This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. PeterSymonds(talk) 00:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Vitoria-Gasteiz in both languages (basque and spanish) has been moved into Vitoria, Spain without any reason. So, the way to go is to move this article from Vitoria, Spain to Vitoria-Gasteiz (over redirect). Zoriontalk 1:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The city is usually called Vitoria in English, as in Battle of Vitoria. The qualification to Vitoria, Spain, is perhaps to avoid confusion with Vitória. For me, the article's present name is all right. Xn4 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If I follow the same concept, you should probably call Stalingrad city for Battle of Stalingrad ..... oops. It's Volgograd since 1961 in english. But who knows Volgograd ? The same for Vitoria-Gasteiz. I know this town and it's actually in both names for roughly 25 years from now. Zoriontalk 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should English usage follow the usage of a non-English standard or officialdom? If "Vitoria" is the common english name as claimed by Xn4, it should not be renamed. Note that "Londres" is not the official English name, but it is the French name for "London". So... if the most common english name is "Vitoria-Gasteiz", then it should be renamed, but not because it is official. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Vitoria-Gasteiz is official. I don't know why Basque and Irish placenames are the only ones that seem not to follow the criterium of officiality. Or actually I do know: because there is alot of ethnocentrism for the big empires.
In any case it should never be "Vitoria, Spain", because that it is a contentious claim. It is POV. --Sugaar (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Vitoria is in Spain indeed. Asteriontalk 08:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Lots of places don't use official names. I fail to see why we should use the official name, when it isn't used. Look around (ie. look beyond Eurocentrism) and you'll find several places that are NOT named the official way. The fact that Europe is named in such a manner means that it's not named properly, since we should be using common english names. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This town is hardly mentioned in English enough for a "common English name" to be easily established. Either proposed form works, so I really believe this one is up to preference. The hyphenated form is more "official" (and probably more widely used these days) and "neutral", but the "Spain" form is just as accurate and probable more informative for anybody who doesn't happen to know that the Spanish Vitoria is also Gasteiz. Srnec (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Support Humm this isn't helpful guys. An encyclopedia may *mention* common usage but doesn't take common usage as the measure of all things. To cite but one example, in common chinese usage, Britain and England are referred to with the same term, 英國, even though there is an "official" name for Britain (大不列顛島). Scotland is usually brushed under the carpet too. I don't think anyone would therefore suggest that on the chinese wiki - or any other encyclopedia - we therefore follow common usage and lump the Britain article under 英國 (technically England). Common usage may differ slightly here but at the end of the day, Vitoria-Gasteiz IS the official name and it's even on all Spanish and most recent international maps. There's a disamb page anyway because there's a fair number of Vitorias... and nothing prevents us from having a redirect from Vitoria to Vitoria-Gasteiz... Akerbeltz (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed move. The unilateral move was quite correct, although it should have been discussed here first, and the article should now stay at Vitoria, Spain unless some reason is proposed in accordance with the official policy at WP:NC. Arguments proposed above challenging this policy have no chance of success. Andrewa (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Support the proposed move. Vitoria itself, is the use of a form of speech or writing that is no longer current. I think none of you knows this city. Pretenting that Vitoria itself is a common english name is totally arbitrary. On Google maps, Vitoria-Gasteiz is the only big city of spain with both names (click here). For example San Sebastián is officially Donostia-San Sebastián, but just in Spanish language on google maps. Vitoria-Gasteiz, as capital city of the Basque Country, is widely accepted English name in modern context. WP:NCGN. Zoriontalk 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Vitoria is the commonplace in English. Official name should be noted in the infobox. I guess someone may feel "offended" by the tagline ", Spain" but this is not our problem here. Asteriontalk 08:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Vitoria is the commonplace in English[unreliable source?]. See Google maps. By the way, , Spain or not , Spain is out of context and out of subject.Zoriontalk 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. Per my comment above (officiality and consensus). If Vitoria, it should never be with the extension "Spain", as it is controversial (see: WP:CON, consensus means not controversial). Vitoria should be disambiguation page leading to Vitoria-Gasteiz and Vitória, as well as other locations of that name. It is a medium city and regional capital, one of the oldest cities of the Basque Country and place of several major historical events. We should never allow that a controversial option as the current name is imposed by a nationalist agenda (Spanish nationalist in this case, very clearly). That makes Wikipedia biased, not NPOV. The official name is consensual (at least in the relevant city), widespread and notable. "Vitoria, Spain" is POV and offensive for many sensibilities, including many locals. --Sugaar (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Vitoria is a part of Spain", that is not POV. "It should be", that would be POV. Neither title is POV. Srnec (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The hyphenated form Vitoria-Gasteiz is a new term invented by rather lazy latter-day bureaucrats. If we were to include this one, it would be like if we assumed that the French name of Cardiff at the French wikipedia was Cardiff-Caerdydd. Neither that nor Vitoria-Gasteiz are a proper noun at all, but a new and totally different constructed noun resulting from the combination of two nouns in two different languages.
