Talk:Galicia (Spain)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Galicia, Spain)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Galicia    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Galicia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Spain (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Celts (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Galicia (Spain) is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


What currency do they use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

EURO -- (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Can we get someone to sort out the pronunciation guide with some proper IPA. The current description is rather lacking for a couple of reasons. Firstly, ESP used to refer to Castilian in contrast to another language from Spain doesn't really make sense and may well be disapproved of by many Spanish people and secondly, many castilian speakers would also pronounce the c similarly to an English th.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2009

   All Things Considered today reported on the abandonment (and availability for purchase!) of whole rural villages in the region. The correspondent consistently pronounced the name with an English K sound where the C (followed by I) occurs. I'm inclined to guess that it reflects the garbled recollection of one person's accurate briefing on the topic. But if the linguistic variation (beyond rare ignoramuses) is greater than one would expect, or there are (nearby?) minority languages among whom the K sound is correct it would IMO be worthy of a parenthetical phrase qualifying what we already have.
   (At least one bizarre possibility is hinted at by the ancient tie between the modern Galicians and the descendants of (Celtic) Galician veterans of Roman legions, who settled en masse in the north (IIRC) of Asia Minor and to whom were addressed Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. I wouldn't want to guess how such ties, or garbled awareness of them, could produce some otherwise bizarre linguistic variations.)
--Jerzyt 22:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
   Hmmm, Galatians (people) suggests i may have invented at least the "legions" part.
--Jerzyt 22:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


I added Nacho Novo to the sports section as he is well known in Scotland and has received international call-ups recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricksen (talkcontribs) 16:58, December 27, 2006 (UTC)

Nacho has never been capped for Spain. He is not a well know Galician, I would personally not include him as he is not really well know there. If you have prove of him ever playing for Spain, please feel free to prove me wrong PatrickC (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's played for Galicia...isn't that enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nacho Novo has been called up to play for Galicia's non-FIFA recognised national team against various international sides (Uruguay, Cameroon, Equador and Iran), but was never actually released by his club, glasgow Rangers, where he is a bit of a legend among fans. Whether he is a "well known Galician" or not depends largely on how familiar you are with Rangers, Scottish football, or Football in general...there are people in parts of Africa who have never heard of Michael Jackson! Xoancarlos (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Galicia & Galiza?[edit]

Could someone fill me in on the words Galicia and Galiza? I always thought Galiza was the Galician word for Galicia. But on this article, the Galician name, I see "Comunidade Autónoma de Galicia" instead of "Comunidade ... Galiza." Furthermore, on the Galician Wikipedia, there are two articles, one for Galicia and the other for Galiza. What gives? --Chris S. 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry but nationality that became a comunitis is just WRONG who did that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:09, June 7, 2007 (UTC)
BNG as a political party (I'm not talking about personal postures of its members) is not independentist (independence from Spain is not part of their political agenda) but nationalist (what is part of their agenda is the political recognision of Galiza as a nation and the achievement of a more important degree of self-government). Source: (in Galician) Please edit it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:26, June 16, 2007 (UTC)

Galiza is a term of medieval origin. Alfonso Castelao, a nationalist writer and politician, used it in his work "Sempre en Galiza", and now it´s used in the nationalism. Actually Galicia and Galiza are officials and correct terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:51, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen Galiza for Galicia in the English language, so I'm not sure if it should be there along side Galicia as if it were used in English. Can anyone find a source that gives Galiza in English instead of Galicia? Kman543210 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed there is little-to-none record of Galiza as used in English to designate the region. It is not even official in Galicia, but just the preferred term of some nationalist groups, but that doesnt suffice for inclusion in the lead here. Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"Galiza" is a less used term for the region, usually by people who don't identify themselves with Spain. Still, any Google or Yahoo! search reveals thousands of sources where "Galiza" is used in English. Myself, I have heard it in English more than once. I am therefore restoring the Galiza mentioned on the top, it's verifiable. Húsönd 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's used in English, then you should be able to provide a source for this. I don't doubt that someone may use the term Galiza to identify with the region and not Spain, but he would not be speaking English if he were from Galicia. No one is saying that it is not used by some when they are speaking Spanish or Galician, but this is the English wikipedia, and it is not called Galiza in English. Even if a few people from that region that also spoke English used that term, it still would not be enough to say it's an alternative term. Kman543210 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not much of a particular source is required for this, just usage verification. Here. A lot of myspaces and blogs indeed, but also many occurrences in otherwise valid sources written in English. Húsönd 14:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Following naming conventions for greographic locations: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). " -- (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple Google word counts is not recommended in naming conventions:

Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name. One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted. Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on false positives below. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted. Enter the proposed move at WP:RM. If it is the consensus that a given name is the English name, then it is presumably widely accepted.

