![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was improperly moved. You should go through Wikipedia:Requested moves, and you certainly should not just copy and paste the article text, which destroys the edit history. - Montréalais 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
"At this point the name Corunna entered English (with the Gallicized spelling Corrugna also appearing in the 18th century), although this name is now being forgotten, and tends to be replaced with the local names, which as noted above are La Coruña in Spanish and A Coruña in Galician." This strikes me as a POV. Please provide source for such a statment. If it were being replaced by anything it is not "La Coruña" or "A Coruña" but would be "Coruna". -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Since 90's National Geographic Atlas (or Times, or What You Want) only states "A Coruña". It has been the official name both in Galician, Spanish and Chinese since 1983. And yes, in 1600 text you can find "Corunna", and surely in AD75 ones "Portus Artabrorum". 212.51.52.4 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In Linguistic issues: How on earth is the phrase 'brutal deturpation' (deturpation=to make foul) neutral POV?
86.133.21.97 10:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Article edited as part of work on the NPOV backlog. Since the disputed text seems to have been edited out, and there has been no discussion suggesting further disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with {{NPOV}} and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Partially reverted recent changes regarding name: included line 57: [1], rewrote this [2]. As an encyclopedia WP should use the official name, but include other forms in use/used. Steve Hart 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In the same way that wikipedia in English say Seville and not Sevilla, the common English language denomination should be used: Corunna. Both Galician and Spanish name should be mentioned in brackets but the article has got to be named Corunna. This article was moved out of process. I will submit a query on WP:RQM to restore its English language title and protect it against further disruptive actions. Regards, Asterion talk 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Asterion was the voice of reason here. Sadly, this article is an example of Wikipedia stuck in the hands of people that won't listen to reason no matter what. This is an encyclopedia in English language, not an Spanish official text. Whatever the official name in Spain is, it is irrelevant. What matters here is how do English-speaking people call this city, and one thing is for sure: it is not Coruña, for the ñ letter is not even on their keyboards. The idea of standardized toponyms for all languages is an utopic idea far from being a fact - and a childish idea when you consider that there is not even a standardized alphabet, which would be an unavoidable requirement. Will you force Chinese Wikipedia people to name their article 'La Coruña', even though they don't recognize that alphabet? Wikipedia needs reasonable people making the decisions, not unreasonable people. Ignacio.Agulló ( talk) 14:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
'What vanquished on Corunna's strand?' from the 1503 poem 'The Thrissil and the Rois' by William Dunbar. Ignacio.Agulló ( talk) 13:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 21:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
A Coruña → Corunna – Corunna is the traditional English language name for the city. Article was copied and pasted onto current location out of process Asterion talk 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments.-- Asterion talk 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
In Aldine University Atlas, London: George Philip & Son, 1969 this town is double listed in the index, as:
and on the map itself as:
with no listing at "A Coruña", blowing the wind out of Husond's unsupported claim above that "the city nearly always appears as "A Coruña" in road maps and atlases". Gene Nygaard 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there wasn't any internet either in 1969, but it is 2006 now, and
Expedia Maps
http://www.expedia.com/pub/ gives the following results:
La Coruña
(changed to) La Coruña, Galicia, Spain
Best matches
A Coruña
(changed to) A Coruña [La Coruña], Galicia, Spain
Best matches
Map itself (note size difference):
La Coruña
A Coruña
Corunna
several best matches, including most or all of above for either spelling with diacritics (note that there was very little overlap between them), others related to Coruña del Conde in Castille & Leon, an estuary, a railroad station, bus station, marina, as well as Corana in Italy, Coruja in Spain, and Coroana in Romania, and Koruna, Czech Republic likely showing up later in list because included only as similar spellings. Gene Nygaard 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has failed to take into account the "La Corunya" and "La Coruna" spellings in English (even "A Corunya" too). I think most of you would be surprised how often they are actually used. Gene Nygaard 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
<Back to margin>
Of course, "La Corunha" was only an afterthought in any case, not one of the serious omissions beging discussed in this section. I don't really care if you classify "La Corunha" as an error—even though it does have over 1,000 hits each in both Spanish and Portuguese, and that has been borrowed in a few English language pages. For the sake of this argument, let's just assume that it is a mistake, and get back on track.