It should be determined which one is most used in English, either Vitoria or Gasteiz instead, but Vitoria-Gasteiz does not exist in English, it is not the way English works, regardless whatever Spaniards do, think or compromise with. English can take some credit in not assuming schizoid Spanish toponimy quirks and wikipedia should not mimic those. Just think of the massive implications that would have all over wikipedia with so many co-official terms all around the world for cities which have little record in English press. That is some point to be taken into account.
I guess it is implicit in my post that Vitoria is a more widespread name, and, if only as guilty by association, I assume it to be more widespread in English, too. That can be debatable, but I'd definitely go for Gasteiz only (if proved more popular among English speakers than Vitoria) than Vitoria-Gasteiz.
The most important thing is that we dont swallow extremly odd terms regardless whatever "officiality" they may have in a country where English is not the language of the land. Vitoria-Gasteiz may make sense in Spanish (if you think it over, not really that much, but they rather just got accustomed...but that is another story). In any case, it certainly does not make any sense in English. Mountolivegroup using a loop of another pop group 03:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So now, can you explain us clearly why Vitoria-Gasteiz is the only city among hundreds all over Europe with the hyphenated form on Googlemaps.com??? I haven't found any others. Here is the map.... I know hundreds cities with two official names, Vitoria-Gasteiz seems to be unique in the entire Europe, not in Spain in particular nor bilingual countries. While some of your comments are fair enough for 99% of bilingual cities, this time, you are wrong. And like Srnec says ″this town is hardly mentioned in English enough for a "common English name" to be easily established″. By the way on google maps, Cardiff-Caerdydd is Cardiff and Vitoria is Vitoria-Gasteiz. Zoriontalk 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this is not helping at all. As much the official name is Vitoria-Gasteiz, hyphenated names are almost never used in English. We had a similar argument regarding Bolzano-Bozen over a year ago and the criteria established was to pick whichever form was the most commonly used in English ("google test", BBC, other English-language media, etc). Regards, Asteriontalk 20:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Same example as Cardiff , Bolzano-Bozen is actually Bolzano on Google maps (check over here). Someone who's opposed could explain why Vitoria-Gasteiz seems to be unique in the entire Europe for its hyphenated names on Google maps instead of hearing the same old litany, still doesn't help the debate forum. Thanks. Zoriontalk 01:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that in English, independently of what the official name of a town is, hyphenated names are not used in common speach. This is why you have Bolzano and not Bolzano-Bozen, even if the latter is the official one. Google Maps just use whatever map data Tele Atlas feeds them. Quite possibly from the official Spanish Ordnance Survey (not sure what is called in Spain, to be honest). Asteriontalk 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have moved this page from Vitoria to Vitoria-Gasteiz. This is because, according to a decision by the city hall, the official name of the city in Spanish, English and Basque is Vitoria-Gasteiz. See this page which refers to the city as "Vitoria-Gasteiz". This page in Spanish also refers to the city as "Vitoria-Gasteiz", while this page is Basque also calls it "Vitoria-Gasteiz". Therefore, I don't see the logic of keeping at "Vitoria". Ronline✉ 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Since there was no consensus above, what's the "final" disposition of the article? Or is it legitimate for any editor to rename it to her preferred name? - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
We could always restart the debate... though I don't think the chances are MUCH better this time round for reaching consensus. I'm not sure where the best place would be to debate that but perhaps we could frame it as a wider debate about these double-barrelled Basque & Spanish place names that you get when the linguistic gap is too large. If we got consensus on a general approach, we could then perhaps deal with them all in one go. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a wider debate/discussion/consensus-building round would be desirable. I also agree that reaching consensus for this particular article in another go-round is unlikely. I'm very disillusioned with the vagaries of what can only euphemistically be called the Wikipedia consensus-building process. It seems to me that the person who unilaterally moved the article won, since the article has sat under his or her preferred name for 1.5 years. I don't even see that this user received so much as a gentle rebuke about not making blatantly controversial moves to articles. Since Wikipedia rewards unilateral action and frustrates those who seek consensus before making controversial edits, seems that the lesson is to take more unilateral actions and stop wasting time treating consensus seriously. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Vitoria-Gasteiz with many, huge google hit. for sure it passed common name criteria. Please cite for Vitoria, Spain is a common name in English world. Matthew_hktc 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you're meaning Matthew? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