If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted.

from naming conventions for geographic locations. -- (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are guidelines for determining the titles of articles. Not for determining variants that are easily verifiable online and should therefore always be mentioned. Húsönd 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If anyone still wants published sources, I might cite an article published by me in the type A acdamic journal "Terminology". Just for the record, I am a native English-speaker, living in Galiza and fluent in Galizan, which is my every-day language. The reference is:
Baxter, Robert Neal. 2004. “Terminology setting for ‘minority’ languages within an ultra prescriptive framework: A case study of corpus planning in Galizan”. Terminology 10:2, 265–280.
You can contact me on the Breton-language version of the Wikipedia Neal —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Galiza" is the medival term for Galicia. It is also the sole Portuguese name for the Galicia (many Galicians favour Galician language harmonisation with Portuguese, hence the preference for Portuguese spellings). Alongside "Galicia" it was accepted by the Real Academia do Galego (RAG) as an acceptable alternative spelling. However, its use is politicised and generally restricted to speakers/writers with nationalist views or in higher-register literary/romantic contexts. It was given official acceptance by the RAG at a time when the Nationalists were the junior coalition party running the Galician government (Xunta), alongside the PSdG-PSOE, and increasing became more prevalent in official use. This trend has reversed since the Spanish Nationalist Popular Party took over control of the governent in 2008. "Galiza" should not be used in English as it has no historical background in the English language (the closest would be Chaucer's reference to "Galiz") and would be a little like saying "Deutshland" instead of "Germany". Likewise, teh frequent use of "Catalunya" instead of "Catalonia" in English texts. Xoancarlos (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


Isn't this article a little heavy on the pictures in the History section? They do help understanding, but they get in the way of reading, and make it a little hard to follow. Perhaps they should be moved all over to the right. Then they wouldn't interrupt the reading, but they could still be included.Esk3 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it how it is.--Filll (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, should we put the list of provinces into a table with the two columns for the early and late ones? I believe that it would show the changes between time periods in the best way possible. The rest of it looks great and this bit just has a lot of white space in it. A table showing the change would fill the space nicely and make it easier to understand. Esk3 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


I removed the map due to two reasons: it was mixing the Suebic Kingdom with Galicia Kingdom (for example, Asturias or León were part of the former but not of the latter), and the extension of the Basque People which is totally wrong, covering parts of Cantabria which have not been Basque ever . I think that the Visigoth Kingdom never comprised the Basque Lands, either, as it is suggested in the map.--Xareu bs (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Maybe it can be linked the provinces with actual links, for example: — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1b2c3c4 (talkcontribs) 13:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2[edit]

Prior to February, 2010, I had to delete twice the information: "ISO 3166-2: GA", because it was wrong - GA is the ISO 3166-2 code for the african country of Gabon. As of February 2010, the ISO introduced the "ES-GA" code for Galicia ("ES" for Spain, "GA" por Galicia as a subdivision of Spain).-Ignacio Agulló

Need more eyes on this[edit]

Could someone familiar with this article and the related etymology take a look at what was added here: Cailleach#Galicia. The sources are largely non-English, and I must admit I am suspicious of something that claims to be WP:RS that's not even mentioned here in the main article... and when the sources aren't really WP:V for many users of en-wiki. Thanks! - Kathryn NicDhàna 00:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I decided to delete some of it, and I suspect more should go. I'm suspicious as the Cailleach is mentioned nowhere in this article on Galicia. This is what it looked like before the edit: - Kathryn NicDhàna 00:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

more material from es-wiki[edit]

I'm in the process of translating a lot of material from es-wiki. It is certainly far more extensive than what we've had here, but it doesn't seem nearly as well-researched as some of the es-wiki articles for some other autonomous communities (and even those are nowhere near what we in en-wiki generally consider "good article" status). But it's not awful, and I'm tightening wordings as I go (and even finding some additional references). Should be a general improvement, and certainly a major expansion. However, someone may wish to go through in my wake and see if we can deepen the quality. - Jmabel | Talk 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also doing some translations from the Spanish Wikipedia. I tend to find that sometimes information from tourist guides is used. Is this a proper or acceptable form of citation?--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Current struggle over language[edit]

I specifically did not bring over the following, at least not for now.