The important ones are La Coruna and La Corunya, with hundreds or thousands of times as many hits.
hits | English | |
---|---|---|
Spain "La Coruna" -wikipedia -Coruña -site:en.wikipedia.org | 3,360,000 | 915,000 |
Spain "La Coruña" -wikipedia -Coruna -site:en.wikipedia.org | 4,620,000 | 282,000 |
Spain "La Coruna" -wikipedia -site:en.wikipedia.org | 5,640,000 | 1,640,000 |
AltaVista | hits | English & Spanish |
---|---|---|
Spain "La Coruna" -Coruña | 888,000 | 854,000 |
Spain "La Coruña" -Coruna | 0 | 0 |
Spain "La Coruna" | 1,410,000 | 1,360,000 |
NOTE: The middle one shows that AltaVista uses different sorting algorithms from those used by Google |
Gene Nygaard 13:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Gene, your results are not completely accurate. Not only the figures, as shown below, but you fail completely to understand the way Google works for discrimating languages and determining whether a page is in English or not, that is using metatags such as <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Language" CONTENT="EN">. The problem is that unless the webmaster does alter the preferences on their software, it will default to Spanish or whichever other language they use generally, therefore making it something like <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Language" CONTENT="ES">. As an example, every single one of the results for Spain "La Coruña" -wikipedia -Coruna -site:en.wikipedia.org -deportivo without even using the setting "English language only" in the first six pages is in English, which basically proves my point. So, it seems that, at the end of the day, La Coruña is indeed the most widespread name in English language. Personally, I would still prefer Corunna for historical reasons but I think we needed to put the record straight after your comments above. Regards, Asterion talk 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
hits | English | |
---|---|---|
Spain "La Coruna" -wikipedia -Coruña -site:en.wikipedia.org -deportivo | 1,750,000 [14] | 744,000 [15] |
Spain "La Coruña" -wikipedia -Coruna -site:en.wikipedia.org -deportivo | 3,100,000 [16] | 214,000 [17] |
Spain "La Coruna" -wikipedia -site:en.wikipedia.org -deportivo | 9,010,000* [18] | 1,110,000* [19] |
* (flawed results, as google also includes ñ as n)
Quote: The city has a football club in Spain's top division, Deportivo de La Coruña (note that the club name still uses the Francoist spelling). In La Coruña we use to talk in Spanish. Adalbertofrenesi 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
All of this could be avoided if the spanish (and the galicians, in imitation) didn't insist in considering the article as part of the name. The spanish go as far as writing nowadays officially 'de/en/con/a/para A Coruña', which is unidiomatic, as they should use their own article; in galician, those are, of course, 'da/na/coa/à/prá Coruña', as all those prepositions contract with the article (though coa/prá are mostly colloquial, the others are mandatory).
In galician, anyway, the traditional name was 'Crunha' (with -nh-, like portuguese, for current -ñ-, as traditional usage didn't have a graphical standard), without an 'o'. I even suspect the 'o' is a literary development, to avoid a cluster felt as low class. The etymology may or may not be 'columna'; nowadays, I'm convinced it's pre-Roman.
As to what name should be used, it's quite simple. Either use a traditional english name, or the current official name - it's what wikipedia does EVERYWHERE. And currently the only official name is the galician one, as is only fair since we're talking about GALICIA. The usage of the spanish name here would actually be vexing since the spanish name isn't any different from the galician original, except in the most obvious phonological developments which separate spanish from galician/portuguese; as a result, using the spanish name in any other language than spanish sort of like gives a spanish identity to the city which erases the native galician. Which is far from being a considerate approach.
On a related note, to consider 'galician nationalism' on equal footing with 'spanish nationalism' is perverse - the former is about fighting for the survival of galician culture in its own territory, the latter is about imposing spanish culture in places where it isn't native. It's ridiculous that the desire that wikipedia uses the galician name for a galician city, of which is it the only official name, a name which moreover is nearly the same as the spanish one and poses no problem to searches, should be considered 'galician nationalism'. 85.241.113.244 ( talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The only official and legal name for the city is A Coruña, as specified in the Galician Statute of Autonomy of 1981 and ratified in a number of occasions by the High Court of Galicia. This is an old and silly argument originally maintained by (mainly) the former local corporation, which attempted to use La Coruña officially; the new corporation eventually dropped the issue [20]. The case even went to court. Although, as mentioned, the High Court of justice has always insisted that the only correct version to be used officially is A Coruña, notwithstanding what particulars can say or use in daily speech. The Constitutional Court of Spain backed the decision of the Galician Court [21]
It has even been recommended to all Spanish public administration to observe the native name (that's why sometimes one may find A Coruña used even if the context is in Spanish). The same applies to the rest of Galician placenames, etc. Swamp Greetings ( talk) 09:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the names in the infobox. A Coruña was as the Spanish name, and La Coruña as the Galician name. -- Fryant 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There are several uncorrect data in the article, which I would like someone to correct:
1st. It is not true that A Coruña is the most important city in NW Spain or Galicia. Vigo has more inhabitants and is the industrial centre and main port (no A Coruña), and Santiago de Compostela is the political capital. A Coruña is the financial and economical centre of Galicia, where the leading banks and companies have their headquarters (Caixa Galicia, Banco Pastor, Zara, Martinsa-Fadesa). Its port is just the first regarding petrol and coal, no regarding fish, neither containers. The information given regarding population neither is true. A Coruña and Vigo develop their population more or less at the same pace.
