Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Opening comment  
3 comments  




2 Nobody, at least nobody who goes to Italy, ever calls the place 'Apulia'  
10 comments  




3 Requested move  
21 comments  




4 No mention of major cities  
1 comment  




5 the flag  
1 comment  




6 Requested move 2  
6 comments  


6.1  Survey  







7 External links  
1 comment  




8 Sea Neighbours  
1 comment  




9 External links modified  
1 comment  




10 External links modified  
1 comment  




11 Olive oil scandal?  





12 Etymology is not complete  
1 comment  




13 "Turin was "so far away that Otranto is today closer to seventeen foreign capitals than it is to Turin"  
1 comment  




14 Absurd  
1 comment  













Talk:Apulia




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Opening comment

[edit]

In ancient times northern Puglia was Daunia, Hellenized much later than the southern parts, Messapia and Peucetia. There should be some mention of these toponyms at least. --Wetman 09:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to Allen Mandelbaum in the notes to his translation of Dante's Inferno, Apulia, in the Middle Ages—designated, not only the present-day region, but the whole of southern Italy. Paul August 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not followed this entire discussion, I confess, but I have traveled in Puglia, and I know for a fact that Italians call it Puglia, other tourists who have traveled in southern Italy know it as Puglia (see Virtual Tourist), people who live there say Puglia, there are four books on my desk (in English) with titles using "Puglia," tourist websites call it Puglia, and, finally, see the it.Wikipedia article on the regions of Italy [1] and the one for Puglia [2], where it is clearly the OFFICIAL government designation of the region. The Puglia article begins by giving the name in other languages, including Apulia in Latin and English. Is it wiki policy always to use the English equivalent of a place name from a foreign language as the principal entry? That seems to me to be the only justification for keeping the present title, and, of course, I would bow to that policy, while, in this case, disagreeing with it. Littlereba (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, at least nobody who goes to Italy, ever calls the place 'Apulia'

[edit]

It is called Puglia. Why is this article named after an archaic anglicism? A search for Leghorn rightly redirects to Livorno, and the same principle of common usage should be applied to Apulia/Puglia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.47.90 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Apulia is simply the English name for Puglia, in the same way as Lombardy, Tuscany, Piedmont, Sardinia or Sicily. It is not an archaic anglicism. However, one may argue that neither under this toponym is the region well known abroad.Luca 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first comment, I have never heard of APUGLIA. Please direct me to an outside source verifying that APUGLIA is the english name for PUGLIA. 70.52.169.170 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In English it is Apulia... simple. This is English Wikipedia, so there is no need to beat this point to death. The people/ language (dialects) are Apulian (not "pugliese/i"). It may be "fashionable" to call places by what the natives use; however, in most English mouths 'puglia" or "le puglie" is usually garbled and confusing. Leghorn is antiquated, Apulia is not. Mariokempes 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take it back... a significant amount of English literature (including material in my private collection) does refer to it as "Puglia". The majority, however, calles it Apulia. The same references that call it Puglia conveniently avoid the descriptive (such as "Pugliesi"). In a nutshell, I would recommend maintaining a redirect from Puglia but keep it as Apulia/ Apulians in the text. Mariokempes 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the name Apulia should be placed in brackets after the proper name. I have lived in many parts of Italy in recent years since leaving the UK and never knew until reading this article of the name 'Apulia'. I am familiar with Anglicised names for provinces like Tuscany and Sicily but never Apulia. It would be like refering to Friuli-Venezia Giulia as Friuli-Literale or Emilia-Romagna as something more suitable for the English tongue. The name seems to still be used nowadays but increasingly replaced with the Italian name Puglia just as we refer to provinces and regions in most countries by their native names (with the exception of the biggest cities like Paris, Warsaw, Rome, etc.). Maybe some stupid Americans use this old name but those same Americans probably couldn't find Italy on a world map (and probably not even the USA) - this is an encyclopaedia and not a Dummies Guide for Americans.--217.203.153.152 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am Italian and have talked to a number of British people about the region, and cannot but confirm that they usually call it Apulia. However, they also generally refer to Mumbai as "Bombay" to Varanasi as "Benares", to Myanmar as "Burma" and, more often than not, to Beijing as "Peking", especially when talking about ducks. The issue here is far broader than Apulia/Puglia: it is about a consistent policy, which seems to be missing from Wikipedia's guidelines, of either chosing local or English geographical designations. It looks to me now that the choice is currently based on how touchy the natives are about the issue, which doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic to me. Complainer (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The choice is actually based on what is common use in English, as set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). There may well be a strong case for a move to Puglia, which is fairly common in English prose these days (Bern was moved from Berne because the consensus was that English use had changed over the years). If someone feels strongly about it, why not try a change through the Requested Moves procedure? Incidentally, it has been accepted that English use is now Lazio, not Latium. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Google search in English for items from the last year excluding Wikipedia shows the following:

