Talk:Friuli-Venezia Giulia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rebuttal to Bill Thayer[edit]

Bill, I am the "someone" who added links to ItalianVisits.com on the various Italian Regional sites - and I don't think I was commiting "link spam" or engaged in vandalism when I did so. ItalianVisits.com is a serious endeavour being undertaken by my daughter, Jesse Andrews, who for the past 2 years has been living in Praia A Mare, in the northwest region of Calabria. My other daughter, Arianna, is attending university at the University for Foreigners in Perugia, and also contributes to the ItalianVisits website when she can.

If you look at the section on Calabria, you will see how much work and effort has been put into cataloguing towns and villages that are virtually unknown to English-speaking people, whether they are travelers or tourists, or people who have a curiousity about the area. You will note, I hope, the abundance of wonderful photographs that compliment the text, and present our viewers with images that otherwise would not be available. Incidentally, you should also note the link to Wikipedia resources whereever and whenever there is material on Wikidpedia about a region, town or other locale. We are as committed to Wikipedia as you are.

Jesse has created a vessel into which more information is being added every day. I just spent 15 days in Umbria, for instance, and added pages for Perugia, Assisi, Spello, Bevagna, Gubbio and the Regional Park at Colfiorito. Other contributors, like Katherine Lavallee, have added information about other towns in Tuscany. Such contributions are solicited eagerly so that we can fatten the content on the site.

ItalianVisits.com is hardly a come-on for selling tour packages, although we are trying to attract people to "unknown" parts of Italy, and in so doing, get some business to those out of the way places for local restauranteurs, hoteliers, and others in the travel business. If you are aware of what is going on in Italy now, you will understand that the economy is depressed, owing largely to various difficulties it has and is facing as it tries to integrate with the EU, and as it attempts to compete in a global economy. So, having information for travelers can not be the sine qua non of "link spam". If you look at all the external links listed in the Umbria section of Wikipedia, a number of them are active promoters of travel to the Region. Even in the Sardegna section where you posted identical comments to the comments you made here there is a link to a site called ActivSardegna which promotes travel. Should all of these be removed? And if so, by whom and under what (hopefully) reasonably well-defined policy?

You can coin or use phrases like "link spam", and "cyber vandalism", or other terms of denigration, but I think you, and others who "worry" about Wikipedia, should be careful not to sit on Wikipedia with a holier than thou attitude, deleting other people's contributions, unless a more thorough investigation is done into the content, and sometimes into the motives and objectives of their creators. Many people spend a lot of time, money and energy trying to do good without much reward beyond the satisfactions it provides. This effort to "do good" is manifest on your site Bill, at least, so far as I can see, and I commend you for it.

I'm a bit more than a little chagrined about what you have done Bill, and about how you have characterized ItalianVisits, but I hope we can discuss this if you think I am making an untenable argument in favour of allowing us to post links to the IV website, without fear of having them removed by the over-zealous.

Regards Vian Andrews Vancouver, BC July 28, 2005

What? Stop picking on poor Bill. Maybe you are the very reason he does not contribute much any more. Seriously, I checked your daughter's site and there is absolutely no question about it, the site is a commercial and commercially oriented site. It sells tours and accomodations all over the place. Nice site by the way. Everyone, I suggest you check out the site and buy from the vendors, you are sure to get a good trip to Italy. There, is that what you wanted? However, putting this in here would clearly be against WP policy. WP does not take every contribution, no matter how good - only specific ones; namely, encyclopedic. Encyclopedias do not sell tours. I would suggest you ameliorate poor Bill by apologizing immediately, but that is only my personal opinion and has no place in WP, so I will not even mention it. Of course, YOU are not a vendor, only a champion come forth to defend your daughter's honor. Bye now.Dave (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the number of italian regions with administrative autonomy[edit]

In the article dealing with the regions of Italy in the english version of Wikipedia, five autonomous regions are mentioned. This very article, however, counts only four. Is someone perhaps forgetting about Aosta Valley, or excluding that region for some specific reason?