2nd. Regarding the polemica on the name of the city. The Galician form is the unique name of the city both in Galician and Spanish, as even Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) supports. [22] and, especially, the TS sentence: [23]
Regarding the use of the names, in Galician A Coruña is the only name used, in Spanish both A Coruña and La Coruña are used (even Coruña, without article, is used, too). In the area of A Coruña and in Galicia, A Coruña is the most (almost the unique) form used, even among Spanish-speakers (A majority in Coruña speaks Spanish, although it is still the municipality with the larger number of Galician speakers, some 100,000 or 125,000), so the statement "The Spanish form is more used" is FALSE.
3rd, the subdivision of the city in "districts" has varied, now there are only two, but, as this is a non very used (neither very useful) subdivision, I do not remember their names.
4th and last: You can found evidence of the use of "The Groyne" in D.Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. (After they go out of the island, they come to Europe and arrive in Spain, where Robinson decides not to embark in The Groyne and go through the Pyrenees instead. [in my edition, Penguin 2001, p.227]). I've read that it was usual that sailors named foreign cities with names of parts of the body, but I have no citacions to back me.
Thankyou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.52.8 ( talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to expand and develop the tourism section? There's a lot of information on numerous websites (e.g. http://www.wikitravel.org/en/La_Coruña, http://www.bestacorunabars.com/) but I doubt they would be considered suitable sources for Wikipedia. Any ideas?
Is anybody active on this page? I was just wondering if there was anybody thinking of improving it. The article seems to have been written by a non-native english speaker and has a terrible amount of typos and badly written sentences (no offense to the original writer). I've done my best to correct any mistakes but there are quite a few instances where its not actually clear what's wanted to be said, or the mistakes are so bad that whole paragraphs would have to be changed. The whole history section is also badly titled. There seems to be confusion over terminology. You can't title a section as 'Middle Ages' and then mostly talk about premiddle ages, as in, before at least 1200 AD. The 'Modern Age' section, a period of time which is from the 18th century up to now, is filled with dates in the middle ages. The whole article needs a gramatical tidy up and then probably an expansion and improvement in general. I'm guessing the original writer is Spanish, and English as a language is not their mother tongue. I don't want to be mean in what I've written above but to be honest if your going to write an article on the English Wiki you should atleast have gotten help from a native English speaker. The article needs a lot of work, so I was just wondering if there's anybody with more then a passing interest in La/A Coruña that would want to collaborate and improve the page. Ru ( talk) 04:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm responsible for the badly-titled History section, my apologies. I just titled it à la Spanish, forgetting about cultural contrast. Regarding badly used English, I am Galician, I have Galician language as my mother tongue, and I apologise again if I actually made any linguistic mistake in the History section. In fact, it was worse earlier, and I tried and corrected what I could. In relation with the linguistic issue, English is not my mother tongue, though I feel I am competent enough to write on the English Wiki, my opinion about this is that natives of a place/city/country should write and give the most info about what they know, and, should it appear any linguistic mistakes, there would always be plenty of native speakers to mend it, don't you think? However, my knowledge of A Coruña is limited, as I am not exactly from there, so, I am not the person you are looking for. However, I can tag as incorrect any false data, as I did above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.52.5 ( talk) 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Im a Coruña local. The Hercules Tower was always a lighthouse, from 2 thousand (yes, thousand) years ago. It is true that in 1791 it got a remodelation getting his actual form. Except the bridges, it's the only roman build that conserves their original function.
The ethimology of "Coruña" is incorrect too. There are a lot of theories, none of them confirmed. The spanish wikipedia article is very good for that
I dont want to edit because my english is bad. Thank you a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.8.53 ( talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You are right about the Lighthouse. It has always been a lighthouse, I am going to edit it. Also, someone really should clean all the name wars from the article, and put them all in one sentence. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.163.172.180 (
talk)
15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is right in that the official name for the city is "A Coruña" and the Spanish form "La Coruña" is also used, but it's also worth noting that the form "Coruña" (without any article) is very very common. I'd say that it's the most widespread choice for locals, at least when speaking in Spanish ("vivo en Coruña", "estoy en Coruña", etc.), and I think it's much more common than "La Coruña" -- 91.117.99.155 ( talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Is A Coruña because it's a Galician Town and must be in it language.
