Talk:Valdostan Union

Valdotanian or Valdostian?

Is Valdotanian really the correct name in English? Wouldn't Valdostian or something be better? Aaker 19:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to Autospark

By mistake I rollbacked this edit by Autospark. My apologies to him. Naturally, I rollbacked myself a minute later and, as I'm writing, the current version of the page is identical to Autospark's last version. Sorry, again. --Checco (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, don't worry about it!--Autospark (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Valdotanian → Valdostan

Hello everyone,

For a long time we used "Valdotanian" as the English translation of valdôtain/valdostano. On 10 May 2005 renowned editor Wilfried Derksen adotpted the term when creating this article, which I believe was the first article including the term. Since then several articles have been created, many of which by me, containing "Valdotanian" in the title and/or the text. Some days ago, User:RJFF moved the article from Valdotanian Union to Valdostan Union and other articles as well. As I already told RJFF, I would have opened a debate before moving/editing dozens of pages. That's what I'm doing now.

I'm not an English native speaker and I'm not even sure there is a term in English for valdôtain/valdostano. "Valdotanian" seems to me the Anglicization of the French term (valdôtaine), while "Valdostan" the Anglicization of the Italian term (valdostano). I would suggest that the first term is more correct as the main language in Aosta Valley is French, but I may be just used at it. Other opinions are welcome! --Checco (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I proceeded with the move without thorough discussion. I thought that the move would be uncontroversial, as the word valdotanian simply does not exist in English-language texts - outside Wikipedia (and Wikipedia mirrors, and maybe two or three publications that mention "Valdotanian Union", that were published after the Wikipedia articles existed and authored by non-native speakers, which makes it very probable that they are based on the Wikipedia article.) On the whole internet, there is no mention of "Valdotanian cheese", "Valdotanian wine", ... However there is "Valdostan cheese", "Valdostan wine", "Valdostan fricassee" and so on. If you google the word "Valdotanian", why are all of the hits about political parties, and none about culture, population, language or cuisine? Because the word does not exist except from Wikipedia articles on Aosta Valley's political parties. There are some hits for "Valdotan", "Valdaostan" and "Valdostian", but "Valdostan" is by far the most common. Why should the Anglicization of valdôtain be "Valdotanian"? Is the English word for marocain "Moroccanian", for africain "Africanian", for américain "Americanian", for méxicain "Mexicanian"? --RJFF (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that it is strange to me that the term used resembles more the Italian term than the French term. A case of Italocentrism or, worse, of macaroni English? This said, you might be totally right. What you say about cheese, wine, etc. is correct. I would anyway ask English native users to step in and Wilfried Derksen (now User:Electionworld) to explain where he got "Valdotanian" from. --Checco (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not active anymore on Wikipedia, but I got the term Valdostan from the book "Political Parties of the World", by Alan J. Day, page 274. Electionworld Talk? 11:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Valdostan Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530085448/http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/politica/200805articoli/33185girata.asp to http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/politica/200805articoli/33185girata.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701073703/http://www.cattaneo.org/index.asp?l1=archivi&l2=adele to http://www.cattaneo.org/index.asp?l1=archivi&l2=adele
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501035830/http://www.unionvaldotaine.org/uv/index.php to http://www.unionvaldotaine.org/uv/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles

@Ritchie92: Please go back and take another hard look at MOS:JOBTITLES, which specifically points out that "president" is a common noun that should be in lower case. If there was a statement that a person "was elected President of Aosta Valley", then capitalized "President" would be correct, as it would be "a formal title for a specific entity". This was not the case in the edit I made. Chris the speller ^yack 13:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference – grammatically – between the sentence "was elected President" or "was re-elected President"? Check the whole sentence in the diff please. Obviously in that sentence, the word "President" stands for a specific entity, i.e. President of the Aosta Valley, so it definitely should be capitalized. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Just about any "president" can be traced back a specific entity, such as "president of Plumber's Local 1234", but just referring to a specific entity doesn't qualify for capitalization. In this case "president" is not being "used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office", but just a job they obtained. Best to avoid Wikilawyering and follow the obvious intention of the MoS, which allows "president" to be capitalized only in three limited cases, and this case is none of those. Chris the speller ^yack 01:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mh, I think it's actually you who is wikilawyering here. I think you are referring literally to one sentence in MOS:JOBTITLES without understanding the principle of it. There is some difference in meaning between the following sentences: "Obama is a re-elected president" or "Obama is a re-elected US president", versus "Obama was re-elected President". In the first two, "president" refers to Obama's job and role (he was a US president who was re-elected, like other US presidents), while in the third sentence "President" refers to his title (and obviously to the specific US president title), so it should be capitalized. In the first two examples the word "president" is used in a general way, in the third one the word "President" is used in a specific way. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

But saying that the word president is used in a specific way (even if I agreed that it was a specific way) does not carry any weight. The MoS says "The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it." The MoS says that in WP we don't capitalize except in three listed cases; this is not one of those. Please try to go along with the spirit of the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 16:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Chris is correct here, the right thing to do is to make it lowercase. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comparison SVP - UV

Hi, following this undo of yours, since I added it based on the comparison in this article, should I delete it with the same reason? Thank you in advance. Simoncik84 (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC) [Originally posted in User:Checco's talk page]

I object that "the SVP is aimed at representing South Tyrol's German-speaking population, similarly to the Valdostan Union in French-speaking Aosta Valley", while "it [the Valdostan Union] later became the catch-all party of the region, similarly to the South Tyrolean People's Party in South Tyrol" is perfectly correct for that period of time. --Checco (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You mean that UV became a catch-all party in the Aosta Valley after the SVP in South Tyrol? If so, UV has been a catch-all party since late 40s afaik. Simoncik84 (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The parallel between SVP and UV is correct in terms of them being catch-all parties, but less accurate on the German-/French-speaking issue since South Tyrolean and Valdostan societies are quite different regarding language: in South Tyrol residents are primarily German-speakers or Italian-speakers (with a large majority of German-speakers), while in Aosta Valley a vast majority of the population is perfectly bilingual and Italian language is spoken more than French language. On being catch-all, the SVP was once the dominat German-speaking party, while now it has competitors both on its right and its left (so that it is less a catch-all party than it used to be), while the UV was not particularly strong from the 1960s through the 1990s when it became (or, if you prefer, returned to be) a catch-all party, before entering a new crisis in 2013 (possibly overcome this year). --Checco (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)