Sin embargo, pese a todo, el 30 de diciembre de 2009 se aprobó un decreto que rebajará el uso del gallego en la administración pública, por parte de los funcionarios de la Junta de Galicia o de los Ministerios estatales, y sobre todo, afecta a la educación. ... <ref>[]</ref> La sociedad, que habitualmente no da gran relevancia a las problemáticas lingüísticas, sin embargo, ha rechazado este nuevo decreto (un 90% de los sindicatos de profesores no lo apoyan, y el 100% de las asociaciones estudiantiles se oponen a él, así como la federación de ANPAs públicas y movimientos de renovación pedagógica).<ref>{{cita web |url= |título= A Mesa pola Normalización Lingüística}}</ref>

I left this out because (1) it is apparently a current dispute, and we might as well wait until it is more settled to cover it and (2) because this is all based on material directly or indirectly from A Mesa pola Normalización Lingüística, it is rather one-sided: I have no idea what the government is actually proposing. If someone knows enough about this to flesh it out evenhandedly, we could mention it even while it is a current struggle. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


This infobox is the one all the Spain's ACs use. I didn't blank the previous one, I just replaced it. The old infobox had a lot of unnecessary, repeated info which any other country subdivision article's hasn't: Bavaria, Lombardia, Rhône-Alpes. Icallbs (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The various articles you have mentioned are all based on the same code from (Infobox settelement) infobox, it's just that the other editors have obviously just copied parts of it created their own national variations - which they shouldn't have done as we should be attempting to normalise all infoboxes related to various types settlements. The Spanish AC's template is exactly the same as the one I have provide, except that some of the fields were not added. With regard to the "unnecessary" information I beg to differ. Are the constituting provinces unnecessary? The seats in the various regional and national legislature? I have left the whole template is so that others editors can fill it in the relevant information. (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but templates are just that, templates, and almost always they're customized (like in those cases, or like in the American states, or basically any country or country subdivision article), cause a country subdivision's article's infobox hasn't to have the same information as a country's one. For example, the provinces are mentioned in the article, the "devolved government..." thing takes 2 lines, the "Xunta de Galicia", which is linked to in the article and further down in the proper infobox, takes another one... And, apart from that, every other AC article use this infobox, so I'll restore it. Icallbs (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for reverts (I have already attempted to reach a compromise by eliminating some of the superfluous fields):

  • Native name - This field is only used if it differs from the English name. In any case, the Comunidad Autónoma... name should actually be in the official name field.
  • Coordinates region - See ISO 3166-2:ES for why I have added ES-GA.
  • Anthem - Deleted. Why?
  • Provinces - In the same way a province has the administrative level directly below it listed - the comarcas - I fail to see the reason why the region shouldn't have it's provinces listed. The infobox should provide the important information relating to the article at a glance.
  • Government type - Galicia does have a devolved government. Despite not being a sovereign state it has almost the same powers, at a regional level, as Wales or Scotland (see
  • Population Denonym - If the field already exists within the infobox (population_denonym) why are you replacing it with a blank field in the demographics section?
  • Legislature - The Galician Parliament part has been deleted. I have shortened "Congress of Deputies" to "Congress" and "Spanish Senate" to "Senate" so it would only take up a line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


There is no section for any events that have happened and affected Galicia, and how it has changed in that way... That is what i was looking for on this page and it's the one thing i can't find out? Can this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist propaganda[edit]

I've recently begun to see alot of people attempting to push nationalist "propaganda" into the article. Instead of expanding the Sports section with sports that are actually popular in Galicia, such as maritime sports such as traineras, we're seeing people trying to generally mislead by pushing the most obscure things just to prove just "how different we are" from Spain.

  • The game of billarda is neither popular nor unique. It's basically a child's pastime, similar to that of gilli danda/tip-cat/pee-wee. I can barely find an article from big regional newspapers that refer to it.
  • Rugby is a minority sport in Galicia, even more so than in the rest of central Spain. The only interest in it that I've personally seen has been as a result of the success of Vigo's Iveco Rugby club. They might as well claim American football is popular, given that A Coruña has a team competing in the Portuguese league.
  • Gaelic football is not played at all in Galicia - I've only managed to find an article of an exhibition game played in A Coruña and IMO is nothing more that an attempt to shoe-horn a sport played by our "Celtic brothers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Re. Gaelic football, there are now several teams in Galicia, Fillos de Breogan (Corunna), Artabros (Oleiros), Irmandinhos (Estrada), SDG Corvos (Pontevedra), and Suevia (Santiago de Compostela) with talk of creating a Galician league (Faro de Vigo, 24/10/12 Galicia also fielded a national Gaelic football side (recognised as national by the GAA) that beat Britanny in July 2012 and was reported in the Spanish national press (

With regards to Rugby, this has a considerable--stronger than in most areas outside Catalonia and the Basque Country--following in Galicia, although the success of local teams is hampered by the absence of experienced ex-pat players from English-speaking countries typically seen at teams based on the Mediterranean coast or in the big cities. Galicia has a long established Rugby Federation ( that organises its own womens, childrens and mens leagues. Galicia has also fielded a national side for friendly matches against other regions of Spain and Portugal. A team of ex-pat Galicians in Salvador, Brazil have also formed Galicia Rugby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoancarlos (talkcontribs) 12:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Name Origin[edit]

