Diskussion:Portobuffolé

Diese Diskussionsseite dient dazu, Verbesserungen am Artikel „Portobuffolé“ zu besprechen. Persönliche Betrachtungen zum Thema gehören nicht hierher. Für allgemeine Wissensfragen gibt es die Auskunft.

Füge neue Diskussionsthemen unten an:

Klicke auf Abschnitt hinzufügen, um ein neues Diskussionsthema zu beginnen.

• Diskussionsregeln
• Hilfe zu Diskussionsseiten
• Sei sachlich und freundlich!
• Greife niemanden persönlich an!
• Geh von guten Absichten aus.

Name

Please see Comune di Portobuffolè (TV), city poster, Google Earth, regional website, provincial website, etc. etc. MoiraMoira (Diskussion) 15:31, 20. Jan. 2016 (CET)

Bitte sehen en:Talk:Portobuffolé#Requested move 19 December 2015 & it:Discussione:Portobuffolé + DOP - Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia, DiPI Online - Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana, Sapere.it, Treccani, ("Portobuffolé") + statuto comunale ("Portobuffole'" - "Portobuffolè" - "Portobuffolé") (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.75.178 (Diskussion) 19:39, 20. Jan. 2016 (CET))

Even the Italian WP could not solve the problem. We should keep the actual version with redirect from the alternative version and explanation in the text. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 14:26, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET)

The discussion was stalling on it.wikipedia, but after I brought the sources linked above it was decided to move the page, the same happened on en.wikipedia. Almost all the other Wikis have already moved the pages, are they all wrong or is the German version? You should move the page, so that "Portobuffolé" is the article and "Portobuffolè", uncorrect but common in the web, the redirect. Letter E is the only one in Italian which can have an acute accent, and we Italians aren't even well taught at school about the difference between acute and grave, we often use apostrophes in place of accents (even in the municipal, provincial and regional official sites you find often Portobuffole' spellings), that's the reason for such error; but as DOP, DiPI, Treccani and Sapere.it all say, agreeing with each others, the correct spelling is Portobuffolé. I don't see why this page shouldn't be renamed with a spelling which has been proven to be correct. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.55.32 (Diskussion) 15:47, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET))

That is your point of view. Treccani solved the problem by removing any accent. Perhaps this neutral way should also be our approach. By the way Treccani has also the version using the grave in its articels about Storia di Venezia and the Enciclopedia Italiana has the grave as well. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 15:54, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET)

"and now for something completely different" - try to take a look at the coat of arms on page 2 of that document: [1] (seems to be old...) or take a look at the street with google streetview: [2]. I think Portobuffole' must be correct. --axel (Diskussion) 16:12, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET) "Die spinnen, die Römer" ;-)

That was discussed and rejacted in the itWP as well :-)) --Tusculum (Diskussion) 16:57, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET)

axel, using an apostrophe in place of an accent, overall with upper-case vowels, is a very common error. Tusculum, I didn't know that Treccani used different accents, I only knew that for some reason the main page has no accent, but in Italian this changes the pronunciation of a word so it's not correct at all. Then Treccani isn't reliable for that spelling, while the 3 other sources still are. Really, this free encyclopedia should give correct information to readers, and if the "Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia" and the "Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana", which have been created to be a guide to the correct orthography and pronunciation of names and words, plus De Agostini's "Sapere.it" agree on a spelling, that spelling is the right one, or at least the more correct. If you want to add to the article text that also the spelling "Portobuffolè" exists (the opposite of what's written now) no problem, but the main article should really be named "Portobuffolé". Italians are the ones who can understand their language issues the best, and Italians have discussed and concluded that this spelling should be used. I would trust Germans' decision about issues of their own languages, I don't know Deutsch as well as you. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.30.196 (Diskussion) 18:15, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET))

Following your article at itWP it:Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia: Il DOP fornisce l'ortografia e la corretta pronuncia, secondo lo standard di base toscana o fiorentino emendato. That ist something like our Duden in Germany, a guide or instruction for pupils and members of the administration. But it cannot replace any official diction, at least not in Germany. And the Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana is based on DOP, thus it is no wonder that it repeats the information given by the DOP :-) All in all not really convincing, your arguments. Website and official documents of the city itself use “ è ” – at least mainly, and in contrast I think, the vary rare use of é in the statuto comunale of the city in question is misspelling. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 19:07, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET)

Your doubts are comprehensible since you're not Italian, just let me clarify please. You may be sure that the "official sites" are the ultimate source for a spelling. In my country, alas, they're not: the fact that inside the official site you find 3 different spellings just makes the site unreliable for spellings (as the Treccani for this specific spelling). And the fact that inside the official site you find 3 different spellings means that the people who wrote them didn't follow any indication about the correct spelling. You want to see the most "official" source containing the national list of all Italian "comuni"? You can download it here: you'll see that, whatever document you open, you'll NEVER find a name ending with "é" (except the Aosta Valley french-speaking "comuni"). What do you think it means? Either that in Italian final "é" doesn't exist at all in any name, or that the people who wrote those names didn't even know when to use one accent or the other one. It's obviously the second, or there woudln't be "comuni" with acute and "comuni" with grave accents (here some examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) (watch the last one above all). The DOP was written in 1969, while the first Italian municipal sites didn't exist until a dozen of years ago. The DOP was written after targeter searches by high cultural-leveled litterates, while the people who created the municipal sites were expert in site creation but not in Italian names orthography. Isn't what I've just said true? Please, I'm just trying to provide correct information, I'm really interested in emproving the Wiki project even by correcting small mispells like this. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.90.22 (Diskussion) 19:49, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET))

