Template talk:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt Südtirol

Link sul sito della provincia

L'idea e' ottima. bisognerebbe pero' che link andasse sulla pagina in lingua italiana, se il template e' in lingua italiana, su quella tedesca se il template e' in lingua tedesca. E' possibile effettuare questa piccola modifica?

Ad esempio per la chiesa si San Pancrazio a Glorenza si hanno due link:

• Per il tedesco: http://www.provinz.bz.it/denkmalpflege/themen/1071.asp?status=detail&id=14979
• Per l'italiano: http://www.provincia.bz.it/beni-culturali/temi/1071.asp?status=detail&id=14979

Quindi penso che sia facilmente possibile oltre che a cambiare l'ID del monumento, anche quello della lingua, andando a sostituire "denkmalpflege" con "beni-culturali". --Llorenzi (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Grazie per il tuo feedback e la buona proposta! Io personalmente non saprei se la modifica sia così piccola, però ManfredK ha già inoltrato la richiesta a qualcuno, che potrebbe aiutarci. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ti volevo rispondere ma Mai-Sachme era piu veloce ;-) --ManfredK (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, if your language is set to italian you should get a link to the italian site. Greets --AleXXw 14:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Great job as always! thanks a lot. --ManfredK (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I donno who I have to say thanks... anyway, great job!!!!!!! E grazie. Just one question about this case; is it working with your browser? On mine mozilla, with italian language, it opens the german version...--Llorenzi (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Luca, anche questo esempio funzione (con il mio firefox), secondo me non ha da fare con il computer ma dipende delle preferenze / lingua di commons. --ManfredK (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

L'ho provato e funziona, cioè arrivo alle pagina in italiano. Sono convinto, che dovresti semplicemente cancellare il cache del tuo browser. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok grazie 1000 allora.--Llorenzi (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Italy in the template

Alto Adige (also called South Tyrol) is in Italy. the World Heritage Site to which this template is aimed is attributed to Italy, is fundamental specify when his UNESCO World Heritage Site is attributed to Italy, is fundamental specify when. --Pava (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(parlo in italiano perchè così so esprimermi meglio :P tanto tutti i diretti interessati lo parlano). Mi riferisco all'annulamento delle mie modifiche, di quella che aggiunge al layout template la bandiera dell'Italia oltre agli stemmi territoriali per motivi identificativi e anche per una questione di completezza; inoltre ho specificato nelle varie lingue del template tra parentesi il paese di cui fa parte la provincia di bolzano, visto che magari un giapponese o un portoghese o un'americano non sa nemmeno dove si trova la provincia di bolzano. Inoltre questo template tocca anche monumenti di rilevanza nazionale (Italia) riconosciuti come monumenti nazionali, e anche patrimoni unesco, che vengono assegnati all'Italia, è fondamentale segnalare il paese dove si trova la provincia, è un'anomalia non farlo. Sono prassi abbastanza comuni e in linea con le linee guida, non capisco perché è stata annullata, per altro scatenando un edit war senza spiegar nulla in campo oggetto, nonostante i miei sollecitamenti, senza aver minimamente risposto e oltretutto ignorando questa conversazione. L'utente persevera nell'edit war, ho chiesto l'intervento di un'amministratore, spero che questo spinga l'utente a collaborare e discutere, mettendo davanti commons a se stesso.--Pava (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all some preliminaries: this template is an essential part of the South Tyrolean cultural heritage project, of which I'm one of the main contributors. In the last year, I made several thousand edits categorizing, reordering, restructuring and tagging images, adding file descriptions and interwiki-links and arranging the technical surroundings. Thanks to these efforts we've got now a good infrastructure (Category:Cultural heritage monuments in South Tyrol), a huge monuments database ([1]) and a technical support which provides (among other things) the addition of coordinates when a file is tagged with our template (example). That's how a couple of users and me spent the last year here on Commons and - starting from zero - we've come a long way. And now, dear Pava, we come to your activities.

Yesterday, while doing my daily check on new files, which could possibly be used in the cultural heritage monuments lists and need some work, I found to my surprise a big Italian flag in the template. Which is really surprising, because changes on essential parts of our project are usually discussed in advance. Anyway, I checked who did this and found some edits, which, I'm sorry to say so, lead me to think that I'm apparently dealing with childish behaviour: queste foto è state fatte in Italia (sic!), [2], [3], [4]. Sorry, but what the heck? Andf then, after adding big Italian flags to single pictures you added a big Italian flag to the template and the word "Italy" in the template text. Uhm sorry, are you feeling threatened in your national identity by the absence of an Italian flag? Or do you think that we are taking part in a football match? And now, after explaining, why your edits were inappropriate, because as a user, who didn't contribute anything useful to a huge project, you definitely shouldn't edit important templates without a previous discussion, I'm trying to explain, what the template should communicate to a reader/viewer and why the Italian flag is superfluous.