On Google books there is still a preference, searching over the last 10 years, for Apulia (39,900 to 27,900), but there is no doubt that both names are commonly used in English. From the web search it does indeed appear that usage has changed, particularly recently. On that basis I will propose a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves and see what happens. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's time that the name of this article was changed. Apuglia is really not used in modern day English in the same way that 'The Sudan' (for the country), Cracow (instead of Krakow) and Stettin (instead of Szczecin). Check out this BBC article from today's news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11938665). Not the number of times 'Puglia' or 'Puglian' is used - 9 times and how many times 'Apuglia' is used - 0 times. And there is no need in the BBC article for them to explain the name or anything like that which suggests that the term is commonly known.--85.94.113.121 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to change. May be relisted at a later time Jojhutton (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ApuliaPuglia — Common use in English has changed in recent years. While historically the region was known as Apulia, in more recent years the Italian version Puglia has become more common in English prose. A Google search excluding Wikipedia for items from the last year shows 2,190,000 hits for Puglia without Apulia; and just 333,000 hits for Apulia without Puglia. Undoubtedly, both names are in common use, but Puglia appears to be edging ahead. An archive search on Google News shows 161,000 hits for Puglia without Apulia; and just 5,400 for Apulia without Puglia. Google Books shows nothing published over the last year, but over the last two years a slight preference (approximately 170—120) for Apulia. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This purely Google approach is seriously flawed, see WP:GNUM. Two flaws not yet mentioned there are that Google's English filter is broken; many of these hits on Puglia alone are on text which is in, or is quoting, Italian; also, passages which use Apulia and mention Puglia once (as in "Apulia, It. Puglia) will be ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Google's language filter is 99% accurate even for language far more obscure than English, and the biases Septentrionalis mentions ("Puglia" being mentioned in an "Apulia" page) are, until the opposite is proven, to be assumed to be symmetrical. Google.dk, asking only for English pages, and excluding the word "wikipedia" gives a lead of 4,050,000 to 1,250,000 for the Italian form. Complainer (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this should convince you to move the article: if you are referring to the mediaeval title, it was "Duke of Apulia and Calabria", where the term denotes most of Continental Southern Italy, not just the region. The (much) later title of "Duca delle Puglie" (notice the plural), which is vastly ceremonial, likewise indicates a much broader area than the region we are talking about in this article.Complainer (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Spammers and real estate agents, despicable as they may be, are a legitimate way of assessing modern English usage as well--if anything, a better one (they are trying to sell today, not in the Victorian age of many wikipedia sources).Complainer (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether usage on these sites was generated by humans at all. — AjaxSmack 23:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the sites are software-generated, this software was written with English interfaces, by young English speakers in order to spam the contemporary English word with modern (as opposed to "good old") English ads. The one advantage wikipedia has over, say, Britannica is being up to the times, in language as well as information. My point of view is that opposing this move is a first step towards denying this advantage.Complainer (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But imagine for a moment that 40% of English speakers said Puglia and 60% said Apulia, but three of the four bots that alone made up 99% of Google hits happened to use Puglia. In such an hypothetical circumstance, the number of Google hits – even if Google actually counted pages, which it doesn't, see my post of 23:19, 28 July 2010, below – would be seriously biased towards Puglia. (See [3] for an example of such a phenomenon which actually happened, artificially increasing by several orders of magnitude the frequency of San Diego's population compared to that of population of San Diego.) A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very interesting hypothetical case, and I understand where it comes from but I have to warn other potential readers that considering it an argument against the move without further evidence amounts to a conspiracy theory. Complainer (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


