Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Province names[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trying to stimulate debate and come to a conclusion about definitive forms (for Wikipedia articles) of the Basque provinces. Two on the Spanish side are fairly straightforward (Biscay and Navarre being established English forms) but usage across Wikipedia regarding the other names is messy - sometimes even the same article uses different spellings (see Guipúzcoa).

The options (feel free to add if I've missed any) open for debate as I see it are:

  • Guipúzcoa (Spanish form, with accent), Guipuzcoa (Spanish form, no accent), Gipuzkoa (Basque form, (official), Guipuscoa (French form, non-Spanish, non-Basque). Possible adjective forms: Guipúzcoan, Guipuzcoan, Gipuzkoan, Guipuscoan
  • Álava (Spanish form, with accent, co-official), Alava (French form (or Spanish without accent), Araba (Basque form, (co-official). Possible adjective forms: Álavan, Álaves, Alavan, Alaves, Araban, Alavais
  • Soule (French form), Zuberoa (Basque form), Xiberoa (Souletin form). Possible adjective forms: Souletin, Zuberoan, Xiberoan.
  • Basse-Navarre (French form), Behe-Nafarroa or Nafarroa Beherea (Basque form), Baxenabarra (Low Navarrese form), Low Navarre (English), Lower Navarre (English). Possible adjective forms: Bas-Navarrais, Low Navarrese, Lower Navarrese, Nafarroa Beherean
  • Labourd (French form), Lapurdi (Basque form). Possible adjective forms: Labourdin, Lapurdian, Lapurdin.

Any conclusion on that form should bear the impact on High Navarre in mind please.

