Talk:Galicia

From WP:RfD:

Galicia (disambiguation) is not needed because Galicia is already the disambiguation page. --Hottentot 04:42, 8 July 2005
- Keep, it has existed for over a year and there is no pressing reason to remove it. - SimonP 16:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  - But there's no reason to not delete it!!! --Hottentot
    - It could be linked to externally, and almost certainly is given the numbers of mirrors out there. - SimonP 13:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Cleduc 06:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be tempted to switch the two (with the actual disambig at Galicia (disambiguation), for the reasons given here. Noel (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there's any reason to swtich the two. Just delete Galicia (disambiguation)!!! --Hottentot
- Delete useless IMO. No one is going to type "Galicia (diasmbiguation)" into the go box... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - there are a huge number of examples like these and they do no harm. I regularly type "... (diasmbiguation)" into go boxes --Henrygb 21:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion about deleting this page, or the other? I don't see either listed at WP:RfD. —Michael Z. 2005-07-26 16:02 Z

Galicia Name

Concerning the name Galicia from Ukrainian / Polish Galicia (Galitzia, Galicja...) I have confirmed through prof. dr. Hab. Marek Waldenberg from Jagiellonian University, Krakow, that it comes from the name of Halicz. This seems to be the most logical and accepted origin. In Galicia (Spain) the name comes from the roman province of Gallaecia, from the same root as "Gaul" or "Gauloises": it is a name given by the roman historians in several places where "gaelic" tribes were found. It also served to mark large areas difficult to keep under control, because of the resistance of tribes such as the "Galli" in modern france, who shared with the Galician / Britons / Celts large parts of their culture and social organization.

Pablo Dopico. MA in Political Science and Researcher at the University Complutense of Madrid.

Galicia, Spain vs. disambiguation page issue (1)

In my honest opinion this page should be the article for Galicia (Spain). Galicia (disambiguation) should be where the disambiguation page is. --Revolución (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

should the Galicias be separated and disambiguated? If so, how? Galicia (Spain) vs Galicia (Austria)? Somehow I anticipate problems coming up with a name for the one around Lvov... -- Someone else 02:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As for the name for the second Galicia-page: if "Galicia (Eastern-Europe)" is considered problematic (for it could also be Middle-Europe), we could choose "Galicia (Carpathians)". It avoids putting into brackets the name of a country which Galicia does not longer, or not exclusively belong to. Fransvannes 08:11, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I rather like the Galicia (Carpathians) or Galicia (Eastern Europe) solutions. Will wait a bit till others voice their opinions before making changes, though I think. ---Someone else 08:30, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why not a disambiguation page like the one for Fatima? Portcult 13:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This page can be improved. The tables on Galicia are conflicting, with one going into the other. The English must be worked on and the information at the bottom about the other Galicia should not be on this page. It comes almost as an afterthought and a reader looking fo the non-Spanish Galicia would have a chore finding it.

The statement that Spanish (Castillian)"is not the socially dominant language, both languages are oficials (sic.) and well-spoken by the majority of the population" has to be modified as information from the official sites about Galicia say the opposite. "In the towns, Galician is only maintained by a minority of culturally motivated families. Research shows that only 4_5% of today's young town-dwellers claim Galician as their mother tongue, although virtually all of them understand it and over 90% can speak it." from Euromosaic The book I have for learning Galego, Galego para vos, also gives statistics on use and they don't show Galego to be the dominant language. Portcult 08:05, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the table showing Spanish autonomous regions, since it was overlapping with the table about Galicia and should be in a separate article. I have also added much more detail to the article and will work on articles for the different cities in Galicia, which, since I live nearby, I know very well. Portcult 22:07, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Semi-disambiguation" done. Galicia now links to this article, and is presumed to refer to the Spanish region; Galicia (Eastern Europe) links to the article on the Eastern European region. I didn't do a full disambiguation because MOST references are to the Spanish Galicia: if anyone wants to do a full disambiguation it would require moving this article to Galicia (Spain), creating a disambiguation page here and changing the current Galicia links to Galicia (Spain) links. I'm not convinced that's the way to go but leave it to you all to decide. -- Someone else 23:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is very improbable that the name of the Eastern-European Galicia is derived from the Gauls, for this would require evidence for Celtic settlement in this area (is there any?), and one would have to ignore the very place name Halicz (Halich), which is the most obvious source. Fransvannes 21:37, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What about Galatia in Anatolia? Is this one of those European sorepoints? There seem to be so many... Wetman 23:21, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to have the country and its language properly referred to in English as Galiza and Galizan respectively, with the terms Galicia and Galician used to refer back to them? Incidentally, sicne the spelling reform of 2003, both forms are now considered legitimate by the Galizan Royal Academt.

