it would be the equivalent of a county in the US or Canada?

(In North America we are for the most part divided up into Country, "State/Province", "County", City. We have "elected" governements at each of these levels, however many "States/Provinces" also have some sort of administrative "regions" that exist. It could be "Metropolitan Areas" that are composed of many counties, or it could be geographic subdivisions within the state. Most of these "regions" have governments that are not directly elected by the people, either appointed by the state/region or composed of elected officials from the constituent counties/cities.)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnQuébécois (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really only one province in the regions of Basilicata, Molise and Umbria[edit]

This article says:

A province is composed of many municipalities (comune), and usually several provinces form a region. The regions of Aosta Valley, Basilicata, Molise, Umbria are the only exception being the province coincident with the region.

No disagreement on Aosta Valley, but our articles Basilicata, Molise and Umbria all indicate that their region has multiple provinces. I've added a cite needed template, as either this article is wrong, or they are, and we need to correct one or other. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is going to be true since 2014, when all Italian provinces will be reorganized. The situation is very confused right now, it's not really clear which provinces will be abolished or merged or will stay the same... I think the best thing to do is just wait until the new provincial organization become clear. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That legislation is in some doubt, if I recall. Anyway, the current position is that that mentioned regions are split into provinces. You can see this from the list in the main body of the article. mg SH 16:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abolished provinces?[edit]

Provinces in Sicily have not been abolished, it's just a proposal, see [3], and Sardinia still have its provinces as of March 2013. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After 2014 section no more true[edit]

The reorganizaton proposal of 2012 has not been converted into law, so the whole section is pointless. I propose it is removed from the page. --Gspinoza (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New 2017 province[edit]

As of 1.1.2017, there is a new province: South Sardegna. This needs some work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonmilan (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From 2014 to April 2021[edit]

As of April 2021, he 2014 Delrio Constituonal Law was followed by a law of implementation in 15 of the 20 existing Italian regions (provinceditalia.it).

The 2016 Italian constitutional referendum was rejected, but the Delrio is still in force. And it states Provinces of Italy shall reduced the number of their intermediate entities, their budgets, the number of elective chargers and of dependent human resources. They shall be aggregated in union of provinces.

What does "Type" mean in the list of provinces?[edit]

In the list of provinces, the first column is "Type" and each province has a letter. It looks like most are "O", but there's also "F" and "A" and a small number of others. What do they mean? It isn't referenced anywhere else in the article. Bzzzing (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are active links: the explanation appears when you move the pointer over it. --LukeWiller (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Strangely, these terms aren't defined anywhere on Wikipedia. What is the difference between an "Ordinary province", "Autonomous province", "Regional Decentralization entity", and "Free Municipal Consortia"? I have no idea, and there are no Wikipedia articles on those terms either. This is something that really should be addressed in this article. Bzzzing (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, this is information that should be included in the article. Maybe it should translate it:Province d'Italia#Organi. --LukeWiller (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Done --LukeWiller (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]