The template (as every other monument template) should communicate three different pieces of information: a) This monument is protected. b) It is protected by a decree of the administrative unit of <insert text here>. c) By clicking on the linked number you will learn more about the monument. The function of the template is not: to provide coordinates, to inform about superordinate administrative units, to describe the exact position of the monument, to describe the monument. Since the 1970s, cultural heritage topics belong among others to the exclusive legislative powers of the province of South Tyrol. Cultural heritage monuments in the province are protected by decrees of the provincial government, following provincial laws. The linked number leads to a provincial website. Italy (and sorry: I don't understand, what you wrote about the UNESCO...) are not directly involved. If we include an Italian flag, we could add (by the same logic) a flag of the region of Trentino-South Tyrol, of the Euopean Union, of the UNESCO (per Pava) and, finally (why not?), of the United Nations, as well... No sorry, I don't have a clue, what advantage the Italian flag is supposed to bring in, apart from the fact that a user, who si sente italiano 365 giorni l'anno (feels Italian 365 days a year) is obviously pleased.

And now, after spending enormous amounts of text, because an up-to-date completely uninvolved user tries to impose his views on an entire project, let's briefly check, how other regional templates deal with that question: Template:Baudenkmal Bayern, no German flag, Template:Baudenkmal (Nordrhein-Westfalen), no German flag... Is there a German user, who feels uncomfortable with this situation? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

non siamo nel 1800, l'alto adige fa parte dell'Italia ora, e il confronto con la germania non può esserci, la germania è uno stato federato, l'italia ha le province, sono due cose diverse. Quel template, ok si indica la provincia di bolzano però lo stato è l'Italia, e sono monumenti di rilevanza nazionale italiana. Oltre al fatto che un utente medio che geograficamente non risiede vicino a noi nemmeno sa cos'è la provincia di bolzano o i vari modi in cui è chiamata, non sa nemmeno idividuarla in mezzo ai monti. L'italia invece la conoscono tutti e aiuta la comprensione. Non capisco cosa ci sia di sbagliato in quelle modifiche. Inoltre non hai assunto un comportamento collaborativo e nemmeno adesso lo stai assumendo, anche se almeno ti sei degnato di rispondere ma ho dovuto interpellare un amministratore perchè ciò avenisse. E non hai ripristinato il template alla versione prima del tuo edit war, lo hai lasciato così vuol dire che dimostri che il tuo punto di vista per te è più importante della collaborazione e di commons. Comunque il fatto che il template lo hai fatto tu o hai coordinato tu il progetto non vuol dire che decidi tu cosa ci va e cosa no, commons è libero e collaborativo e quella bandiera o la dicitura Italia fra parentesi non mi sembra che rovini il template, anzi lo integra lo migliora. Non c'è una ragione pratica per non farlo. E non venirmi a dire che io dovevo aprire una discussione prima di effettuare un'integrazione, perché non ci sta scritto da nessuna parte che per integrare una voce, o fare una modifica prima bisogna chiedere il permesso, ok che l'Italia è uno stato burocratico ma non esageriamo. Ti invito a comportarti nel modo più corretto, come ti hanno già consigliato altri utenti prima di me ogni volta che ti sei trovato in una discussione dove dovevi difendere un tuo punto di vista. Non si collabora così--Pava (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(translate): That template, ok indicates the province of Bolzano, however, the state is Italy, and Italian monuments of national importance, national monuments and UNESCO world heritage sites related to italy. Besides the fact that an average user who does not reside geographically close to us even know what the province of Bolzano or the various ways in which it is called, does not even know idividuarla in the mountains. Italy rather know it all and helps understanding. I do not understand what is wrong with those changes. It also does not have engaged in conduct collaborative and even now you're taking, although at least deigned to respond, but I had to consult an administrator because this avenisse. And you did not reset the template to the version before your edit war, you left it this way means showing that your point of view for you is more important than cooperation and commons. However, the fact that the template you have done or have you coordinated the project does not mean that you decide what goes and what does not, and collaborative commons is free and the flag or the words in brackets Italy does not seem to ruin the template rather, they integrate it better. There is a practical reason for not doing so. And do not tell me that I should open a discussion prior to integration, because there is nowhere written that integrate voice, or make a change before you have to ask permission, ok that Italy is a state bureaucratic but do not overdo it. I urge you to act in the best manner, as I have already recommended others before me every time you found yourself in a discussion where you had to defend your point of view. It is not working well

Would you mind to have this conversation in English, in order to make it accessible to non-Italian speakers, as well?