Considered legitimate by the Academy for use in English? That would seem unlikely. Of course, even if they did so, they would have no jurisdiction over the English language. — Gulliver ✉ 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i don't remember ever saying that the Galizan Royal academy had made pronouncements over English usage nor that they had any authority to do so - that is something you have insinuated for yourself. all that i was saying was that against the oft-cited claims that not even official galizan language authorities recognise the form 'galizan', since the latest language/spelling reform this is no longer the case.

Río grande

"Also, the rio grande, contrary to popular belief, separates Mexico from Texas; not Spain from Portugal."

What? Who on earth thinks the río Grande is in Europe? — Gulliver ✉ 21:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's another river called Río Grande in north-east of Lugo --Alyssalover^(talk) 13:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, interesting. The statement is still wrong though.

You should add the Galician río Grande to Rio Grande (disambiguation). — Gulliver ✉ 14:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallegos in Latin America

I'm not sure about the accuracy of "Spaniards of all regions" being referred to as "gallegos" in most Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. I know that is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. It is said in the article that same happens in Brazil. However, I'm positive this is not the case in Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, etc.

Obvious resaon is most Spanish migration to Argentina was from Galicia, which does not hold for the other countries. I'm editing out the claim accordingly.

Economy

I think the second sentence in this section would be clearer and less redundant if written as in the following, but I would like someone to double check that this does not cange the intended meaning.

While the western coast, with its major population centres, and its fishing and manufacturing industries is prosperous and increasing in population, the rural hinterland—the provinces of Ourense and Lugo—are econonomical dependent on traditional agriculture, based on small landholdings called minifundios.

What do you think? Vivafelis 05:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says: In 1990, Manuel Fraga won the presidenticial elections by a landslide victory. From then he ruled the autonomous community as a facist dictator. Fraga placed heavy restrictions upon Galician press and television. In 2002, a protest took place outside the Galician Parliament. It ended with the brutal torture of the protestors under the orders of Fraga. However in 2005, the Galician people finally rose up against the facist governemt and Fraga was overthrown. Now for the first time in 15 long years, Galicia enjoys democracy.

All is FALSE.

¿Torture protestors? ¿When?

¿Restrictions upon Galician press and television? ¿When?

¿You are fouls? ¿Its Wikipedia a communist or extreme left politic propaganda?

___________________

I'm a Galician, and definitively no Fraga supporter at all, but I'm ashamed to read what has been writen in this article. It gives que poorest impresion of our country to anybody who decides to read it. "facist tyrant"? What kind of a neutral assesment is that? Have you ever read an encyclopedia? As for the rest of the historical background, better not going into details (never heard in my life about that "last Celtic speaker" in the 15th Century, And I'm a linguist!). The article is fool of esculation, invention and bias. What a same.

Fraga is -as he was- a tyrant indeed, and he used democracy as a mere way of going backwards in time. His success as a "democratic" politician is based more in fear than in actual good management of the country. Galicia is still way behind UE wealth indicators and the gap is widening. The stories about tortures, press censorship, etc are quite an exaggeration, but not 100% false.

Fraga is nothing more than a war criminal and a fascist tyrant who used fear to rule over the Galicia region. He held Galicia back behind the rest of Europe and that is why Galicia is the poorest area in Spain! It is Fraga who is to blame! In my view he should be placed on trial like Saddam Huessien for war crimes after his public support for Franco and his dictatorial regime. I thank God that he is out of power in my land, now maybe Galicia can become rich and have a stable economy now that Fraga is gone.

Galicia, Spain vs. disambiguation page issue (2)

In my honest opinion this page should be the article for Galicia (Spain). Galicia (disambiguation) should be where the disambiguation page is. --Revolución (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, I strongly disagree. It may seem from the Spanish perspective that one Galicia is way more notable than the other one and is much more likely to be meant by someone who enters "Galicia" in the search string, but from the Eastern European perspective it is exactly the opposite way. As such, the solution that was used until now for a long time was neutral and suited everyone. Such moves should not be done without probeing proposed first and giving other sides some time to have a say. --Irpen 03:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ships

I've reverted an edit which added unlinked entries for several ships of the Spanish Navy. Per MOS:DABENTRY, each line should contain exactly one blue link. None of these ships have articles, and also don't appear to be linked from any other articles. It would be best to move these to a separate ship index article called Spanish ship Galicia, à la Spanish ship Argonauta. That could then be linked from this disambiguation page. Nick Number (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlined the page

This page was a mess, and in dire need of being simplified. Over time, it had become extremely bloated, with the addition of much unnecessary information that rather than helping the reader find the correct Galicia article, instead made it harder. Really, only two links are relevant here: Galicia (Spain), and Galicia (Eastern Europe).

With the bloat, those two links became widely separated and buried in a morasse of irrelevant trivia, indeed so much so that a table of contents was automatically generated, with five sections in it! More specifically per WP policy: the bloat violates WP:NAMELIST: Do not add a link that merely... includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference. In addition, the descriptions for the two valid links violated WP:DABNOINCLUDE, so I simplified them as well. Please do not re-add a removed link without justifying it per WP policy.Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with these removals, except for Galicia Jewish Museum which fails WP:PTM. All of the other entries could legitimately be referred to as "Galicia", and it is exactly the purpose of a disambiguation page to list them. The (Spain) and (Eastern Europe) entries were prominent in the previous layout, with the other geographical entries subordinate to them, so there was no lack of clarity. If Galicia, Aklan fails notability requirements then the article should be deleted, but the dab should keep a link to it until that happens. Nick Number (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Number: I see your point, and I could conceivably be persuaded, but am not there, yet. For starters, I'd bet my paycheck that the two region links account for 99% (maybe 100%) of the clicks off that page. The main thing that bothered me with the old page, was the large physical separation between the two, with so much clutter between them, I had trouble finding the Poland one. That, to me, felt like interfering with usability, making the page less helpful to readers. That was the main point I was trying to address. In fact, I wouldn't really have a big problem with a version of the page which started off with the standard "may refer to" followed by two bullets, the Spain one and the Poland/Ukraine one, followed by a H2 section header "Other uses", along with a list of kingdoms, ships, and what-have-you, alphabetically, or by concept, or by whatever method. Mainly, I just wanted to see the two regional links at the top, and set off from any others as I see it, clutter. As I started to do that, I then got into what is really a second, separate, issue, namely: how many of the "Other uses" links should there be, and conflated the two.

In retrospect, I should have treated these two issues in separate edits so they could have been discussed separately, and it was probably a mistake not to. But given where we are now, can we discuss the first point first, namely, how do you feel about having the two region links at the top, and whatever other links we subsequently reach consensus on, further down under a separate heading? If we can get past the first issue, I think we can reach agreement on the second one without too much trouble. Mathglot (talk)

As an addendum, I note that User:Boleyn undid without explanation part of what we are talking about as "issue one" (the two regional links prominently at the top) so I brought it back to roughly where it was for that part of the discussion. (Boleyn, if you're here, can you kindly use Edit Summary to explain your main space edits, especially when they amount to a revert? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support User:Nick Number's argument that this previous layout should have been retained and the following: *Gallaecia [which has never been listed on this dab page], *Kingdom of Gallaecia, *Kingdom of Galicia, *Republic of Galicia, *Nueva Galicia, *Galicia, Madalag, Aklan, *Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, *Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and *West Galicia should be visible on this disambiguation page as individual entries. All of the entries marked with an asterisk are not even stubs, but full-fledged separate articles detailing the shifting historical progressions of the Spanish and Ukrainian-Polish region, respectively, as well as some additional entries listing places for which the Spanish region served as namesake. The removal of these entries from the Galicia disambiguation page diminishes that page's usefulness without a directly specified corresponding gain in clarity. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the starred ones are marked as stubs, and at least one is a one-line article, just for the record, though I don't really think that affects things pro, or con. I wasn't addressing the removal yet, I'm addressing usability, namely the advisability (or not) of keeping the two likeliest links together at the top. I don't think every link on the page should get equal prominence, if their underlying topics don't have the same weight. What we do after those two links, I don't really care much. If everyone thinks the other stuff should be there, then fine, let's just set it off lower down, so the 99% find what they're looking for right away. I'm not the first to notice this--ages ago, an unsigned user said more or less the same thing (search-on-page "chore"). Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following up: I searched around to see if there's a policy that actually elucidates what I'm trying to do, and lo and behold, there is: MOS:DABORDER - point #1 nails it. Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first time at the page, so I didn't know about any history or that it might amount to a revert. It did, however, keep the two most likely at the top. I divided it into sections, partially with an eye to if Galician was merged here. It doesn't particularly need them. Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, if you put those two entries at the top of the page, how do you organize the ones for all of the other entities which were located within those regions? Throwing them all into one section is too jumbled, and if you make separate headings for them then you're wasting lines and putting them farther away from the entries they're logically associated with. It still seems to me that what makes the most sense is to leave them as subordinate bullets.

Looking at the original entries, Galician Massif appears to fail WP:PTM as well, so it could be removed.

Here is my proposal: a restoration of the previous layout, but with Galician Massif and Galicia Jewish Museum removed, Gallaecia added per Roman Spinner's suggestion, and a few other style fixes. In that arrangement, Galicia (Spain) and Galicia (Eastern Europe) are the first two first-level bullets, and the first and sixth entries overall. I realize it still appears a little cluttered, but I can't think of a more efficient way. Nick Number (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can I. Nick Number's above suggestion is both logical and reasonable, including all the obvious titles and excluding the ones which appear in a form that stretches the bounds of partial title matches or related subjects. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we need to make a decision on this. There seems to be consensus that many of the previous entries should be restored. The remaining question is the layout. I've created these two sample pages in my userspace:

I think these reflect the two competing viewpoints from this discussion. Can we agree on one of them? Nick Number (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support #2 - that is, Spain and Eastern Europe entries at the top. Withdraw any other objections if this or something substantially similar is chosen. Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Nick Number already pointed out, there was nothing wrong with the version of 28 May, which was compliant and self-explanatory. I'm seeing a lot of good editors wasting a lot of their good time on this trivial issue. --Midas02 (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so that's one vote by Mathglot for "Spain and Eastern Europe entries at the top". I support "All geographic entries in one section". Midas02 supports the 28 May revision, which is substantially the same as "All geographic entries in one section" in layout, and differs only in the inclusion of some entries. Roman Spinner previously expressed support for the "All geographic entries in one section" layout.
So, unless anyone has strong objections, I am going to change the dab to the "All geographic entries in one section" layout. Nick Number (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks everyone for keeping the discussion constructive. Nick Number (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Galician here

These pages are mostly duplicates of each other, although there is one extra entry on the Galician page that would be merged here, leaving Galician as a useful redirect. Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sending WP:APPNOTE to Mathglot and Dannycas. Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's true that as it stands now, a merge appears to be a good idea, but these entries should never have been deleted. It's become standard for pretty much every demonym to have a dab for, at a minimum, "<foo> people" and "<foo> language". In this case, with more than one geographical location, it's even more necessary. As I will argue in the section above in a minute, I think most of these entries should be restored to Galicia, so merging in the ones from Galician would result in unnecessary clutter. Nick Number (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will argue that by WP policy and guidelines they indeed should be deleted, but I will wait for your comments before proceeding. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose me too, your "standard procedure for demonyms" is what swayed me. Also, I see there's two different topics, here. Regarding <foo> people and <foo> language, I see what you mean--I was reading "Galician" strictly as an adjective (Galician wine, culture, etc.) and those seemed pretty wrong to me per WP:NAMELIST, and by that time, I had the idea of "adjective" fixed in my head. But you're right, obviously it can be a noun, too, meaning "Galician language" in the same way that "German" by itself is a noun meaning "German language", and ditto for "a German" or "Germans" meaning the people, so "a Galician" makes sense as a noun, and in the same way that German people redirects to "Germans" and American people to [{Americans]] (but Galicians to "Galician people--an aberration?) so in the end, keeping the Galician disambig page makes sense.

So, if it's true that it has become customary to have <foo> people and <foo> language for every demonym, then you're right, this page should be kept for consistency's sake.

As an aside, I don't see how it really improves the encyclopedia or helps readers much to have every nationality have its own disambig page just for the people/language duo when the country article will inevitably have links to both (although there might be other reasons on a case-by-case basis), but that battle appears to have been lost, and I don't feel strongly enough to take it on anyway; at worst, they are pages that will have little utility but do not mislead. I imagine people looking for the people will continue to type "Germans" or "Galicians" and immediately access the page they want, and people looking for the language will type "German" or "Galician", and have to click once more instead of going straight to the page; annoying, but not worth a fight.

The question of whether all those ships and kingdoms should be on the page or not should be addressed in a separate thread. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, again, per User:Nick Number's presentation which persuasively specifies the detailed arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed keep as is, Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]