the requested move was failed due to they claimed Vitoria is the most common name but the fact seems not. Matthew_hktc 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I do also think that the name of the article should be Vitoria-Gasteiz. It is the official name. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Different suggestiong? We could open a debate on double-barrelled Basque place-names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque so we can reach consensus on what to do with names like Vitoria-Gasteiz, Donostia-San Sebastián, Arrasate-Mondragón in general? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I've moved a comment added by 18.104.22.168 at 13:18, 27 January 2009 down to here. I have reproduced the text of the edit below to be intentionally conservative, but I think it's pretty clear from the words puto (which one online es->en dictionary renders as "fucking") and noob that this isn't a good faith comment. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Vitoria, Spain → Vitoria — The name is Vitoria, and there is actually no other article with the title Vitoria, so there is no reason to put ",Spain" in the title. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
oppose though I would support a move to the official name Vitoria-Gasteiz with Vitoria, Spain redirecting Akerbeltz (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
That've already been discussed. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Then why bring it up again? Akerbeltz (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Weak support I certainly think Vitoria of Spain is most prominent. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
comment: Not just that it's the most prominent, but there is no other Vitoria (at least not in Wikipedia). There is Vitória in Brasil (note the different spelling), and the article on Vitória is titled just "Vitória", not "Vitória, Brasil", so I don't see any logical reason to put ",Spain" in the title of this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose there appears to be enough options out there that a disambiguation page at Vitoria seems appropriate. The similarity between Vitoria, Spain and Vitória, Brazil (both mid-sized cities) is too much. As an FYI, I moved Vitória to Vitória, Brazil because both accented and non-accented version exist on the dab. page.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:17, 1 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.
There are too many articles named Vitoria, so the disambiguation must maintain its place. Also, a lot of cities include their countries in their title even without the need of disambiguating (For example: Fajardo, Puerto Rico). Feedback☎ 22:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
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: page moved per discussion. GTBacchus(talk) 13:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Vitoria-Gasteiz is the official name and it's even on all Spanish and most recent international maps. Although Vitoria was the English traditional name, the existance of traditional names hasn't been an obstacle when other cities' official name has changed — see, for example, Peking → Beijing, Saigon → Ho Chi Minh City. Even in Europe: Stalingrad → Volgograd, Leningrad → Saint Petersburg. In English, the tradition of the names Peking, Saigon,Stalingrad and Leningrad was far stronger and abundant than that of this tiny city of Vitoria-Gasteiz, and there has been no problem to put the new official name in the Wikipedia. I see no point in keeping Vitoria, Spain (being myself a citizen of Vitoria-Gasteiz). --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 19:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Strongly support - It's the official name of the city. It's not hard at all to find the official name used in mainstream sources from at least two English-speaking countries:
The UK's Times and Guardian discussing a jazz recording within the past week
The usage in English is well-established. (From all I can glean, the move of the article to its present title -- 1, 2 -- was without consensus. For several years we have rewarded such bad behavior through institutional inertia.) - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As before, strongly supporting the proposed move back to Vitoria-Gasteiz; apart from the above arguments, why create the need for a dab if there is an unambiguous official name that is used widely even if not exclusively. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Support The name Vitoria–Gasteiz appears to have become established English useage. Examples:-