South Tyrol is not an ordinary, but an autonomous province, and as I said: cultural heritage monuments belong to the exclusive legislative powers of the province. Hence the comparison to the German regional templates is perfectly fine. And I don't know, what you are talking about the year 1800. I don't see an Austrian flag or an Habsburger crest in the template, but the flag of an autonomous Italian province - authorized by the President of Italy.

You are arguing based on the conviction that the function of the template is to provide information about the geographic position of the monument. No, it is not. Otherwise we would have to include the coordinates, the coats of arms of the single municipalities, and thew flags of the wider region and of the EU, as well, overloading the template even more. South Tyrol is not being mentioned, in order to communicate the geographic position (that is what the description parameter or the coordinates template are made for), but in order to make clear which administrative unit made this monument a protected monument. And that is the government of the province of South Tyrol, and not Italy.

E non hai ripristinato il template alla versione prima del tuo edit war... Would you mind to stay close to the facts? This is how the template looked like since its creation in April 2012. That's how it looked like after your edit. And this is how it looks like after I brought it back to the original version of User:ManfredK and User:AleXXw.

I don't understand, how on earth you think to be in the position to complain about my behaviour. Editing the template once is fine, of course you may be bold. But when your edit is being contested you must start a discussion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking around at other templates (1, 2), it appears customary to only include the flag of the political entity directly involved and named in the template name. Therefore, the template should only display the South Tyrolean flag respectively coat of arms. The addition This photos was made in Italy seems superfluous, too. Category:Cultural heritage monuments in South Tyrol is already subsumed under Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Italy, so the one-liner does not provide new information; users only need to follow up the category tree to find out about this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

if we want to make an issue of nationalism then I'm out (it is known that the South Tyrolean behave in this way against Italy, so I am not surprised that you face examples misleading and that my intentions are frantese, but far be it from me the intention of putting it on a political level, we are not in the 800, to me the problem does not arise). I am simply saying that my change is not superfluous, not politics is just to understand even those who do not know at all where he is or what the province of Bolzano which country we are talking about. I think it's legitimate information, that does not create any harm and that the only reason for which is not accepted is that it can be bothersome, but we can not take account of commons of resentment or discomfort decades old. However, invitation-only users to explain how this change is so harmful and counterproductive to unleash this hatred and this opposition (if not geographically limited or political reasons). I just merely added the flag of a country to that of the province (as all Italian provinces as they do is practice on wikipedia) and to add the words "Italy" next to "the province of Bolzano" I do not find totally unnecessary and who knows how outrageous, is suspect and absurd to me is the behavior of Mai-Sachme, before I wrote to an administrator, who is now almost tends to "censor" any reference to the Italian voices of south tyrol. However do not want to make it a matter of state (because of commons are all Germans so I do not expect some objectivity), invitation only users say their opinion in a way influenced by political or subjective deductions of other users. Thanks.--Pava (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@Gun Power Ma: Germany is a federal state, it is normal that in addition to the identification of the federation there is no flag, in Italy, however, there are provinces that are completely different things from a federation of state administration, we reason by analogy, in other cases are not similar . My goal is not political, I'm not a South Tyrolean nationalist who wants to break away from Italy or Italian-speaking minority that wants to impose the nation's citizens, my sole intent is anything but political but informative, the template does not understand which country are the monuments, a Brazilian, an American, a japponese not even know where the province of Bolzano and even knows identify in the mountains, Italy instead know it all, and I do not think too much or harmful add between brackets the country after the province, given that in Italy it is administrative practice. It 's just an integration that facilitates the identification and geographical allocation of the monument in a country, there is no reason, if not subjective, which my amendment is not carried out. despite my intentions are not policies but even if they were the comparison with Germany is not legitimate practice is always to assist provinces at least the country (nation) do not do this again in the federal states or coalitions of countries (UK, were U.S., germany) but in all federal states do not you write the nation after the province. But beyond this, my intention is not political or national identity, but it is purely geographical--Pava (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@Mai-Sachme: I have limited myself to inform you that those pictures are made in Italy, because the template does not show, even seem to be made ​​in another country (the symbols are there) I also tried to put beside a notice saying simply "these photos were made ​​in Italy" nothing to do, all deleted those too. I'd like to understand the reason for this morbid persistence (if not politically, geographically limited or the result of issues dating back to the last millennium) --Pava (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Pava, first of all it's quite bizarre that you write no no, no politics, but then you don't even restrain yourself from massive offenses against an entire population it is known that the South Tyrolean behave in this way against Italy ... I already showed you plainly analogue cases without national flags, i. e. Template:Baudenkmal Bayern and Template:Baudenkmal (Nordrhein-Westfalen). Strangely, there is no German user making such a fuss as you do. What may be the reason?

And on how many ways and in how many languages do I have to repeat it again? It_is_not_the_purpose_of_the_template to provide geographical information. The template informs the reader: this picture shows a protected monument and the administrative entity of <insert text here> made it a protected monument. And that's it. Every picture tagged with the template will get exact_location_coordinates - there is absolutely no issue with poor people from Brazil and Japan. And if you think that the coordinates are not enough, you may add something like (Italy) or in Italy to the text (!) of the file description wherever and whenever you want. I guess I'm safe to say that nobody will ever revert you there. I even showed you how to do that. But please, don't hijack a template of another project, whose functionalities you struggle to understand. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

but I explained the differences between Germany's federal structure and structure provinciae Italian, also do not understand what is this feeling of "obligation" and "nuisance" that you feel? look at that wikipedia is collaborative, you can not see it as yours and people who comes to break the eggs in the basket, it is not, I'm not going there to ruin your work, that is not yours but is on commons, then common and then fired cc by sa. Then I do not understand one thing, why not just because I worked on the project I can contribute and improve the template? but speeches are. How do my actions ruin the originality or the identity of the project? You have said many things, but all things are your views, your feelings, you have argued with compelling reasons why the change does not help. When I tell you what is it you say, "that's not true, that is not in the spirit or the intent of the template" does not matter if it is not the intention of the template, I'm integrating information useful to the template I do not think I'm turning in something that goes aldifuori of the goals of the project. And then I'm sorry but eh "Waving Italian flag" oh but where are we? I think I hear a mountain Altesino who says that he celebrates 150anni of his country and he sees the Italian state as un'invasore. Are you kidding me?

It's amazing to see, how you declared that you are not interested in politics, but nevertheless talk in_every_single_post about politics. Could you please stop that and stay close to the topic?

Pava, it's so simple, I'm running out of words... Bavaria has the exclusive legislative powers for cultural heritage monuments, South Tyrol has the exclusive legislative powers for cultural heritage monuments. The Bavarian template is about Bavarian cultural heritage monuments, the South Tyrolean template is about South Tyrolean cultural heritage monuments. The Bavarian template therefore shows the Bavarian coat of arms, the South Tyrolean template therefore shows the South Tyrolean coat of arms. What do Germany and Italy have to do with these issues? Nothing directly. Geographic information is provided by the automatically inserted coordinates and, additionally, by the text of the file description. You may edit that one, but please stop to impose you private views on what is good and advantageous on entire projects.

But I've got a wonderful idea: why don't you make your own template? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mai-Sachme.--Steinsplitter (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Gryffindor (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The only reason why I would consider changing "South Tyrol" to "South Tyrol, Italy" is that some readers may have no clue where ST is. But, to be honest, as this template is going to be used only on photos of certain monuments, all of which are in ST, the interested reader is likely to be only a couple clicks away from knowing that South Tyrol is a part of Italy, in the same way as he/she may find out that Northrhine-Westphalia is in Germany. The rest of the discussions is nonsense, really. --Cruccone (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, among the cases where the country is explicitly indicated, you can find Barcelona and California), so I'd say that this discussion should be held at a higher level and politics must be left out. Really, people interested in knowing more about the degree of autonomy of a region will not have a problem looking for it elsewhere. --Cruccone (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

New search links in Template

Hi!

I have added a Wikidata link to the template to make it easier to jump directly to the entry on Wikidata, based on the Heritage ID that is now also a property on Wikidata (P8543). The link didn't work until today because the tool used doesn't automatically update and this new property was missing (link to the discussion on github).

@Mai-Sachme: Should we add any other links? Search links to de-wp and it-wp for example? Best, Braveheart (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't think that links to links to de-wp and it-wp are necessary. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)