LOL... your are kidding...sorry but really LOL: Please extract the zip (the most "official" source containing the national list of all Italian "comuni") you have provided, and open the file Elenco-codici-statistici-e-denominazioni-al-1_1_2016.xls, I guess it should be the most recent available information your are dealing with (beside the character of this document) and scroll to Portobuffolè in row 3445... SCNR... --Tusculum (Diskussion) 20:14, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET)

Excuse me but I really don't understand what I've done wrong. I've taken that link from another discussion, and you can find it here (ISTAT = Istituto nazionale di statistica). It contains all the statistic codes and the "official denomination" of every "comune". You don't need to scroll to Portobuffolé, just search for "é" and you'll find only "comuni" from Aosta Valley with French names. But, except for this file, I've talken about the unreliability of the municipal site, about the different accents found in the DOP for different "comuni", about the fact that the DOP already existed decades before the Internet sites, are all these arguments really worth nothing? (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.122.177 (Diskussion) 20:30, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET))

Take the zip you have provided, extract it, just open the file I mentioned (Elenco-codici-statistici-e-denominazioni-al-1_1_2016.xls of the zip), and scroll to row 3445. The name of the city under discussion is given as Portobuffolè. I assume your proof for your version of the accent is absolutely useless and supports the opposite point of view. If that is all, you can deliver you should rename the Italian version. Sorry --Tusculum (Diskussion) 21:20, 22. Jan. 2016 (CET)

Yes, the file says exactly that, but you didn't get the point. In that file, ALL the names end with grave accents, NONE of them ends with acute. This doesn't mean that all Italian "comuni" really end with "è", that would be absurd, but that who wrote that document made no distinction between acute and grave accent. And as you can read in the discussion on it.wikipedia and en.wikipedia about Portobuffolé, it's a typical Italian error. What were orthographic/pronunciation guides created for? To give an indication of the correct spelling. In fact there're some "comuni" ending with acute and some others ending with grave accent, as reported by the DOP, written by experts in linguistics and peer reviewed. Sites where there's no distinction between accents, or sites where the same name is spelled with different accents, can be considered reliable? These consideration have been made also in the Italian and English discussions, where it was acknowledged in the end that the correct spelling was the one reported by DOP and DiPI. Seriously, that's the point.

Ey, you introduced the document as proof for your point of view: the most "official" source containing the national list of all Italian "comuni". At this point I have not seen any undoubted argument for your position, sorry. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 08:22, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET)

You were talking about "official documents", I've shown you that, no matter how "official" a document may be, it's absolutely possible that it contains mistakes. Answer, sincerely: do you think it's possible that ALL Italian "comuni" with an accent on final E, with no exceptions, have the grave accent and NONE of them have the acute accent? Italian names and words are approximatively half and half with acute and grave accent over E, I've linked you some examples. In Italian keyboards you have to press Shift + "è" in order to obtain "é", and in almost all words in capital letters (such as axel's links) an apostrophe is used instead of an accent: in such a situation it's easier committing an almost viewless mistake like this. What would be the reason for Italian dictionaries, whose purpose is barely to give a correct indication to readers about spellings in standard Italian language, to report some "comuni" with the grave accent and some others with the acute one? (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.121.195 (Diskussion) 10:08, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET))

Ok, you argue that all people using è are wrong and the only acceptable pronunciation spelling has to use é. The proof for your position are the private and privately financed websites of DOP - Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia, DiPI Online - Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana, Sapere.it. Nevertheless the official website of the city uses solely Portobuffolè, that is a matter of fact. Below some scientific articels and books using Portobuffolè:

• Salomone G. Radzik, Portobuffolè. Firenze 1984.
• Gian Pier Nicoletti, La podesteria di Portobuffolè nel XVI secolo: la città e il territorio. In: Codogné. Nascita e sviluppo di una comunità trevigiana di pianura tra Livenza e Monticano, a cura di Luciano Caniato - Giancarlo Follador, Nervesa 1990, pp. 83-96.
• Gloria Pancino, La podesteria di Portobuffolè e la regola di Codogné nel 1547. In: Codogné. Nascita e sviluppo di una comunità trevigiana di pianura tra Livenza e Monticano, a cura di Luciano Caniato - Giancarlo Follador, Nervesa 1990, pp. 97-137.
• Sara Ventura, Giovannimaria Rizzotto, Portobuffolè : l'antico borgo e Gaia da Camino. Ponzano Veneto 2015
• Giovanni Tomasi, Silvia Tomasi, Ebrei nel Veneto orientale: Conegliano, Ceneda e insediamenti minori. Firenze 2012, pp. 67-69 (capitolo Portobuffolè)

You will hardly find articels or books of the same quality using Portobuffolé.

Finally the result of the Google Ngram Viewer: Portobuffolé,Portobuffolè from Italian corpus of documents. But I know they are all wrong and do not know to use Italian accents in a correct way. In my point of view that cannot be the basis for moving the page to the lemma you prefer. As long as nobody else of the German WP is going to support your position we will keep the actual lemma. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 13:05, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET)

The official website of the city also uses Portobuffolé (here, here and in a lot of official documents) and the also wrong Porrtobuffole'.