It is desirable that Wikipedia strives to accomplish a higher degree of mutual accordance and/or stringency of expression in this particular aspect, I would say.

JG, Gothenburg, Sweden, 26th of April, 2006

The cleanup tag[edit]

{{Cleanup|date=May 2007}} This was put on a few years ago. A lot of work has been done since then. Unfortunately the tag is so general I can't tell what needed to be cleaned up. All WP articles except for a few thousand of the very best need clean-up. There is nothing in the discussion. Therefore I am tentatively removing the tag. If you find something specific intolerable tag it or if you want a general tag put a section in here saying what. That's fair, don't you think? Of course all of us continue to clean these articles all the time. General tags like this hold up the works; nobody can tell when the work is complete. Ciao.Dave (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nowiki-ed the template above. RJFJR (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of the name of the region Friuli-Venezia Giulia[edit]

Hello, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the name of the Italian administrative region Friuli-Venezia Giulia was officially changed into Friuli Venezia Giulia in 2001. I have added this information to the article Friuli-Venezia Giulia an hour or so ago. As this name change affects a lot of other articles, I would like to ask how we should handle this... Best regards, berberandberber, Sept. 11 2014

That's not entirely true. In 2001 the name was changed only in one list of the Italian regions within the Italian Constitution, but the bill didn't mean to change this region denomination. In fact, in all other parts of the Constitution, where the region is mentioned, the old hyphenated denomination is still used (Friuli - Venezia Giulia), because all constitutional laws are at the same level of legislative hierarchy and a change in one constitutional article doesn't affect the entire Constitution, unless the change was meant to have such an effect, but this wasn't the case. Also, at the national level the old denomination is used. Sorry if it's a bit obscure, but I'm not a lawyer. I only tried to express the idea.

Best regards, PaoloZ, Dec. 21 2017

Requested move 5 May 2017[edit]

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: No clear consensus. Oppose uncountered for about a week — Andy W. (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friuli-Venezia Giulia → Friuli Venezia Giulia – The dashless form, official in Italian since 2001, seems to be prevalent in recent English literature as well. It's a bit hard to establish, but Gbooks search appears to slightly favor it. At the top of the google:Friuli-Venezia Giulia are mostly dashless English results. However, I grant that the dash-form beats the no-dash-form some 5:1 in ngram. No such user (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, moving to dashless form also has the advantage that we don't have to choose which dash to use. Currently, we have a hyphen, which does not seem kosher according to MOS:DASH. This looks like an equivalent of Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities, requiring an n-dash? No such user (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending further evidence. The Italian Wikipedia article (which uses the hyphen, incidentally) notes in the following that usage is not clear cut: "L'art. 131 della Costituzione, nell'elencare le Regioni italiane, utilizza la dizione "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". Il trattino compariva altresì all'art. 116; la riforma costituzionale del 2001, tuttavia, nel riformulare la disposizione originaria dell'art. 116, ha pretermesso il trattino, utilizzando perciò la dizione "Friuli Venezia Giulia". Il trattino è venuto meno anche nello statuto della regione, il quale, in precedenza, faceva uso del medesimo segno di punteggiatura (cfr. Statuto speciale della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia). Nondimeno la Corte costituzionale, dinanzi a siffatta antinomia tra fonti equiordinate, di rango costituzionale, si esprime nei termini di "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" (cfr., da ultimo, la sent. Corte cost. 299/2013)." —  AjaxSmack  00:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Hyphen, again[edit]