We would also all welcome, I'm sure, comments backed up by references, ideall other than just Google (not saying that Ghits are not useful but they're not the whole answer). I'd also like to stave off straw polls for a while and look forward to a calm debate! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Basque government gives the seven herrialdes as Araba , Bizkaia , Gipuzkoa and Nafarroa (Spain), and Lapurdi , Zuberoa and Benafarroa (France) on the English page.[1] On the Castilian page the same: España, Araba, Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa y Nafarroa; y en Francia, Lapurdi, Zuberoa y Benafarroa.[2]
The site of the Giupuzkaoko Foru Aldunia gives the Spanish form as Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa;https://ssl4.gipuzkoa.net/boletin/asp/index.asp Arabako Foru Aldundiaren gives Araba (BSq) and Alava (Sp)http://www.alava.net/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1193045570338&language=eu_ES&; pagename=DiputacionAlava%2FPage%2FDPA_SinContenido.
I would suggest that Basque forms be preferred where there is no long established English name. Spanish and French forms should be present in artciles as alternates and suitable redirects in place. That is my tuppence worth. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a strong opinion as concerns the three northern provinces, a much more blurred for Guipuzcoa or Alava. The most obvious for me is "Lower Navarre", I have the feeling to find it much more usual than any other variant when reading texts in English ; the use of the French forms "Labourd" and "Soule" seem also predominant. An example more or less at random : [3]. As concerns Alava and Guipuzcoa, I think the wisest would be to renounce giving any other hint than keeping coherent along an article, respecting the initial choice of the initial author of the article. Caveat : I am a native French speaker, hence not the best qualified to get a feeling of what is commonest in English. French Tourist (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to stay neutral for now - so I'll just point out that your last suggestion would lead to a lot of confusion about what to call them. Now I'm not sure if Wikipedia HAS a policy on preferring single forms but previous experience on contended pages would suggest that people prefer a single name that is - broadly speaking - then used all over. Has anyone else got views on this? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity about the word Lower Navarre. The terminology is of English origin and a unique and immediate consensus could be found.
However, for over 2000 years, the Basques have always been named by their conquerors whoever they are. Just read this article and you’ll found out all sorts of names given to their territory and how they were appointed. They are not the only ones in that case, thousands of people have this same dilemma, they are appointed by the goodwill of the winners. As Wikipedia has no educational purpose, it would be suicidal to choose all these names above in Basque language, even if I wanted it to be different. It will be the same way for both names Labourd and Soule, which I think were borrowed from the French language. Historically, it was probably easier for English people to import words from French rather than the Basque language. For the provinces of Alava and Gipuzkoa, my opinion is quite clear. For Alava, I would choose the Spanish Co-official version with Alava without accent and the Basque version of Gipuzkoa, and this, for historical and linguistic bases.
But, as each one of us has a different approach on these issues, it will be difficult to find a solution which satisfies everyone. If we refer to the discussion on Vitoria-Gasteiz, that’s an endless problem and there will be always more sympathizers with the Spanish or the French nominations than with the Basque ones. Like this ABBA’s song : The winner takes it all. ;) -- Zorion blabla 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's no ambiguity, but usage across Wikipedia is untidy, you get both Low and Lower Navarre, High Navarre and Upper Navarre. And the adjective forms often don't match at all. That's why I think we should try and look at them all. What's your reason for suggesting Alava over Álava? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert of the language of Shakespeare, but it seems to me that when I use Upper or Lower, it's for a comparison or in relation with something, unlike when I use High or Low, the comparison doesn't seem necessary to me. As there are two Navarre, I'd lean for Lower Navarre and Upper Navarre. But, I don't have any particular preference if I'm wrong. For Alava, before yesterday I didn't know that you could write it in Spanish without any accent (Where did you get that reference ?). I think interesting when it's possible to avoid all the words with diacritics in English, but I don't want to provoke a debate on the subject. -- Zorion blabla 04:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree on Upper/Lower for the name of the names of the province, still leaves the adjectival forms though. Here, especially in linguistics both High/Upper Navarrese and Low/Lower Navarrese are found. Should we streamline those to be the same as well? I don't think we should be too worried about the diacritic in Álava, there's plenty of diacritics kicking around on Wikipedia for names that aren't established enough in English to warrant their own anglicises spelling. As far as what the Basque bodies use in English publications I don't think we should be too bound by that as (in my experience) usually try to make a point by not using foreign forms of Basque place names as it's a sensitive issue (there).
So, summing up progress to date we seem to be in favour of Biscay, Gipuzkoa, Á/Alava, Navarre (Upper/Lower Navarre), Labourd, Soule to date. That would leave us with Biscayan, Gipuzkoan, Á/Alavese, Navarrese (Upper/Lower Navarrese), Labourdin, Souletin. Seems fine to me. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it necessary to regulate High/Upper Navarrese and Low/Lower Navarrese, it's not really important to me. It would be nice if other people give their opinions, meanwhile, so far so good. ---- Zorion blabla 16:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! Just an observation: for Alavese, it would never have a written accent on the first "A" not even in Spanish, so I would stiick to Alavese and discard the cacofonic "Álavese". Other thing that doesn´t convince me is the use of Higher or High Navarre to talk about the Autonomuos Community. I have never heard anybody in Navarre nor even in the Basque Country or the rest of Spain call it High or higher, (Alta or Goiti). I would opt for "Navarre (Autonomous Community)" instead and would stick to Low or Lower Navarre for the French territories. The rest of the conclussions by Akerbeltz seem fine to me.
Cheers!--Garcilaso (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
High or Upper Navarre/Navarrese can be used for political, social, cultural or historical contexts. -- Zorion blabla 05:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point on Alavese, well spotted. I suppose that as plain adjectival forms we can live with High/Upper, Low/Lower Navarrese but I will probably raise a separate string on the page for Navarrese dialects because at least in those cases I think we should agree on 2 terms only, not 4, lest someone thinks Lower Navarrese is different from Low Navarrese. So, we are arrived at Biscay, Gipuzkoa, Á/Alava, Navarre (Upper/Lower Navarre), Labourd, Soule to date. That would leave us with Biscayan, Gipuzkoan, Alavese, Navarrese (Upper/High/Lower/Low Navarrese), Labourdin, Souletin. Which leaves only one sticky point, Álava vs Alava. Doing an accent sensitive search, Álava seems to have the highest prevalance on Wikipedia, it's the official spelling with no clear predominance of either in English sources and the Álava page is currently using the acute. On that basis I'd propose we save ourselves a page move debate and stick to Álava? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: forgot to mention - High/Upper is used but mainly in dialectology which probably explains the rarity of the term in normal texts. I agree that in a normal non-linguistic text simply using Navarre and Lower Navarre is sufficient. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Akerbeltz: using the terms Higher (or Upper) when talking about dialects, and sticking to Navarre and Lower Navarre when talking about geographical entities, makes much more sense. I agree also about the Álava issue--Garcilaso (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the final set is (adjectival forms in brackets):

