Talk:Gipuzkoa

Title

I notice that this page had gone through a number of title changes without discussion. I have always seen the name as Guipuscoa in English publications, prior to 2000. See the 800 or so hits in Google books. I suspect that Gipuzkoa is closer to the original Basque pronunciation, but is there a reason that we are not using the common English spelling? --Bejnar 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On 20:16, 8 April 2006 Jmgonzalez reverted back to Guipúzcoa saying "rv back to most common English spelling (using E. Britannica as source).

The pronunciation of Gipuzkoa (Basque spelling) and Guipúzcoa (Spanish and traditional spelling) is almost the same. The name Gìpuzkoa is the only official since 1991 and the Basque institutions use it both writing in Basque and in Spanish. Guipuscoa was used in English but I think it is out of use now. The issue is political rather than linguistic. I would recommend to use Guipúzcoa in Spanish even if it is not official, and also Guipuscoa in English has it has some tradition, at least until there is some definition within the province itself (Maybe there is a political turnover and then Guipúzcoa comes back, as even if it is not official it is still widely used).--alfanje 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This should be moved to Gipuzkoa as per the Official site in English. T Rex | talk 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We're now (back) at Gipuzkoa as per the consensus reached between editors of WikiProjects Basque, Spain and France (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque). Akerbeltz (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Flag an coat of arms same?

If so we don't need both. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

In English is Guipuscoa not Gipuzcoa

It exists a manipulation of the real name in English. If Gipuzcoa is official is only in Spain, not in english language as allways has been Guipuscoa, the person that made this change is basque and want to impose this wrong form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayfrito (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus spelling is Gipuzkoa (see the debate and its conclusions on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basque). Akerbeltz (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Gipuzkoa isn't the official name

Guipúzcoa is. In the INE's webpage, there's a list of the Spanish provinces with its official names, and, as you can see[1], the official name of the province is Guipúzcoa, the Spanish toponym. 213.4.32.217 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Wikipedia works by finding its own consensus and does not necessarily follow "official" usage. For example, there are several naming conventions such as that of Republic of Macedonia which does not follow the UN usage on the topic. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Gipuzkoa is no the name in english, always has been Guipuscoa, but a group of friends with Akerbeltz)as president, try to change english language and impose basque language. There is not consensus, there is imposition!!.

Unfortunately, both consensus and the sources go against what you're claiming. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

But in the introduction it's said Gipuzkoa is the only official name, which it isn't! Guipúzcoa is the true official name (Gipuzkoa isn't even official), as you can see in the link in my previous message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.32.217 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, it's the official for the territory according to its own institutions, what the naming is for the Spanish language academy (Spanish language) or central Spanish institutions (Spanish language naming) is to include third parties. English language usage (if relevant in number), the criteria in the area affected and consensus of the contributors should be taken into account. Why include Spanish language in between? Iñaki LL (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that it would be better to focus on putting some references into the article, rather than sterile argument over naming. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Iñaki, I think you haven't understood it well. The INE's list contains the official names, even if they're not in Spanish (like Girona or Lleida). However, the official name for the province of Guipuscoa is the Spanish toponym, Guipúzcoa. I'm not asking for a title change, only for a correct introduction (it says Guipúzcoa isn't even official and Gipuzkoa is, contrary to the truth!). 213.4.32.217 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Official place names can exist at various levels mate; Gipuzkoa in this form is official in the BAC. It may be that outside the BAC this form is rarely used but that does not make it unofficial. Secondly, the spelling Guipuscoa was rejected on a number of points, the main one being that is has little if any currency in English language publications. So I would like to second Iñaki in saying that there are more fruitful uses of everyone's time that to argue this particulat point. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. Spanish provinces and autonomous communities have either one official name or two official ones (the three Valencian provinces are the only case). Other ones are valid, but they're not official. Again, I urge you to read the INE's list of the provinces' official name. 213.4.32.217 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You really have nothing better to do. Right, done some digging. Not being entirely convinced INE, a statistics organozation, being the regulatory body for Spanish place names it turns out there is the Instituto Geografico Nacional [2], the National Geography Institute. While I cannot locate a list of "official" place names, when searching for the Basque provinces it turns out they always list them bilingually i.e. Guipúzcoa/Gipuzkoa. So frankly, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, I urge you to try to maintain a nice discussion, without anything offensive ("You really have nothing better to do").