I didn't know that "private" was a synonim of "wrong", I tought instead that a financed work would normally be made better; I didn't even know that "more common" meant "more correct", I've always believed that most of the stuff found around the web wasn't checked nor reviewd at all by any authoritative controller.

To go on, the fact that a spelling is found in the title of a book or of a chapter doesn't make that spelling more correct than the spellings found in the text of a book.

• Scifo Antonino "Portobuffolé"
• Checcato Caterino "Sacra affettuosa parola del novello arciprete di Portobuffolé d. Caterino Checcato opitergino al diletto suo popolo"
• Spiazzi Michele "Gli opuscoli antisemiti di Giorgio Sommariva : (1478-1484) : i casi di Trento e Portobuffolé"
• Fuchs Margarita "Das große Fest in Portobuffolé: Roman"
• Brandes Francesca "Veneto: itinerari ebraici : i luoghi, la storia, l'arte, Volume 5" (Capitolo "Portobuffolé")
• Cardinali Cinzia "Le lotte dei discendenti di Malatesta da Verucchio per la successione alla signoria di Rimini: 1312-1334" (Capitolo "Portobuffolé")

I don't get the reason why a German would be employing everything he has just to prove that an Italian spelling, which has already been proved to be correct and accepted in almost all the Wiki projects, is uncorrect, and it's all about a small Italian town. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.9.50 (Diskussion) 14:49, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET))

Just two remarks:

• Checcato's book is entitled Sacra affettuosa parola del novello arciprete di Portobuffolè d. Caterino Checcato opitergino al diletto suo popolo (archive.org)
• the correct title of Gli opuscoli antisemiti di Giorgio Sommariva : (1478-1484) : i casi di Trento e Portobuffolé is uncertain since the catalogue of the University of Milano has it with è (as it have Internet Culturali or Opac del Polo SBN Venezia ditto), unfortunately no image or preview is available. Worldcat lists both versions.

Without doubt both spellings are used in literature, documents e così via, but there is no good reason why the lemma in the itWP should have the correct form. By the way we do not prove anything with reference to WP :-) --Tusculum (Diskussion) 16:44, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET)

Well, some of the titles you wrote can be found also with the spelling "Portobuffole'" or "Portobuffole"; JewishGen cites Radzik's book as "Portobuffolé". About Checcato's book: the digital spelling in archive.org is "Portobuffolé", but yeah, the spelling you read "in the book" ends with "è"... Exactly_as_every_single_name_or_word_ending_with_accented_E. Because in such old books (XIX century or before) all words ending with an accented vowel had the grave accent (while in some cases accents inside words were all acute). I'm not blaming you for this error, you couldn't know it, you're not Italian, likewise I know hardly anything about German. But I agree with your final consideration: it.wikipedia (and whatever Wiki) can't be considered a source for itself. That was only to say what I've just remarked: this issue about an Italian spelling was discussed by Italian users who speak Italian as mother-language. It was accepted also on the "international" Wiki, en.wikipedia, and then, Wiki after Wiki, by almost all projects. I really don't understand such a bitter opponency by one German, I've shown that the sources citing "Portobuffolè" aren't reliable for the spelling because either they use different spellings on the same page or they don't make distinction between accents and use only one accent (è), the sources I've brought are instead "made" to be reliable for orthography, that's their aim, to constitute a landmark, a point of reference, and they agree on "Portobuffolé". How can I say it more clearly that so? (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.73.126 (Diskussion) 20:11, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET))

The Job of (german?) wikipedia is not to find out the correct (and what is correct? sometimes names are changing...) spelling of a municipality or city - our job is to document the nowadays use. And there are two obvious things:

1. The municipality doesn't care a lot about the spelling and uses diffent kinds.

2. The municipality preferes (at least by number) the writing with "è".

Everything else is building of theories. So we will stay with Portobuffolè here. --axel (Diskussion) 20:55, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET)

de.wikipedia, as every Wiki, has to be "Verifiable", which means "No original research". No other sources except the dictionaries I linked choose incontrovertibly one spelling, it's not us who choose the sources we prefer. If one says "Portobuffolè is the more common spelling, so it's the right one", he's just expressing his point of view, making so an original research. We must rely on the most reliable sources, which in this case are the most authoritative guides to Italian pronunciation and orthography. Whoever reads this article has to know what, according to such sources he can verify, is the right spelling, then he may also read the indication that the comune uses also and mainly another spelling. And, last but not least, your edit to the article is completely wrong: I've explained above the apostrophe-in-place-of-accent issue, if you decide to insert it for Portobuffolé then you'll have to insert it also in all Italian names ending with é, è, à, ì, ò, ù. Your edit, and I apologise for my candor, says that you know nothing about Italian language. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.119.131 (Diskussion) 21:48, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET))

Having read the exhausting discussions in nl and enWP on that topic, I think it will be best to stop this trolly discussion. Everything is said, you could not convince any of the debaters except one single person on enWP that moved the page without agreement on the discussion page. For me it is EOD at this point. Ciao, --Tusculum (Diskussion) 21:53, 23. Jan. 2016 (CET)

Did you read the Italian talk, where the argument was discussed more deeply than elsewhere? In en.wikipedia 3 people agreed and 1 opposed; nl.wikipedia is a different issue: a herd of Dutch admins who coalised against one Italian user and just for whim tried annihilating him in every other Wiki but, so far and in the end, could impose their wrong spelling only in de.wikipedia... You and axel just proved not to understand issues about Italian language, as I'm not competent, but I've no problems in saying, about German language. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.91.48 (Diskussion) 00:41, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET))

The website of the city gives as name and as address Portobuffolè that is all we need to know. Basta. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 07:45, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET)

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and so on (don't make me link also all "Portobuffole'" spellings): the "comune" doesn't give a univocal indication about the spelling, unlinke what DOP, DiPI and Sapere.it do. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.11.185 (Diskussion) 10:21, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET))

Notation of typonymy can never be subject of discussions by applying standardized notation rules of standard language. For example in Germany we have city names like it:Grevenbroich using the absolutely uncommon combination of -oi- instead of the expected -oo- or -oh- to reflect the vowel length. Thus notations of toponymy depend often on lokal dialects, not on standard notation. And the Venetian language is more than a dialect, it is a language with own notation and its rules. DiPI gives both notations and is a branch of DOP. In contrast to a reliable lexicon both do not give any quotation for the propositions. And talking about the official website means the html website not any mostly old documents linked on this website. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 10:32, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET)

First of all, I'm replying your points.

"Notation of typonymy can never be subject of discussions by applying standardized notation rules of standard language."

Standardized notaion rules? There's no "rule" about when using "è" or "é" in Italian, as there's no "rule" about when words ending with -co/go become -ci/gi or -chi/ghi when plural, as there's no "rule" about when words contain -ce- or -cie- and when they contain -qu- or -cu-... There're "dictionaries" saying it. Dictionaries whose declared aim is to provide the correct orthography and pronunciation of words. The same happens for DOP and DiPI, not only for common words but also for proper nouns. Tell me please what's not clear in this explanation.

"For example in Germany we have city names like it:Grevenbroich using the absolutely uncommon combination of -oi- instead of the expected -oo- or -oh- to reflect the vowel length."

Here's not about an "absolutely uncommon combination" or something similar, words ending with "è" in Italian are absolutely common, exaclty as words ending with "é". Your example would apply in a case like the following: "ó" is never used at the end of words (a pair of exceptions from French and Roman) and names in Italian, but sometimes it's indicated inside words to show the correct pronunciation; if our disussion was about whether a town name would end with an improbable "ó" or a normal "ò" your example would make sense, but not in this case. This is clear, I hope.

"Thus notations of toponymy depend often on lokal dialects, not on standard notation."

Again: there's no "standard notation". There're orthographic/pronunciation guides whose purpose is to give the reader the correct spelling of words and names. What were they written for, if they can be considered absolutely unreliable trash? To waste paper and URLs? Tell me.

"And the Venetian language is more than a dialect, it is a language with own notation and its rules."

Yes... And? Who's ever denied that? We're talking about "Italian" language. Almost every Italian town a standard Italian name and a local name. We also have several dialectal Wikis, such as the Furlan one and the Ligure one. But the national language is Italian, and the Italian name doesn't depend on the dialectal one. You're free to add the Venetian local name, which is noway official but there's nothing wrong in adding it, and you can do it also for each Italian town with a local name different from the standard.

"DiPI gives both notations and is a branch of DOP."

Oh my... Yes, DiPI adds, in the second line and in parentheses, "(è)". I quote myself: "If you want to add to the article text that also the spelling "Portobuffolè" exists no problem". The fact that DiPI indicates it (how come has it suddently become reliable?) is due to the fact that, unlike DOP, it's a less rigid dictionary which doesn't close doors at all to spellings become more common nowadays. It does the same with the majority of accented names and words (example). The fact remains that the really correct spelling is the first one while the second in parentheses is tolerated but not suggested. And about your statement "is a branch of DOP", overall after you yourself said that the DiPI's indication is different from DOP's, let me quote a sentence of yours: "LOL... your are kidding...sorry but really LOL".

"In contrast to a reliable lexicon both do not give any quotation for the propositions."

If I've rightly understood what you mean... Of course, they're just the 2 most authoritative dictionaries about Italian language, not only quoted by many linguistic text but also taken as reference by professional dubbers (the ones claimed to be among the best in world), written by philologists and linguists such as Bruno Migliorini and Luciano Canepari, redacted after accurate research work and studies with the collaboration of other authoritative scholars, with bibliographies like this and this... Who could ever rely on such undependable second-rate books? Much better a site where you can find 3 different spelling random used non only in different pages but also inside one single document, isn't it?

"And talking about the official website means the html website not any mostly old documents linked on this website."

If, again, I've rightly understood what you mean... This is not a document and this goes back just to November 2005 when the site already existed (in fact it's not a scan but a PDF). Anyway, in your very "html website" I read "Portobuffole'" (apostrophe version) in many pages, such as this and even in the main page. I don't think the site is reliable at all for the town spelling, do you still think so?