No mention of major cities

[edit]

There is no mention of the major cities or other population centers, as measured by population, political influence or economic influence. Indeed there is no discussion about how the population is distributed. I think such a section should be added. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the flag

[edit]

something has gone wrong with the flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.142.11 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Cúchullain t/c 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]



– Per WP:COMMONNAME. I was astonished to find an article at this title when searching for Puglia. Like some previous editors on this page, I had never heard the term we use, which suggested to me it wasn't such a common English name after all, and more of an archaic name. I wasn't content to argue based on my gut alone, however. (Maybe it's well known in the UK?) Sure enough, "Puglia" trounces "Apulia" in all uses based on searches in (general) Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News. My search preferences specify English, though I do see some Italian results got through. Results below. Britannica and the Library of Congress use Puglia too. BDD (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apulia -wikipedia Puglia -wikipedia
Google 8,790,000 70,200,000
Google Books 1,080,000 2,220,000
Google News 1,640 98,400
Google Scholar 32,200 74,500

Survey

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

In response to a template suggesting that they should be pruned I looked at all but two of them and removed all that I saw as (often grotesque, but at best marginally relevant) linkspam. I left the official site of the regione as inherently relevant and left the Lega ambiente site without looking at it because I knew that I would be biased in favour of it. Could somebody have a look at it, decide whether whether it should stay or go, leave it or remove it as appropriate, and finally remove the {{external links}} header to the article. Thanks in advance Ian Spackman (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Neighbours

[edit]

Neighbouring countries across the sea are sorted alphabetically, bot the sentence says "across the Adriatic and Ionian sea, respectively". So it turns out that Montenegro is across Ionian sea, but it is on the cost of Adriatic sea. It would be better instead of using alphabetical order, to use N-S direction (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Greece). --Caer-Caveral (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Apulia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=totrue

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apulia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olive oil scandal?

[edit]

Regarding the section 3.2.1 "Olive oil scandal" there are no valid references. Those provided, are either unrelated with such a scandal or contain advertisement for Sicilian olive oil. Although adulteration and frauds could happen, there has never been nothing like an "Apulian olive oil scandal" in Italy. The only scandals I heard of involved industrial brands, most of which are from central Italy (eg Bertolli, Santa Sabina) or obscure brands of oil, sold in cheap germans supermarkets (Primadonna oil). Nothing related directly to Apulia (though Apulia produces the vast majority of Italian olives) - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11988947/Italian-companies-investigated-for-passing-off-ordinary-olive-oil-as-extra-virgin.html


I think the section should be removed

Etymology is not complete

[edit]

It says it comes from " Ἀπουλία", but doesn't give the meaning of this word! That's absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Turin was "so far away that Otranto is today closer to seventeen foreign capitals than it is to Turin"

[edit]

In such a short history section, this quote stands out as particularly odd. Turin was only the capital of Italy from 1861 to 1865, then it was briefly Florence, and finally Rome since 1871.

But the historian is correlating 1861-1865 to the modern political map. This has been altered a lot by the breakup of Yugoslavia - but in the 1860s there wasn't even a Yugoslavia to break up into pieces. What relevance has the modern Balkanised Balkans to the early 1860s?

Even if you looked at how many capitals were closer to Otranto than Turin in 1861, this is nothing particularly unusual. Look at a map of most countries - France, China, USA, Australia, Canada to begin with - and look how many people are far away from their capitals. This statement plays so much mental gymnastics it has practically no meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:E586:EF10:1FAE:7D0A (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd

[edit]

The difference in material between the it.wiki page (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puglia) and this one is absurd. Is the reason that many of the references in the it.wiki article aren't valid enough? JacktheBrown (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apulia&oldid=1220529693"

Categories: 
B-Class vital articles
Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
Wikipedia vital articles in Geography
B-Class level-5 vital articles
Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Geography
B-Class vital articles in Geography
B-Class Italy articles
High-importance Italy articles
All WikiProject Italy pages
B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
Mid-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
B-Class former country articles
B-Class Italian historical states articles
Unknown-importance Italian historical states articles
Italian historical states articles
WikiProject Former countries articles
B-Class geography articles
High-importance geography articles
WikiProject Geography articles
 



This page was last edited on 24 April 2024, at 10:32 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki