User talk:FrancescoC.italy

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, FrancescoC.italy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages that you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia or the Tutorial
• Create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• How to add those all-important references
• Simplified style guide

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, If you need help visit the Teahouse or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much Sm8900 for your warm and kind message, I really appreciate your welcome. Most probably I will not be among the most relevant contributors of Wikipedia, because of many other commitments, but since I DO LOVE this institution, it will be a real pleasure whenever I will be able to give a little help.

Wikipedia, as a whole, is the sum of big and relevant contributors as well as small and much less important people as me.

But the total is definitely the bottom line of all the parts, many small parts included. Hopefully I will give an hand to the common target of a better Wikipedia.

Wish you all the best, FrancescoC.italy (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

List of units of the Italian Army

@Noclador Hello, I think that you have a huge and unmatched knowledge of the subjects related to the Italian Army and I will never be enough grateful for the colossal contribution that you have given to Wikipedia on this matters, this resulting in a wonderful repository of knowledge that will be available to all the people of the world for a very long future. This is why my respect for you is even bigger than your immense knowledge. On my side, at a much lower level, I also love the Italian Army, also because I have been a corporal in the Folgore parachute brigade and an officer in the 5th Anti-aircraft Artillery Regiment "Pescara". This is why I understand and respect your point about the fact that "Regiments are listed by their historic/traditional associations, not what equipment they use today". But if this is the proper way to consider the matter, then I have to say that the 3rd Missile Brigade "Aquileia", must be considered all in all as an Heavy Artillery unit, because it was created and had an existence only as an Heavy Artillery unit. So why you have put it under the Field Artillery category? I would appreciate very much and answer on this point.

Regarding the 5th Artillery Regiment, it has been activated in Albenga on January 1st 1947 and live 29 years as a Field Artillery Regiment until December 31st 1975, but having also battalions that have an Heavy Field Artillery role. Wile starting from January 1st 1976, up to date, for a total of 48 years it has lived as an Heavy Field Artillery Regiment, having that specific tradition. As per: https://www.esercito.difesa.it/organizzazione/capo-di-sme/COMFOTER/comfoter-supporto/Comando-Artiglieria/5-Reggimento-Artiglieria-Terrestre-Superga/Pagine/la-storia.aspx So again I would be very much interesting to get your opinion on this matter. Many thanks in advance and please have a very nice day. FrancescoC.italy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Francesco, nice to meet you and thank you for your thanks about my articles about the Italian Army. I am doing articles about all 301 battalions and regiments active after World War II, and then also all the brigades and divisions. About il reggimento Superga e la brigata Aquileia: Il 5° Superga discende dal Reggimento Artiglieria da Campagna costituito dalla Regia Armata Sarda il 1 ottobre 1850. Il 17 giugno 1860 il reggimento diventa il 5° Reggimento Artiglieria - reggimento da Campagna. Il Superga è il reggimento più anziano dell'artiglieria italiana ed anche il reggimento più anziano dell'artiglieria da campagna italiana. Il Ufficio Storico dello Stato Maggiore dell'Eserctio nel Volume Primo - Tomo II dei libri L'Esercito Italiano verso il 2000, pubblicato nel 1998, ha il 5° Superga nella lista dei reparti provenienti da unità della specialità "da campagna". Dal 2000 le specialità "Artiglieria da campagna" (o "Artiglieria di Divisione"), "Artiglieria pesante campale (o "di Corpo d'Armata")", "Artiglieria pesante" (o "Artiglieria d'Armata" o "Artiglieria guardia alla frontiera"), "corazzata", "da montagna" (o "alpina"), e "a cavallo" sono tutte riunite nella specialità "Artiglieria terreste". Cioè il Superga dal 1850 fino all 2000 era "da campagna" e dal 2000 ad oggi è "terrestre". Riguardando la brigata Aquileia: non appartiene a nessuna delle specialità. Era un unita pluriarma, con unità di artiglieria pesante, artiglieria da campagna, fanteria, genio, trasmissioni, acquisizione obiettivi, del corpo automobilistico, e dei servizi. Cioè è un'unità che is potrebbe mettere ovunque... Io l'ho messo come prima nella lista dei reparti disciolti per evidenziare che era l'unica brigata artiglieria nella storia dell'Esercito Italiano. Ma si potrebbe anche metterlo sotto "Heavy Artillery" o ovunque, visto che l'Ufficio Storico non la mette persino nell'artiglieria, ma nella lista dei "Commandi e grandi unita". Best regards, noclador (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Noclador, as a matter of fact your two answers are both absolutely convincing and strong, therefore I must tell you that I was wrong in my modification.

I'm pretty much open to admit a mistake, since I know that this is the best way to show maturity and capability of understand.

On the other hand I even know that making mistakes it's never a good thing, so - in the future - i will put the maximum attention to avoid such unpleasant under-performance.