One last thing: you've shown to be smarter than axel by deleting his horrible edits with the apostrophe-spelling and the no-accent-spelling, thank you, and as I've said, if you really want to, I wouldn't be against the insertion of the second spelling, but the first one, in accordance to the most reliable sources, to the agreement obtained in Italian and English talks and to almost all others Wikis except the Dutch one, should really be "Portobuffolé". (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.66.152 (Diskussion) 13:17, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET))

At least two arguments convinced me in this long discussion: 1. the statement of Lucas in the itWP discussion that for Italins DOP è una fonte "bomba". Having read the history of DOP, the circumstances of its genesis and the people involved I can agree that it is the most reliable source for the moment. 2. there are still htlm pages on the official website that contradicts my argument, the page would uses solely one version. So I will move the page to the Italian version. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 13:49, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET)

@Tusculum: Hi Tusculum, about the argument of the "fonte bomba" said by user Lucas on italian discussion page, may be it would be interesting to notice that Lucas changed its mind on this subject: please look at this message he left me on my discussion page. Even if it is not immediately evident he's talking about Portobuffolè vs. Portobuffolé question. Also please note that ISTAT (Italian Institute of Statistics) periodically publishes data about territorial administrative units and is the most autoritative institution for administrative matters. In this list also the commune is called Portobuffolè. I also reported some other elements to the english wiki discussion page. If the name of the article should adhere to the "official name" of the administrative unit, then ISTAT is indisputably a very reputed source for this kind of information. --195.206.3.188 15:06, 8. Feb. 2016 (CET)

I read all the documents of the ISTAT and recognized that the use of grave is not consistent. Thus the ISTAT cannot be a reliable source for the decision. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 16:46, 8. Feb. 2016 (CET)

@Tusculum: Thank you for your reply. Of course I respect your decision and will not interfere any longer, anyway please just note that the list I linked is the only one explicitly stating that those are the "official denominations": "Ciascun comune è identificato, nel file, da un codice statistico (il codice del comune a sei cifre) e dalla denominazione ufficiale." and dictionaries also often fails with placenames for example Jerago con Orago is reported simply as [Ierago] (but there is plenty of cases like this). Dictionaries often have different spelling even if the commune statute consistently express the will of the community (for example Vo', Dolcè, Erbè... sometimes they give more than one spelling (Jesi vs. Iesi) and this clearly contradicts the concept of "official denomination" that should be one. ISTAT list on the contrary gives a unique entry and agree in the vast majority of cases (unfortunately not all the cases neither :-( ) with commune's statutes. Bye, --195.206.3.188 17:26, 8. Feb. 2016 (CET)

Incredible... This Italian admin from lmo.wikipedia (Ninonino), not fain enough to have decided himself in place of 3 more people in Lombard Wiki about this issue thanks to his virtual might, is now trying to change other Wikis versions too just for the complacence of doing something against me who tried convincing him too that the spelling should have been modified also in his Wiki. Currish... 151.20.109.131 10:54, 9. Feb. 2016 (CET)

Currish? Currish what? Educately asking opinions to other users? Have I done something wrong? Weird opinion you have of wikipedia ways of taking decisions... Discussion on lmo is there, and everybody is free to read and form an opinion, also on your allegations about me... Surely I'm not fond of the decision taken by most wikis, and I think I'm free to ask opinion here and elsewhere... something wrong? --195.206.3.188 11:17, 9. Feb. 2016 (CET)

You had never ever taken care of Portobuffolé, nor of final accented Es, nor "official comune denomination" before I naively came to "your" Wiki to ask for this renaming thinking I'd have been thanked for the contribution as in many other Wikis... Now you've made it a matter of principle, you could just go with your usual contributions but no, you prefere going on with an already ended war against me. A war you've succeeded in winning there just because of your favoured status in that Wiki, by ignoring not only me but also a usual contributor in Lombard language and the admin from Italian Wiki who moved the pages through the Wikis, by pretending to abandon the discussion every time I've pointed out your errors just to come back when the community was expressing itself in a different way than yours, by avoiding replying all the times I asked you something just to wait for me to edit anything so that you could undo my edit... Where I come from, this is called "currish". 151.20.127.140 11:35, 9. Feb. 2016 (CET)

Really? As user @Tusculum: seems to be able to read italian, he will be able to read the discussion page on lmo and he will freely form his own idea on what you are saying... and of course of the good faith presumption intrinsically contained in your last contribution... --195.206.3.188 11:47, 9. Feb. 2016 (CET)

You're assuming that a German admin is interested in an altercation between Italian users... Even if he was, he would freely form his own idea about that, I agree with you (in a certain way) 151.20.15.7 12:05, 9. Feb. 2016 (CET)

I explicitly adressed my question to user Tusculum and you intervened here above indirectly mentioning what happened on lmo discussion page, so it's you who assumes Tusculum was interested in that. I do not think he is interested at all, but may be your allegation about me and your patent lack of assumption of good faith toward me perhaps may make him reconsider his decision on the whole subject... sometimes personal behavior is a good indicator... --195.206.8.120 12:17, 9. Feb. 2016 (CET)

Again with half-truths, argument wriggling, not admitting one's mistakes, and so on? "You" pinged him, not me. I've replied to you in order to inform readers about who you are, both for Wikipedian nick and for the way you're used to behave. As everyone can see in that page. The "assume good faith" (which I think either you've never used towards me or stopped using since a long time) comes up to a certain point, then evidence prevails. Not all admins are the same as you, overall when admins are not Italians (our country is well known for a certain kind of people going to government...) 151.20.32.11 12:41, 9. Feb. 2016 (CET)

All I can say is "Danke"! I apologise for having been sometimes too "harsh" in this talk, I understood you were really trying to identify the correct spelling after seeing your previous edit to the article when you removed the highly uncorrect not accented versions. Will the page be renamed, then? I'm happy for this ending :-) (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.16.111 (Diskussion) 14:40, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET))