I've made the article internally consistent by using the n-dash throughout, since internal uniformity is regarded a virtue in Wikipedia, but I support omitting it (and the hyphen). I notice that the article on Italian Wikipedia now omits it, as do all the external links in our article, including the official sites. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a requested move last year, but it did not gain consensus (and much interest). I suggest that you open another one following instructons at WP:RM. No such user (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have written (above) that the article in Italian Wikipedia omits the hyphen in the body of the article (with a few exceptions), but the article has not been moved. Perhaps we can agree to eliminate it in the body of this article as well, while keeping it in the title, for now.Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please no. In principle, name of the subject in the article body should be the same as in the title. While it is not always strictly enforced, we should not violate it deliberately. I'm not even positive that it should be a ndash rather than a hyphen (per reasoning that it's a joint entity, as in Austria-Hungary).Britannica has the former but BBC the latter. SMcCandlish, your input would be welcome? No such user (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name changed in 2001, so our article should do so as well, unless English-language sources published after 2001 still use punctuation between these names with overwhelming consistency. Italian Wikipedia is irrelevant; Italian and English do not have the same punctuation conventions, and it.WP's style guide has no formal connection to that of en.WP. Removing the hyphen here (and it clearly should be a hyphen not an en dash per MOS:DASH: "use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities: Guinea-Bissau ..., Wilkes-Barre") results in a name that has less historical/etymological meaning (i.e., that this is a merger of two previously separate jurisdictions), but that's a decision that was made in the real world, and it's not WP's job to force the real world to make more sense according to us. :-) If it were not for the official name change, I would strenuously oppose removing the hyphen as a loss of clarity, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to retract my comment in this. On a closer reading, this was a merger between Venezia Giulia and Friuli, so this should use an en dash if we keep punctuation in it. It is not like Guinea-Bissau (named after two non-comparable things, the earlier nationa/regional name and the state's capital city), nor Wilkes-Barre (named after two individuals, not anything geographic at all). Looking at current usage, the commonness of either mark has declined a little, and we could possibly move it to Friuli Venezia Giulia after all. However, the name is actually clearer as Friuli–Venezia Giulia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vzeebjtf: I'm afraid that you're wrong with that ndash, and User:SMcCandlish was wrong to change his mind about it. Please refer to Talk:Bourgogne-Franche-Comté#Requested move 29 July 2018: ndash should be used only in ad hoc conjunctions, and once the two items are merged into a single unit, as is the case here, hyphen is normally used. I'm not 100% positive myself, and some broader MOS discussion is maybe called for, but we need to check what the most prestigious English publications do about this and similar cases. No such user (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica and Columbia use endash, but the most prestigious atlas is said to be The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, 14th edition, published in 2014, not available online. Perhaps someone will volunteer to visit a library for it. Or, we can wait until November 15, 2018, when the 15th edition will be published. Cheers! Vzeebjtf (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's a food for thought indeed. But for the life of me I can't tell how and why they distinguish Rhône-Alpes, Bourgogne–Franche-Comté, Mecklenburg–West Pomerania, Friuli–Venezia Giulia and Austria-Hungary. It seems to depend on existence of spaces in a constituent, cf. Drobeta–Turnu Severin (ndash) and Cluj-Napoca (hyphen). No such user (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Upon further consideration, it does seem the Austria-Hungary example means a hyphen should be used here as well, does it not? Britannica seems to use an endash only when one of the constituents of the name includes a space (or its own hyphen), but WP:MOSDASH doesn't recognize such a distinction. Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is whether we should abide by MOS:DASH and debate usage on that talk page, or ignore it in favor of other authorities. Vzeebjtf (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "ndash should be used only in ad hoc conjunctions, and once the two items are merged into a single unit, as is the case here, hyphen is normally used." That isn't consistent with MoS, any style guide I've ever seen, or actual practice. It would appear that Britannica uses a "en dash if there's a space, hyphen otherwise" rule, but that is not our rule, nor Chicago's, or maybe anyone else's. So, how they like the write Austria–Hungary is really irrelevant to how WP should write it; the two encyclopedias do not share a style guide, and we clearly have different, incompatible rationales on this particular punctuation matter. In the end, it's important to remember that style is mostly arbitrary, and that it's the consistency that matters most: presenting readers with non-conflicting style from page to page, and preventing endless editorial bickering over the same trivia again and again. No particular answer is "correct" in some objective sense, as if the gods handed us Commandments of Punctuation. Language just doesn't work that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as descriptivist as one can be in matters of language, but styling is an issue of prescription. My statement that you quoted was more of thinking aloud than making a definitive assertion how we should do things. I agree that No particular answer is "correct" in some objective sense, but I still think that MoS is simply not clear about the issue, so it does not even have an answer how we should style Friuli-Venezia Giulia, and you have changed your mind yourself about the issue. I was hoping that there is some authoritative MoS out there (Chicago or whatever) whose recommendation we might follow and adapt, rather than engage in theological interpretation of vague examples in our MoS. No such user (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"That isn't consistent with MoS…." What would be consistent with MoS? Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 March 2018[edit]