Finally, I'm an Italian citizen and Italian is my mother-language, but i can use perfectly the English, so next time I will use the same language that you will use, up to you the decision.

Thanks and best regards, FrancescoC.italy (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. Jeppiz (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Jeppiz. That opening sentence, it doesn't read right, it has too much detail, and it's overlinked ("river" and "valley" do not need to be linked). Drmies (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Drmies No issue if you want to remove the link to river end/or valley. While your statement: "it doesn't read right, it has too much detail", it is obviously a mere opinion and not more. But I'm open to keep it in good account, so if we want to make that sentence less detailed we must only leave the reference to Alto Adige, and remove the one to South Tyrol, for the reasons that I already presented to my reply to @Jeppiz, in this discussion. FrancescoC.italy (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Well, your opening sentence, stripped down from the parenthetics and the wikilinks, is this:

      Bolzano is the capital city of the namesake province, covering a territory that is defined Alto Adige (Upper Adige river valley), by the Italian speaking population, or South Tyrol by the German speaking population, it is located in Northern Italy.

      Problems? Well, "the namesake province", I don't like it but you could call that a matter of opinion. Oh, and the province isn't called "Bolzano"; it's called "South Tyrol". "that is defined Alto Adige" is not correct; "That is" is redundant; changing "defined" to "called" makes it acceptable; the comma after the parenthetic "Upper Adige river valley" is incorrect; "river valley" is not a translation of anything in "Alto Adige"; "Italian-speaking" should probably be hyphenated (and the wikilink either removed or changed to include "speaking"--same with the German); the comma before "it is located" is incorrect in most Englishes and should be replaced with a semi-colon. This is not "mere opinion": this is grammar and established English convention.
      All that would render a slightly less awkward sentence:

      Bolzano is the capital city of the namesake province in Northern Italy, covering a territory called Alto Adige ("Upper Adige") by the Italian-speaking population, or South Tyrol by the German-speaking population.

      What you may or may not have said to Jeppiz pertaining to these matters is not entirely clear to me, if only because these paragraphs below are too many and I can't easily understand the organization. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

To me it's fine, let's see if we can find it.

But we must always keep in mind facts and reality, above and beyond opinions.

Facts are as follow:

1) Bolzano is a town in the Italian Republic, not another nation/state, and by far the population of that town speaks Italian language.

2) It is the seat town of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol.

3) Multilingualism is compulsory and enforced by law and it's an extremely sensitive matter that cannot be simply ignored.

Any reference to the English must be based on the above facts, taking in account the official name of the territory, in the language used by the large majority of the population of that town, not on the one used by the minority.

If any reference to the geographical territory is done, it also mast reflect the above facts.

In conclusion the main reference to be used in the English version of Wikipedia is the one related to the Italian language, that is to say Alto Adige (Upper Adige).

If deemed necessary, also a reference to South Tyrol can be done, no issue on that.

But the absence of any reference to the Alto Adige is an unacceptable because against facts, reality and applicable laws. FrancescoC.italy (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jeppiz To me it's fine, let's see if we can find it.

But we must always keep in mind facts and reality, above and beyond opinions.

Facts are as follow:

1) Bolzano is a town in the Italian Republic, not another nation/state, and by far the population of that town speaks Italian language.

2) It is the seat town of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol.

3) Multilingualism is compulsory and enforced by law and it's an extremely sensitive matter that cannot be simply ignored.

Any reference to the English must be based on the above facts, taking in account the official name of the territory, in the language used by the large majority of the population of that town, not on the one used by the minority.

If any reference to the geographical territory is done, it also mast reflect the above facts.

In conclusion the main reference to be used in the English version of Wikipedia is the one related to the Italian language, that is to say Alto Adige (Upper Adige).

If deemed necessary, also a reference to South Tyrol can be done, no issue on that.

But the absence of any reference to the Alto Adige is an unacceptable because against facts, reality and applicable laws. FrancescoC.italy (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. As I see that you are relatively new on Wikipedia, can I please highlight that Wikipedia has a list of rules and guidelines that we need to follow. The relevant rules in this case are WP:UE (we use an English name when available) and WP:COMMONNAME (we use the most common name in English). That is exactly what the article about Bolzano does: it uses the name South Tirol, which is the English name. Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jeppiz your point is sound.

But still we cannot totally neglect and cancel completely any reference to the geographic term Alto Adige, if we are illustrating a town where multilingualism is an extraordinary sensitive issue.

Therefore a reference to Alto Adige must be put at the side of South Tyrol, and this can be easily checked in the entry South Tyrol itself.

So in view of this special and peculiar circumstance, I cannot simply skip it. FrancescoC.italy (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no need at all to refer to Alto Adige in that way in the very first sentence. Also, the provinve is not called Alto Adige in English and (once again) we employ English usage. (Please also read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as your argumentation here hints at that being an issue here.). Jeppiz (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)