I requested to unblock or move the page since the article is protected and only an administrator can move it at the moment. --Tusculum (Diskussion) 14:53, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET)

I've just read it, that's good :-) (nicht signierter Beitrag von 151.20.16.111 (Diskussion) 14:58, 24. Jan. 2016 (CET))

Name - die Zweite

Auf dem Ortsschild steht "PORTOBUFFOLE`", was in Kleinschreibung zu "Portobuffolè" führt. Es ist in diesem Zusammenhang auch nicht möglich "é" zu schreiben, da dies die Aussprache verändern würde. Auch auf allen offiziellen Seiten (Regierung, Website des Ortes,...) lautet die Schreibweise "è". Ja, auf einer oder zwei Unterseiten steht ein- oder zweimal"é", aber dabei handelt es sich um simple Schreibfehler, die halt passieren - auch einer offiziellen Stelle. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 10:08, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Auch auf allen offiziellen Seiten (Regierung, Website des Ortes,...) lautet die Schreibweise "è". Mit dieser Aussage disqualifizierst Du Dich selbst und bringst lediglich zum Ausdruck, dass Du die oben stehende Diskussion nicht gelesen oder verstanden hast. Was sagt uns dieses Dokument? --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 10:19, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Bis Du keine seriösen, NEUEN Belege für die Korrektheit der Schreibweise Portobuffolè lieferst, bleibt das Lemma nach den umfangreichen Diskussionen hier oben und auf it:Discussione:Portobuffolé sowie en:Talk:Portobuffolé auf dem Lemma Portobuffolé. Die inkonsistente Schreibweise auf der Webseite, den offiziellen Dokumenten und Statuten der Gemeinde mit den Variationen Portobuffolé, Portobuffolè und Portobuffole’ schließt die Webseite als Quelle oder Beleg aus. Dem steht das gewichtige it:Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia mit der Schreibung Portobuffolé entgegen, das als Nebenform auch Portobuffolè zulässt. Eine erneute Verschiebung ohne neue Beleglage und Diskussion führt unmittelbar zu einer Vandalismusmeldung. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 14:43, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Mit dir kann man jedenfalls nicht diskutieren - ich hasse Leute wie dich in der Wiki. In der Wiki muss man manchmal diskutieren und diskutieren gehört zum Leben dazu - auch du kannst dich davor nicht verstecken, nur weil du keine guten Argumente hast.

Es kann jedenfalls nicht verlangt werden, dass man eine Diskussion in drei verschiedenen Sprachen lesen, führen und verstehen muss - obwohl ich alle drei sehr wohl beherrsche. Dann bezeichnest du die Schreibung "è" als falsch, obwohl es so auf dem Kopf der offiziellen Website steht und ich mit der ortsansässigen Bevölkerung darüber gesprochen habe. Naja... --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 16:11, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Versuche es eben mit Argumenten und nicht mit Meinungen. Was kennzeichnet denn die Benutzung von Portobuffolé in diesem Regolamento acustico comunale der „Comune di Portobuffolé“ als fehlerhaft? Wieso hat der Website-Kopf der Gemeinde eine demgegenüber höhere Beweiskraft. Warum kann das wissenschaftliche und unter hohem Aufwand erstellte Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia nicht für die korrekte Schreibweise herangezogen werden? Wenn Du die Diskussionen gelesen hättest, könntest Du vieles ins Feld führen, allerdings ist das in drei Wikis hinlänglich ausdiskutiert worden und außer in der niederländischen und der Wikipedia in Volapük gibt es keine Sprachfassung auf dem Lemma Portobuffolè. Einzig die venetische Wikipedia weicht davon mit ihrer venetischen Schreibweise Portobufołè ab. Also Argumente und Belege bitte, das ist das Einzige, was hier zählt, nicht aber Deine Gefühle oder Meinungen. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 16:45, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

So, leider musste ich die Seite gegen Verschieben schützen und habe auch sie auch gesperrt, weil ich befürchte, dass auch da ein Edit-War ausbricht, weil jede Seite versucht, den vermeintlich richtigen Namen im Text durchzusetzen. Wie schon bei der Sperre im Januar gilt: Erst diskutieren, dann editieren, dann verschieben. Grüße, --Kurator71 (D) 17:32, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Eine Woche finde ich aber schon etwas lange Kurator71...
Maria Wutz: Das Regolamento acustico comunale ist schon über 10 Jahre alt und wurde auch nur von einer Arbeitsgruppe (4 Menschen) erstellt. Dem möchte ich eine Gegenfrage stellen: wieso hat ein 11 Jahre altes Dokument mehr Beweiskraft als der Website-Kopf einer Website, die ständig aktuell gehalten und aktualisiert wird?!
Zu deiner "Apostrophschreibweise": das ist nicht verbreitet, sondern die einfache Folge einer Großschreibung, die es im Italienischen unmöglich macht, "È" zu schreiben - man schreibt daher einfach "E`". Zu vergleichen etwa mit der deutschen Großschreibung bei einem Wort mit "ß" (Maß->MASS).
Zur Verbreitung in anderen Wikis: Portobuffolè ist ein 750-Seelen-Kaff in der Provinz - das kennt man nicht einmal zwei Orte weiter - von dem her ist das nicht sehr relevant, was anderssprachige Wikis dazu sagen, auch wenn das italienischsprachige darunter ist.
Trotzdem werde ich nun eine Email an die Gemeindeverwaltung schreiben, ich glaube es gibt keinen besseren Beleg als eine Mitteilung der Gemeineverwaltung auf Anfrage. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 20:01, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)
Zudem ist hier wieder ein offizielles Dokument, in dem "è" geschrieben wird. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 20:10, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Angesichts dessen, dass diese Diskussion schon seit einem halben Jahr schwelt, ist eine Woche eher kurz. Wenn Ihr Euch vorher einigt, meldet Euch, dann mache ich den Artikel wieder auf. Gruß, --Kurator71 (D) 20:20, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Die Seite vor Verschieben zu schützen, war sicherlich ok, sie vor Bearbeitung zu schützen hingegen durch nichts gerechtfertigt. Man muss sich nicht einigen, solange neben den längst ausgetauschten Argumenten, die zum Status quo geführt haben, keine neuen gebracht werden. Das ist common sense und gelebte WP-Praxis. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 21:04, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Würdest Du bitte Belege auch lesen? Auf der von mir verlinkten Seite steht wortwörtlich: „Fornitura gas al Casello Idraulico di Via Borgo Servi, 4 - Portobuffole' (TV). Impegno di spesa e liquidazione della spesa a favore della Liquigas Spa.“