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: Not moved. (closed by page mover) Simplexity22 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Friuli-Venezia Giulia → Friuli Venezia Giulia – The official name changed in 2001. (The same request was made recently, and closed owing to lack of consensus, but there was very little interest; it's worth revisiting, I think.) Vzeebjtf (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose pending further evidence. The Italian Wikipedia article (which uses the hyphen, incidentally) notes in the following that usage is not clear cut: "L'art. 131 della Costituzione, nell'elencare le Regioni italiane, utilizza la dizione "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". Il trattino compariva altresì all'art. 116; la riforma costituzionale del 2001, tuttavia, nel riformulare la disposizione originaria dell'art. 116, ha pretermesso il trattino, utilizzando perciò la dizione "Friuli Venezia Giulia". Il trattino è venuto meno anche nello statuto della regione, il quale, in precedenza, faceva uso del medesimo segno di punteggiatura (cfr. Statuto speciale della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia). Nondimeno la Corte costituzionale, dinanzi a siffatta antinomia tra fonti equiordinate, di rango costituzionale, si esprime nei termini di "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" (cfr., da ultimo, la sent. Corte cost. 299/2013)." —  AjaxSmack  00:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Translate, please. Vzeebjtf (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here. —  AjaxSmack  04:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you speak Italian, would you please translate this into English? I'm afraid I don't understand Google. Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC) If you don't know what it means, then you don't have an argument. And by the way, "pending further evidence" of what? Vzeebjtf (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No case in terms of wp:AT. No relevant evidence provided despite repeated requests. The redirect will do fine for now. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
If we move this to anything, it should be Friuli–Venezia Giulia; my original comment in the thread above this was wrong, and I've corrected it. I had not noticed that this was an actual merger of two previous jurisdictions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The use of en-dashes in Wikipedia is one of hundreds of "nerdish" innovations that have made editing a painful chore, and wasted countless hours of work and dispute by editors. One of the smartest ideas that Jim Wales had when he created this site was to standardize on straight quotes and apostrophes, rather than paired open-close quotes: because, for Wikipedia's goal, looks are totally not important, but ease of editing is crucial.
Sadly, his vision has been lost over the years...
The distinction between en-dash and hyphen is not part of the English language; it is a typographical convention that only printers, not writers, may care about. It never existed in handwriting, even of most punctilious writers. It did not exist during the 100+ years when the typewriter was the standard medium for formal writing. It is a safe bet that 99% of English speakers do not know the difference, and use hyphen when they type those compounds into computers.
Why should Wikipedia waste their precious editor time with such pointless frills?
Let's establish again that it legal to use hyphen instead of en-dash in any context, and (for ease of linking) let's use only hyphens in article titles.