Until recently just a small provincial town, Vitoria-Gasteiz (Vitoria in Spanish, Gasteiz in Basque, officially both) is now the capital of the Basque Country (Pais Vasco) and is doing its best to keep up from About.com
With a population of 233,399 inhabitants, Vitoria-Gasteiz is the capital of the autonomous community of the Basque Country from The Civitas Initiative
Vitoria-Gasteiz, in the North of Spain, will also host the 2012 ITU Long Distance Triathlon World Championships from International Triathlon Union
This stylish, contemporary hotel lies on the main central street of Vitoria-Gasteiz, beside the congress centre of this conveniently located city in the Basque Country from Booking.com
With a population of 233,399 inhabitants, Vitoria-Gasteiz is the capital of both the autonomous community of the Basque Country and the province (or "historical territory") of Alava from European Juggling Convention
Vitoria-Gasteiz, chief town of the Basque province of Álava and administrative center of the Autonomous Community of the País Vasco, lies to the south of the Cantabrian Mountains in a plain below the north side of the Montes de Vitoria from Planetware
Vitoria-Gasteiz, founded towards the end of the 12th century, is today a city of exceptional urban design from Turismo de España
But this 12-piece suite reflects his less US-focused side, which UK audiences glimpsed last year when Marsalis explored connections between traditional Spanish music and jazz in the company of pianist Chano Domínguez. Domínguez and flamenco guitar star Paco de Lucía join the Lincoln Center Orchestra on this tribute to the Vitoria-Gasteiz jazz festival from The Guardian
Ryanair (www.ryanair.com) flies to Vitoria-Gasteiz, an hour’s drive from the hotel from The Times
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
"largest municipality in the BAC" vs "largest city in the BC"
There is an editing conflict regarding the description of the large area under the administration of the Vitoria-Gasteiz City Council: some anonymous edits changing to "largest city in the Basque Country" versus some identified wikipedians' edits changing to "largest municipality in the Basque Autonomous Country." I am one of the wikipedians favouring the later wording, for these reasons:
A city is not a municipality (please click on the links and see definitions). The municipality of Vitoria-Gasteiz comprises the city of Vitoria-Gasteiz plus 63 villages plus some woods plus a lot of fields.
Please stop changing the description "largest municipality in the Basque Autonomous Community", unless better reasons are brought to this page than those given above. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 10:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
After giving this topic a second thought, I have changed to a more clarifying wording: "The municipality — which comprises not only the city but also the lands of 63 villages around — is the largest in the Basque Autonomous Community"
Deleting names' info because "Gasteiz is not the translation of Vitoria"
Nobody is saying that "Gasteiz is the translation of Vitoria" — so please stop deleting referenced info under that nonsense of denying an argument that nobody has used here. Both Basque and Spanish languages have their ruling academies, and they both are clear: Gasteiz is the Basque name and Vitoria is the Spanish name of this city. The references provided show that fact properly. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 21:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Revert re alleged "March 3 Killing of 1976" shooting
Iñaki LL, you have been here long enough to know that WP: Verifiability 'not' truth, is what is required on WP. That text was added in 2008 and had been un-sourced ever since, 7 years, and 8 months. I looked for a source and couldn't find one.
I couldn't find a verifiable mention on WP. ie. 1976, and March 3 didn't mention it at all. Other text added by the same editor is also un-sourced.
You have to provide a reliable source to retain that information on this page. 220ofBorg 01:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @220 of Borg:, indeed WP:Verifiability is there, but by the same token you might as well remove half of the WP. WP is a collaborative project, where consensus is a prime concern. The tag at the top does not mention exactly that paragraph, but the whole section, all section removed then? (Except for the bit referenced) A bit of knowledge on the matter in question is helpful for this case, do you actually hold some insight? I do. "Alleged"? Given the circumstances on-sight, that comes across as not very fortunate. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the paragraph, copy-edited it & and linked it to the appropriate main page, here. Seriously, I originally couldn't find any mention of the event. Just needs a cite now. As you mention, it should all be referenced.- 220ofBorg 10:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, let us leave the trout in the river;) I can add the reference myself when I have time, pretty busy right now. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)