Das hat mit Groß- und Kleinschreibung nichts zu tun. Sie schreiben Portobuffole'. Und Webseite-Köpfe werden nicht aktualisiert, weil ein Content aktualisiert wird. Die benutzen nämlich ein Redaktionssystem, in dem so etwas als Template-Inhalt einmalig hinterlegt wird. Und einfach die äußerst heftig geführten Diskussionen um die Schreibung eines 750-Seelen-Kaff in der Provinz zu ignorieren, weil man glaubt, mehr zu wissen, als die dort diskutierenden Italiener – das kann man sich nur als Schüler/Jungwikipedianer erlauben, solange man keine neuen Aspekte in die Diskussion bringt und sich auf seine Lehrerin berufen muss. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 20:23, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Ich glaube mir platzt gleich der Kragen! Ich habe zwei Monate dort gearbeitet - ICH WEISS, WIE DIE IHRE ORTSBEZEICHNUNG SCHREIBEN!!! Eine zweite, unabhängige, Meinung einzuholen (in dem Fall die meiner Lehrerin), würde dir auch nicht schaden - du willst deine Meinung (!) einfach auf Biegen und Brechen durchbringen. Das ist keine Diskussionskultur Maria Wutz. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 21:25, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Du hast die Grundprinzipien von Wikipedia nicht verstanden. Was Du erfahren, erlebt, gelernt hast, ist hier vollkommen und absolut irrelevant. Was Du beibringen musst, sind Belege für Deine Sicht, die hochwertiger sind, als andere Belege. Die hin- und herschwankende Verwendung unterschiedlicher Schreibungen auf der Webseite der Comune sind kein guter Beleg. Finde etwas Besseres. Dann komm wieder! Sollte Dir das alles zu viel sein: Allen steht das Wikipedia:Recht zu gehen zu. Alternativ: Führe die Diskussion in der englischsprachigen und der italienischen WP, zumal Du beide Sprachen beherrschst. Das Ergebnis können wir dann gern als Grundlage für Änderungen heranziehen. Übrigens habe ich über viele Jahre viele Monate in Italien gearbeitet und mein Italienisch ist noch hinreichend, um bestimmte Probleme einschätzen und vor allem Diskussionen auch im Detail verfolgen zu können. Hättest Du Dich um die Problematik gekümmert, wäre Dir die Anwort auf die telephonische Anfrage der Italiener bei der Comune nicht entgangen: Ho telefonato all'ufficio dei servizi amministrativi e pare che anche lì la questione non sia chiara... etc. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 21:40, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST) (22:32, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST), Datum/Uhrzeit nachträglich eingefügt, siehe Hilfe:Signatur)

@TheTokl: In dem von dir angegebenen Dokument werden beide Varianten verwendet: Sowohl é als auch è! Und Diskussionskultur fordert Belege, deine Lehrerin ist keine legitime Quelle, sorry! --Austriantraveler (talk) 22:36, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Das beste wäre, wenn Du erreichen kannst, dass die Gemeinde ein Dokument, dass die Benennung inkl. Schreibweise belegt, auf ihre Webseite stellen würde. Grüße --axel (Diskussion) 22:49, 7. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Maria Wutz: das Recht zu gehen solltest eher du nutzen... Es ist mir bewusst, dass nur Belege zählen - deshalb habe ich der Verwaltung ja auch eine Email geschrieben. Aber ich lasse mir nicht nachsagen, ich kenne mich nicht aus, nur weil ich meine Lehrerin nach einer zweiten Meinung frage! --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 09:17, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Ich habe nun eine Antwort der Verwaltung bekommen, die in Kürze hier veröffentlichen werde. Ich kann schon einmal vorweggreifen: è. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 12:26, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Email der Verwaltung von Portobuffolè zur Namensdiskussion vom 8.6.16; Persönliche Daten wurden geschwärzt

Damit wäre die Diskussion hier beendet. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 12:49, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)
Ich bitte Kurator71, die Seite nun wieder zu entsperren und auf den richtigen Namen "Portobuffolè" zu verschieben. Danke.--{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 12:51, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Nein, das mache ich erst, wenn hier ein Konsens herrscht, d. h. alle Beteiligten dieser Lösung zustimmen. Ich bitte um Verständnis, aber ich möchte erst sicher sein, dass das Theater nicht von vorne losgeht. Pingt mich dann noch mal an. Gruß, --Kurator71 (D) 12:59, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Das ist doch kein seriöser Beleg, sondern zeugt doch nur davon, dass die Leute vor Ort es auch nicht genau wissen. Nehmen wir die in der Email gegebenen Beispiele: Mansuè unstrittig mit è sowohl bei DiPI Online als auch bei Sapere.it. Kann also keiner behaupten, die würden nicht unterscheiden. Ganz anders bei Codognè: Sapere.it kennt nur Codgné, DiPI Online macht es wie bei Portobuffolé und gibt als Hauptform Codogné und setzt in Klammern (-è) dazu. Aber das wurde ebenfalls alles schon diskutiert. Mir ist das Lemma schnurzpiepegal, so oder so. Das einzige, was zählt: Was ist am besten mit den höchsten Ansprüchen an Zuverlässigkeit und Korrektheit zu belegen. Deine Email sticht da leider keine italienischen Nachschlagewerke zur korrekten Orthographie und Betonung. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 13:10, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Den Namen der Gemeinde bestimmt aber sie selbst! Wenn sie ihren Namen theoretisch morgen ändern würden, müssten es auch alle akzeptieren, auch wenn es nicht so in Lexika steht. Offenbar ist es dir nicht egal, sonst würdest du nicht so stur sein. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 13:25, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Wenn du die Seite aber schon auch vor Bearbeitungen schützt, bitte ich dich, mal die "Quellenangaben" in der Einleitung und meine Email durchzulesen und deine Meinung kundzutun bzw. den Artikel ggf. zu bearbeiten Kurator71. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 13:35, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Ein Bearbeiten wäre dann ein offensichtlicher Missbrauch meiner Adminrechte. Und meine Meinung tue ich nicht kund, weil das eine inhaltliche Einmischung wäre. Meldet Euch, wenn das hier geklärt ist. Gruß, --Kurator71 (D) 13:40, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Wir warten jetzt mal ab, wie IT und EN auf das Posting von Benutzer:TheTokl reagieren. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 14:01, 8. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Auf meine Nachfrage nach dem Grund, warum der Ortsname in manchen Lexika etc. anders geschrieben wird, antwortete man mir folgendermaßen:

Zweite Email der Verwaltung von Portobuffolè zur Namensdiskussion vom 8.6.16; Persönliche Daten wurden geschwärzt

Ich bitte daher um Einsicht von Maria Wutz und um eine Ermöglichung der Verschiebung und Änderung durch Kurator71. Ansonsten bitte ich um die Einholung der Meinung eines neutralen Admins, denn so kommen wir hier nicht weiter...--{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 17:53, 9. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Sicher nicht auf der Basis von As far as I know it is just a common typing error... eines Tourismusbüro-Mitarbeiters der Gemeinde. Das kannst Du in der Kamelopedia als Beleg anführen. Wie viel der Italiener in der Regel von Akzentsetzung versteht, kannst Du diesem Google-Ergebnis entnehmen. Auf der italienischen Tastatur ist nun mal è die erste Belegung der Taste, für é muss man schon die Shift-Taste bedienen, was der Italiener wegen zumeist fehlender Großschreibung eher ungern tut. Die einzig relevante Frage ist: wird Portobuffole mit einem offenen oder einem geschlossenen End-E ausgesprochen. Und da sagt DPI mit einem geschlossenen. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 18:03, 9. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Noch mal, der Artikel ist wegen eines Edit-Wars gesperrt und ich werde hin nicht wieder entsperren, so lange hier kein Konsens herrscht. Es wird auch kein Eingriff von mir in den Artikel stattfinden, denn dazu bin ich nicht berechtigt. Gerade weil ich neutral bin und jede Änderung nicht neutral sondern zu Gunsten Deiner Meinung wäre. Jede Öffnung des Artikels würde sofort in einen erneuten Edit-War münden. --Kurator71 (D) 19:22, 9. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

Austriantraveler wie sollen wir das hier bitte ausdiskutieren?! Verhärtete Fronten. --{TheTokl • Diskussion • Hilfe} 13:57, 15. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

In der en:WP-Disk geht es sachlicher zu, genauso wie in der it:WP. Deshalb halten wir uns einfach mal an den dortigen Konsens. Derzeit nur ein Hickhack zw. Maria Wutz und dir. Vll. hilft euch WP:3M --Austriantraveler (talk) 14:00, 15. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

WP:3M (Eintag siehe hier)

Die letzte 3M zu diesem Thema wurde am 22. Januar 2016 angefragt. Die damals geführte Diskussion ist unter Diskussion:Portobuffolé#Name zu finden. --Maria Wutz • Schulmeistern? Mit mir nicht! 17:46, 15. Jun. 2016 (CEST)

3M Das sieht nach einem Thema aus, das keine eindeutige Lösung hat => beides neutral darstellen.Unter welchem Lemma der Artikel angelegt ist, ist eigentlich egal, es gibt ja eine Weiterleitung von der anderen Schreibweise. Instinktiv hätte ich die Schreibweise im Titel der Webseite der Gemeinde genommen.--Pechristener (Diskussion) 21:13, 15. Jun. 2016 (CEST)