Please.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April 2019[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Friuli-Venezia Giulia → Friuli Venezia Giulia – Since 2001, the official name in Italian is is without the hyphen. See the "Name" section in the article. Move is blocked by a redirect with no significant edit history. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Italian article it:Friuli-Venezia Giulia uses a hyphen. Therefore listing this for discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with trepidation. Apparently the regional government of Friuli(-)Venezia Giulia (FVG) had wanted to get rid of the hyphen (trattino) for some time, and had been doing so in its own publications. Finally on 2001-10-18, the Italian Parliament amended article 116 of the Italian Constitution that names the region as one of the five autonomous regions of Italy, and spelled the name without the hyphen. There is no official indication of whether the omission was intentional, but the hyphen was retained for the "Trentino-Alto Adige" in the same article. According to the discussion in the Talk page of the Italian WikiArticle, the regional government of FVG considers the omission intentional and superseding all other occurrences of the name in other articles of the Constitution that were not modified by that amendment:
[User Pierpao.lo, in 2011:] Il capo di gabinetto della presidenza della regione mi ha risposto via email puntualmente come da me richiesto (due volte) che l'art 2 della legge costituzionale 18 ottobre 2001 ha modificato la Costituzione. Si sono dimenticati dell'art. 117 ma poichè la stesura del nuovo articolo 116 e successiva al 131, in quanto novazione, va applicata anche al 131
"The Chief of Staff of the Presidency of the region replied to me in email pointedly as I requested (twice) that item 2 of the Constitutional law of 2001-10-18 [the amendment above] modified the Constitution. They forgot article 117 but since the writing of the new article 116 is more recent that the 131, being a new change, applies also to the 131" [my translation]
However, in 2015 one person posted on that Talk page to vehemently disagree about the removal of the hyphen, and accuses member of Parliament Antonio Di Bisceglie (who claimed to be the one who asked for removal of the hyphen) of an "underhand coup" (colpo di mano) done without any forewarning to the public, or any announcement afterwards. This commentator says that, since the Supreme Court of Italy still uses the hyphen in their documents, they have implicitly rejected the change.
And we thought that Wikipedia had secured the gold for silly editorial battles.
Anyway, it seems that some Italians are quite attached to the trattino, while some very much want to get rid of it. Thus any choice will make some people unhappy.
However, I would side with the No-Hyphen camp, because the Constitutional Amendment is clear and, as far as I know, was not re-amended or formally contested in any court. I ascribe the continuing use of the hyphen by the Supreme Court and some other government bodies to inertia, and/or ignorance of the amendment, and/or criminal indifference towards that burning issue.
If Wikipedia cannot avoid dislpleasing someone, it should at least try to do that while standing on the "right" side.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: I thought that I had checked this Talk page, but somehow I missed the previous Move discussions that ended with "no move". Sorry. Anyway i still support the move. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PPS: While the Italian Wikipedia page has a hyphen in the article name and at the top of the geobox, it omits the hyphen in all occurrences of the name in the body of the article. The head sentence gives both versions, with a footnote summarizing the legal situation.
    Could it be that they just did not get around to moving the article, because of a blocking redirect -- as happened to me now? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Without punctuation, there is no need for concern over what the punctuation should be, hyphen or en-dash. It makes life simpler. Less is more. Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Post-move comment[edit]

Eminot?[edit]

Eminot? Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 February 2022[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus: I'm closing this as "no consensus" as the discussion in this RM doesn't appear to have produced a consensus on what is the best name to move the article to. I'll recommend further discussion to create a consensus on this issue. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friuli Venezia Giulia → Friuli-Venezia Giulia – The region is commonly named this way, with the hyphen, as it includes two historically distinct entities, Friuli and Venezia Giulia. It is no surprise, that the it.Wikipedia article is named "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" and that all the largest Wikipedias (es.Wikipedia, pt.Wikipedia, fr.Wikipedia, de.Wikipedia, etc) feature articles on the subject with names including the hyphen. Checco (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft oppose I am not sure how "commonly" this region is named one way or another, but the official name recently changed, so the frequency of one name over the other might still depend on effects of the recent changes. Anyway the Region itself reports the name without the hyphen, as does the Italian Constitution, so given that this changes nothing in how the name is pronounced, I would go with the official spelling. Yakme (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any look at books and newspapers, both in English and Italian (let alone other languages) include the hyphen. I am not sure that the official name was recently changed. Regarding the Italian Constitution (article 131), it depends from sources: take a look to the websites of the Italian Government, the Senate of the Republic, Chamber of Demputies and Constitutional Court: "Friuli-Venezia Giulia", as well as "Emilia-Romagna" and "Trentino-Alto Adige". Even the even article 1 of the Statute of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia reads "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". Another point is consistency with Emilia-Romagna and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. My argument is about the most common name, not just the official name, but, as we have seen, "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" is both the official and most common name of the subject. @User:Yakme: Would you reconsider your vote? --Checco (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mh, actually all the sources you provided (except the Constitutional Court one) show the usage of "Friuli Venezia Giulia" without the hyphen. For the mentions in the constitution, the relevant article is article 116, where the autonomous regions are defined, so the correct link for the Senate version is this. So it is definitely not true that the official name is with the hyphen. Even the regional council statute is titled "Statuto speciale della Regione autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia", how can you not see this and state the opposite? Yakme (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources carefully. All the sources I mentioned have "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" in article 131, where regions are listed. Also, article 1 of the statute of Friuli-Venezia Giulia has "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". Those are the sources that count. Thus, "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" is mentioned in official sources also with the hyphen and it is clearly the most common name in all kinds of sources, from books to newspapers. --Checco (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the only conclusion one can take from this is that even official sources use both spellings, as one can see from art. 116 vs art. 131 of the Senate source, or from the title vs art. 1 of the Regional Statute. So one cannot claim that official sources use the hyphen consistently, nor the opposite. See also the final paragraph of this article. Yakme (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my first argument is most common name, the second officiality. --Checco (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider an en dash: Shouldn't this construction properly use an en dash? Otherwise it looks like "Friuli-Venezia" and "Giulia". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to use the standard hyphen, per official and most common mame. --Checco (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In many contexts, people don't distinguish between hyphens and endashes. We do. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the en dash is correct in this context, by our practice and policy. Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a fan of dash, but it would be wrong in this context because "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" is Italian, not English. --Checco (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, our article titles are all written in English. We only use phrases from other languages when that other language phrase is used elsewhere in English (or where there are no English sources, but that's not the case here). Italian practice is irrelevant, as is Italian Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I noted above, Category:Friuli-Venezia Giulia and related categories are currently inconsistent with the article name. Neutral on the move, but this is a good opportunity to fix that. 162 etc. (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree and this RM should be a precedent to fixing that whichever way it goes. Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See here for some preserved page history. And a history it is! Hopefully this RM will lead to stability. Lots of issues. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The modern region covers two historical regions, Friuli and Venezia Giulia. The situation is identical to another Italian region, Emilia-Romagna, which covers the two ancient regions of Emilia and Romagna. --Grufo (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, @User:Grufo! Are you willing to support moving the article back to its long-established name, "Friuli-Venezia Giulia"? --Checco (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Checco: I don't know enough the rules of English concerning this particular case (this is English Wikipedia after all). What I know is that it must be consistent with Emilia-Romagna. If there are exceptions in English concerning the cases in which one of the two names has a space (“Friuli” and “Venezia Giulia”), that I don't know. --Grufo (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@User:Spekkios: The article was moved in 2019 without a strong consensus and contradicting the official sources, which use the "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" form, and WP:Most common name. Can you explain me why the wrongly-decided 2019 move should stay? --Checco (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no conensus on what the article name should be. --Spekkios (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the current name, @User:Spekkios? A very weak consensus completey not supported by sources! --Checco (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a consensus on what the article name should be. --Spekkios (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, @User:Spekkios, the article was wrongly moved before (no consensus, no sources), thus it should be moved back to the established name, "Friuli-Venezia Giulia", which is supported by most official sources, as well as by the principle of most common name. --Checco (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how it works. If there is no consensus in the move request then the current name stands until a consensus is found. I was unable to find a consensus in the move discussion, which therefore means the current name stands until a consensus is found. I am not the closer of any previous move request on this subject. If you disagree with my closure reasoning you are entitled to seek a move review. --Spekkios (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance as such[edit]

I read:

In 2001, the spelling of the name was officially changed from Friuli-Venezia Giulia (with a hyphen) to Friuli Venezia Giulia

OK, got it. Fine so far; however, the sentence continues:

still appearing as such on the official website of the region.

Why "still"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Surely, the region is mostly known as "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". And, also the Italian Constitution always refers to the region as "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". As I argued before, I believe that this article should be moved back to "Friuli-Venezia Giulia", which is both the official and the most common name. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2023[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friuli Venezia Giulia → Friuli-Venezia Giulia – As anyone can see above, the previous three requested moves did not show strong support for the current name, "Friuli Venezia Giulia". After an interesting discussion on the issue at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Friuli Venezia Giulia, I am proposing once again to move the article back to its original and most common name, "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". Please note that "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" is not only the most common name, but also the official one. Indeed, the Italian Constitution mentions the region twice and in both cases as "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" (see articles 116 and 131). Moreover, all Italian laws mentioning the region refer to it as "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" (see here). These notably include the ongoing process of reviewing the regional statute (see here). Finally, the official version of the latter, according to the Italian Government, features "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" (see here) and, interestingly enough, also the regional council has the hyphen in its online (see articles 1 and the following). Moving the article back to "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" would match the names of the other two regions with composite names, Emilia-Romagna and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. The three regions are composed of two historically distinct entities, in our case Friuli and Venezia Giulia. It is no surprise then that the it.Wikipedia article is named "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" and that all the largest Wikipedias (es.Wikipedia, pt.Wikipedia, fr.Wikipedia, de.Wikipedia, etc.) feature articles on the subject with names including the hyphen. -- Checco (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DreamRimmer: Would you help me to fix this? I do not see it among Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco, I've fixed the template, so now User:RMCD bot will automatically transclude this discussion onto the Requested Move page. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirects[edit]

These messages were originally posted on my talk page:

Hi, thank you for your work for "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". I would like to point out that you didn't insert the hyphen on all of them, for example on the Gemona del Friuli page I had to correct the error. JackkBrown (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no disrespect, also because you're an excellent user, but a work cannot be started and not finished (this is the second "Friuli Venezia Giulia" I find, without a hyphen); it would have been better not to intervene and leave everything as it was. JackkBrown (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering here because the issue is of general interest. As far as I now, double redirects should be fixed (Wikipedia:Double redirects), while there is no similar duty on redirects in general (Wikipedia:Redirect). When one user moves an article and, by doing that, he/she creates double redirects, he has to fix them. In our case, I was the proponent of the move, but the move was decided through a Requested move, and, as far as I see, there are no double redirects pointing to this article. This said, despite redirects being acceptable in Wikipedia, it is my personal sensibility not to like them. I thus fix them when I find them and, in our case, I fixed selected instances. Most importantly, all articles, templates and categories featuring "Friuli Venezia Giulia" instead of "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" should be moved consistently to this article's name. I much appreciate what you have been doing, but, realistically, to fix all instances, we need a bot. I made a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Friuli Venezia Giulia, but my request was rejected. This said, I strongly disagree with you when you say that "it would have been better not to intervene and leave everything as it was". The main thing was to have the correct name, meaning the most common one and the official one, for this article, and I am glad that this article was finally moved back to its original name, "Friuli-Venezia Giulia". -- Checco (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

51 pages remain, it's not difficult, could you help me? [1]. JackkBrown (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see 1,407 items, actually... Anyway, I will fix as much pages as I can. I already fixed much more pages than 51. --Checco (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jonesey95 posted a reply containing the link I sent you, here: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Friuli Venezia Giulia. JackkBrown (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By working through templates and fixing some selected articles, we are already down to 1,151 items from 1,407. --Checco (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: can we finish? In addition to User:Checco, are there other users interested in this work (for example User:Jonesey95 and User:Tom.Reding)? JackkBrown (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't worthwhile to me other than correcting the 31 templates. Every couple of years it gets moved to one form or the other.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: for the sake of consistency, we correct everything and on the Friuli-Venezia Giulia page we put a no-move notice. JackkBrown (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JackkBrown: do you have a diff? I don't see a no-move notice, sorry. Also, was there one present before the last move, and the move before that?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: no, I mean that it should be placed. JackkBrown (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friuli-Venezia_Giulia&oldid=1195800181"