  • Biscay (Biscayan)
  • Gipuzkoa (Gipuzkoan)
  • Álava (Alavese)
  • Navarre (Upper Navarrese (in geography); High Navarrese (in linguistics))
  • Lower Navarre (Lower Navarrese (in geography); Low Navarrese (in linguistics))
  • Soule (Souletin)
  • Labourd (Labourdin)

Thank you all for your constructive input! Hopefully we can put this particular Basque-related debate to bed now. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Correcting a mistake, sorry Akerbeltz (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Category:Lapurdi[edit]

I just spotted an anomaly; based on the above name debate, Category:Lapurdi should really be at Category:Labourd. Does anyone have any experience in moving Category pages? It doesn't seem to work the normal way and I don't want to break anything. We need to move it though and perhaps even set up a redirect because we have pages (such as Baztan (river) which are showing a dead category for Labourd. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested that Wikipedia bots do this change — here is my request. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 12:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've been kindly told that the procedure is this: "see WP:CFD and the speedy options." I'll be too busy till next Tuesday... so, if you want, feel free to go through that, Akerbeltz — I agree with this renaming. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 12:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Eskerrik asko for pointing us in the right direction. I followed the instructions and posted here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here - hopefully this'll be painless. Enjoy your weekend! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, done - you probably all saw the move already! Akerbeltz (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Basque Conflict[edit]

New editor on the block. Not entirely sure what to make of the article, it seems to overlap with ETA a lot but it seems well ref'd. People might just want to put it on their watchlists as Tygerpencil has a habit of marking edits as minor (as he's now, it might be a misunderstanding though). Akerbeltz (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Basque education system[edit]

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and might be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help find one or two good references. While you are at it, can you make a concerted effort to find references for any other Basque article you are working on? Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed Álava and San Sebastián[edit]

I've linked those articles to Álava-Araba and Donostia-San Sebastián, respectively.

In the case of Álava-Araba, is it with hyphen? or with a slash, used to avoid compounding/composition with unpleasant phonaesthetics (cacophony); e.g. Álava/Araba? If it is with a slash, then i will withdrow my changes.

Wikipedia policies say it is possible to use official names (including "double placenames" e.g. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Donostia-San Sebastián, Biel/Bienne, etc.) when there is not an English exonym. Whereas when there is an adapted (or translated) placename into English (exonym), it is only used the English form (e.g. Biscay, Navarre, Moscow). AFAIK, there is not an exonym in English for Álava or Araba, therefore both forms can be used at Wikipedia. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand thanks for posting on the talk page but on the other hand you missed the big debate above where we agreed to use Álava as a consensus name and I'm personally loathe to restart the debate.
While my personal preference is for Donostia-San Sebastián, we've had that debate a few times on the talk page and didn't get anywhere and I'm a tad tired of that particular debate - they tend to take forever, people get very emotional and the result is to maintain the status quo. But feel free to have a go, though I'd suggest you hang around a bit, edit softly and familiarize yourself with the way things work. It'll make any proposal you make more viable. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologise about my moves, I missed most consensuses, sorry, i wasn't aware of such thing. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Provinces and cities[edit]

Why do the three provinces have names on three different languages? Biscay in English, Gipuzkoa in Basque and Álava in Spanish. There is no unity on that. I can see there has been some debate, but I can't figure out why three different languages have been chosen; all the articles should be named either on Basque, Spanish or English, but not three different. If someone can explain me the reasons, I'd be glad. Another thing; the cities. Most of the articles about municipalities have a Basque name, which I think it's appropiate enough, but there is a complete mess with the three capital cities, specially Donostia. While the article is named "Donostia" (Basque name) other articles which refer to the forementioned one are with Spanish titles, as San Sebastian metropolitan area.

I don't know what arguments have been explained before, but I believe the three provinces should have either a Basque name or an English name and the three capitals should have one consequent name. "Bilbao" (as Bilbo is scarcely known and little used), "Donostia" or "Donostia-San Sebastián" (I believe the latter one is better) and "Vitoria-Gasteiz" (current name of the article). Greetings.--Metroxed (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are looking at the languages spoken in the places named, but this is the English language Wikipedia, so we should look at the English language. Biscay has an abundant usage in English — remember the Bay of Biscay, quoted profusely in English texts — so that's the correct name here. And I think that the other names are already in the form most widely used in present-day English, so I see no need to change them, except in San Sebastián — I agree with you that Donostia-San Sebastián (the official name, very profusely used in present-day English texts) would be preferable. Let's see what other Wikipedians think. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 08:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out, there's no rule that says we all have to follow the same format. Place names historically tend to be a mixed bag. Take the south of China where common English usage has Hong Kong (Cantonese), Pearl River (English), Macau (Portuguese-ish) and Foshan (Mandarin). It just depends on what the historical connection is.
As far as the provincial capitals go, battles have raged for and against. Vitoria was eventually returned to Vitoria-Gasteiz but I don't hold out much hope for Donostia to be honest. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ezpatadantz[edit]

Would appreciate if some of you fellows supported this image-

- in the Music and Dance.

Thanks Provocateur (talk)

WikiWomen's History Month[edit]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Basque will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in within Basque society. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


New WikiProject[edit]

Location Tamil Eelam territorial claim.png Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Tamil Eelam. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes relating to Tamil Eelam. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja

Third party sought[edit]

I'm looking for a third party to review a content dispute. Ordinarily, I'd go to WP:3O, but the topic is particularly related to this WikiProject, so I hoped to find a more knowledgeable person here to help.

The dispute is over content presently located at User:Itzcoatzin. This user originally created a page that presently resides at Zambrano (surname), presenting a history of this surname and its notable holders. I and other editors edited the original author's work rather heavily, producing the version that exists today. Itzcoatzin wished to continue developing his version of the article, and has produced his present version on his user page. He then asked for feedback on his version, which I provided. Itzcoatzin is not satisfied with my evaluation of his work.

I would like an independent reviewer to look at Itzcoatzin's work and provide an unbiased opinion, as this user believes that I have not been fair with his work. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

EuskoTran requested move[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:EuskoTran#Requested move. -- Trevj (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Information assistance request for article "Cider mill"[edit]

Greetings. I am working on rebuilding and upgrading the existing article for "cider mill", about the process by which apples are crushed to make apple juice for cider. When I was going through the images and articles of Wikimedia, I found that there is a significant cider-making culture in the Basque Country. However, most of the sources readily available to me primarily discuss cider-milling in Britain, France, Germany, and the US. I want to make sure the Basque tradition is represented, yet as I am unable to provide any reliable sources in that respect, would anyone either know of any I could use (i.e. reliable digital ones) or otherwise be able to assist on that article? Cheers. Morgan Riley (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Morgan. Nice to hear that you want to include the Basque cider tradition. There's a fair amount on Wikipedia already, most on the Sagardotegi article (which is what the Basques call their peculiar mix of a cider mill/cider restaurant. It probably covers a lot of what you're thinking of but if you can see any gaps, let me know and we'll sort something. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Aha, excellent. I'll try to make sure that the Sagardotegi article gets better links to it as well, as it seems to have fallen under my radar. Thanks! Morgan Riley (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured portal review[edit]

Portal:Basque has been nominated for a featured portal review and may lose its status as a featured portal. Reviewers' concerns are set out here. Please leave your comments (which can include "keep" or "delist") and help the portal to be of featured quality. The instructions for the review process are here. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)