As I said, those toponyms (Gipuzkoa) are valid (that's why the regional gov't uses them, as well as the NGI), but they are not official. For example, there's a Catalan province whose toponyms are Lleida (Catalan, official) and Lérida (Spanish, still valid), and both are used. However, the INE (which uses the official names only) has only Lleida listed because that's the official toponym. There is other province whose official name is Alicante/Alacant, so its official name is Alicante/Alacant but both toponyms are valid.

Please don't misinterpret me, Gipuzkoa is a fully valid toponym, but it's not the official one -Guipúzcoa is. So the article should be corrected, as it says Gipuzkoa is the only official name and Guipúzcoa isn't. 213.4.32.217 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And where exactly does it say that INE has either the authority to choose official names or that their list is a list of official names? I'm getting curt because you're wasting everyone's time with an issue that at best is banal. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Akerbeltz, I don't understand all this time consuming and wasting again with the naming. It's official in the place (Gipuzkoa), this is the widely accepted and valid form in the Basque and Gipuzkoan society, we had Birmania before but it's Burma now... That said, if the issue is the word "official" in the introduction of the article, I have no problem in deleting it, let's get it over and done with.Iñaki LL (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The INE uses the official names that are taken from the BOE (Statal Official Bulletin, there you can see the change from Lérida to Lleida, from La Coruña to A Coruña and others), but not anything like Guipúzcoa to Gipuzkoa, the official names of the Basque provinces are the Spanish ones. Also, I think discussion is not a "waste of time", I think it's one of the best things Wikipeda has and that's why it's so great. And, according to that Talk in WP:Basque, the only pro-Gipuzkoa argument was "for historical and linguistic bases", without further explanation. So, for a more correct article, apart from the "official" label in the Spanish toponym instead of the Basque one, at least the title should be discussed, because there's been an edit war around it with no proper arguments, and now the page is protected we can talk and achieve a consensus. 213.4.32.217 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, unless you can point me to a page on the INE site that says "these are the official names" I'm going to ignore whatever you say about INE. In any case, Wikipedia is based on consensus decisions by its editors and does not always follow "official" usage. Official usage for example would demand use of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but Wikipedia editors have eventually agreed to use Republic of Macedonia against official usage (including the UN). On the same basis, the people who participated in the debate on Wikipedia regarding Guipuscoa/Gipuzkoa/Guipuzcoa were satisfied that Guipuscoa has no great currency in English, that usage of the Spanish form was not going to help the uninitiated in figuring out how to say the name, so we agreed on Gipuzkoa. In a nutshell, end of discussion, and a long enough one it was too.

Since its the word official you're taking umbrage to, I agree with Inaki that the easiest solution for now will be to remove the word. It doesn't exactly add much informative value and it would appear the issue is hard to back with evidence either way. So, can we please move on? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as it happens I was editing too. I think I made my point clear and not going to repeat the arguments but 213.4.32.217 you can check this for a reference. I wonder as well how much time you've spent actually contributing with actual content in this and other articles, you would understand this is a dead end discussion and a waste of time of the contributors. That said, since the issue seems to be Gipuzkoa branded as "official" in the introductory phrases and there are so many "official"s, Ok about deletion. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Guipuscoa

The article should be renamed (again) to "Guipuscoa", which is the name of the province in English, as the article Biscay (Bizkaia) uses the English name. We cannot have one of the provinces with an English name and the other one with a Basque or Spanish name; there must be some sort of unity. I believe there are some debate about the naming of the Basque articles, but it has been on a "hiatus" for long time. Until it is decided what to do with these artícules, this one should be renamed "Guipuscoa", at least to be in pair with Biscay. Greetings.--Metroxed (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not as clear as you say. Compared to toponyms such as Lisbon or Rome (or even Biscay — remember the Bay of Biscay, quoted profusely in English texts), this is a name with not a very abundant tradition in the English language, and if you look at Saragossa or Corunna, you will see that Gipuzkoa is not a lonely exception when not observing old English names. Anyway, this has been thoroughly discussed and a consensus was already reached (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque), so this article should not be moved, unless another consensus is reached. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 08:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Xabier. We had a good debate and reached a consensus which has been stable. There's no rationale for using the Guipuscoa spelling which is mostly used in French. And not everything has to come in pairs. Biscay is the English form, Álava the Spanish, Gipuzkoa the Basque... it's all a bit mixed anyway and I'm loathe to open this box of worms again. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. No change needed then, thanks for your answers.--Metroxed (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for bringing it up on the talk page first! Akerbeltz (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)