This is a translation (using Google Translate) of the Galician Wikipedia's entry for the origin of the name "Galicia":

The name "Galiza" and "Galicia" is derived from the Latin word Galicia (or Callaecia), literally meaning "land of galaicos." The galaicos (Latin: Galicia, in Greek: Καλλαϊκοί) were the most numerous people in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula since before its integration to the Roman Empire in the first century BC, although some authors believe that originally the term "Galician" was used to describe a small tribe to the north of the Douro river, is the case, this name was eventually called an entire ethnic group of Celtic language and culturally homogeneous, located between the Bay of Biscay and the Douro river [5].
The first historical reference of galaicos, goes back to the year 136 BC when the Roman general Brutus Tenth june Galaico returns to Rome, after his victorious campaign against war two previously unknown peoples, and lusitanos galaicos receiving the self-Roman Senate the title of Gallaecus or "Galician" in honor of the last military expedition against these [6]. After these first contacts, the Greco-Latin world will describe their country as Galicia, as did Strabo, Appian, and Pliny, among others. Does this name Galicia that will evolve for over 13 centuries, and eventually adopt the ways "Galiza" and "Galicia".
More controversial is, however, the original meaning of the term Gallaicus (Galician) and consequently of Galicia. The author who first theorized about it was Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century who explained that the name "Galician" alluded to the skin white as milk that had its inhabitants, similar to the inhabitants of Gaul [7]. Are many subsequent authors who attempt to seek the meaning of this name, such as Alfonso X the Wise, Ramon Barros sible or Murguía, but now tends to relate to étimos the Celtic languages​​, and Indo-European in general, so the exact meaning of the word is, at present, unknown.

There appears to be more on the subject than is in the English Wikipedia article. Ileanadu (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I am adding some more info. Not too much, I hope.--Froaringus (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

From Galicia (Spain) to Galicia, Spain request move.[edit]

From Galicia (Spain) to Galicia, Spain request move.Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please: The photo of the President of Galicia, Feijoo, with a drug dealer named Dorado on a beach, have 20 years old, when they were very youngs, and at that time Dorado was not yet a hachis narco. In the text, it is implied that the photo is from 2013, but that is the year the photo was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

summary before the table of contents far too long[edit]

The history paragraph in the summary should be moved to the history section below. Maybe leave the autonomy statute sentence, and that is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm not going to get in an edit war, but the Wikipedia article spells the caldo article with 2 Ls (Caldo gallego). So you guys spell it as you like.MartinezMD (talk)

Hi. The issue is not about the name of the "caldo gallego" article (name which can be amended); it is about the lack of "(wikip) officiality" of that or another spelling. An example: we have this article about colour, which in fact redirects to color, with British spelling. But there are 10,000 of instances of the word "colour" in the Wiki, and those are perfectly OK. Cheers.--Froaringus (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand, although the color/colour issue is US vs British spelling, and not directly analogous. So is gallego wrong? if so, should that article be respelled? and if not, why aren't we aligning the spelling? That is my point. MartinezMD (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. No, “Gallego” is not wrong: it is Spanish spelling; and “galego” is neither wrong: it is Galician spelling. When an editor decides to use caldo galego (Galician broth, or simply broth) and not caldo gallego, is her or his free decision to do so. Substituting the Galician form by the Spanish form is not simply “aligning spellings”, it is substituting one language by another, with all the given implications. Of course, if a reason is coherently adduced for that (let's say, English speakers are familiar with one form, and not with the other, or one of the forms is absolutelly obscure) then I can say “Oh, it's OK, you're right”, but this is not the case. So, here and now, I'm totally against this substitution. Cheers.--Froaringus (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs an air quality section. Seems to have relatively little Saharan dust or heavy industry, but does have sulfate & mercury from a large coal plant[edit]

The largest polluter in Europe is the brown coal burning power plant) located at As Pontes de García Rodríguez in the outskirts of Ferrol in the province of A Coruña, in Galicia, Spain. The plant is held by Spanish utility Endesa. Its 356 metre high chimney is named "Endesa Termic," and is the second tallest chimney in Europe.

Category:Coal-fired power stations in Spain

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Galicia (Spain). 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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ [Nóvoa-Muñoz, JC (2008 May). "Mercury accumulation in upland acid forest ecosystems nearby a coal-fired power-plant in southwest Europe (Galicia, NW Spain).". Sci Total Environ. 15 (394(2-3)): 303-12. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.01.044. PMID 18295823. Retrieved 29 July 2014.  Check date values in: |date= (help)