OK, the question is how it's referred to in English, rather than what locals call it, but I see no reason not to take note of this usage in the "Name" section. Really it would need a citation. I must say I haven't found any English examples on the Web, except in reference to the football club. AdeMiami ( talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Instead of spending thousands of words arguing about the spelling of two words how about actually including some information about the city during the Spanish Civil War? It seems to be a peculiarly Galician approach to history, to write (with mostly pure conjecture) about ancient Celtic history while ignoring the province's immensely rich history from medieval times to the present day. This page is an absolute joke as it stands (Drake? Dampier? Armada? 1809? Mexican War? etc etc etc) but to write NOTHING about the civil war is beyond pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.172.36 ( talk) 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Montajecoruna.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
If you try to inform properly and with a NPOV, it cannot be oculted that the "name debate" is purely a political one, and only a part (a very minoritary one) supports the use of Spanish name, I don't understand why this article allows quoting statements which are completely false and with links either nothing to see with or untruth ones. The only form is the Galician one, and it is used overwherlmingly nowadays in all communications of all type, including commercial brochures, simple addresses, quotings in practically all the spanish press (and ALL the galician one, no matter language employed), with the notable exception of two very far-right-wing spanish newspapers; also, the article does not mention the incountable lawsuits done by the municipal council under Francisco Vázquez trying not to use the Galician form, all of them lost at each and every Court, including the Constitutional one, and the fact that the PP itself, a party which usually combates (locally) the Galician form was precisely the party which legalised it in a Galician toponym names. Not to state clearly all of this simply means to supply an incomplete and deturped vision of the matter, it means, a false one.
This problem is used as many others as a distraction and targeted to a very concrete public. It is very simple to confirm all what I am saying, so Wikipedia is being used to amplify a very minoritary and interested campaign. There is (and never was at such a large extent as anyone could think reading the article) no broad usage of La Coruña at all, except in a minority who uses it a a political consign, even in Spanish, the unformal common form is Coruña, with no article at all, and practically in a public level, the legal toponym is the only used. The article is creating misleading perception. 91.117.9.231 ( talk) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Very nice. Someone have just reverted my edit about Coruña being the political capital of the Kingdom of Galicia from the XVIth to the XIXth century. With the unfortunate assertion "nonsensical edit". Nice, I've been gratuitously insulted ("if don't know nothing about it, it don't exist, and that guy is a baboon"):
First: In XV century the Catholic monarchs established in A Coruña the 'Real Audiencia del Reino de Galicia' (google books), which would become the embryo of the later local administration of the Kingdom of Galicia, now as a royal dependency inside the Crown of Castille (which was composed of several kingdoms, as the Crown of Aragon).
Second: From the XVI century on, A Coruña became the place where the 'Junta/Juntas del Reino de Galicia' (google books again) met. The Junta was a representative body, composed by a plenipotentiary deputy representing each one of the first five, then seven provinces of the Kingdom: A Coruña, Santiago, Ourense, Tui, Lugo, Mondoñedo and Betanzos. From 1599 the Juntas were presided by the Governor, as representative of the king. This representative body, abolished in 1833, even declared the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Galicia in 1808, during the Napoleonic wars, when Madrid was lost to the French. -- Froaringus ( talk) 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I see user OttomanJackson has moved this page, without any prior discussion. The title and lead of this article are the product of years of attempts to reach consensus, and I will propose that the page be moved back forthwith. AdeMiami ( talk) 09:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I dont care how will be in english La Coruña, but I guess if you dont have the letter Ñ you dont have to use this form, But the reason because I m writting here is because the arguments they are using in pro A Coruña and not La Coruña they are lies, In spanish language allways has been and will be La Coruña, so La is our article, in galician and now officially is A Coruña so that is their article, so all the lies about Franco and political reasons are not true, La Coruña allways in spanish has been La Coruña to prove it I put a link of a map of La Coruña from 1903 when Franco had only 11 years, please stop lying!!! http://www.todocoleccion.net/mapa-corografico-coruna-galicia-original1903-benito-chias-gran-tamano~x24523867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.107.89 ( talk) 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a big lie! All the time here they are saying that was Franco who inveted that name and is a Francoist form and come from Franco times. It´s not true, Allways has been La Coruña!!
Long story short:
I understand that we all can get upset when our contributions are reverted, but we all should presume good faith of other editors and PROVIDE MEANINGFUL SUMMARIES OF ONE'S EDITIONS. Also, not insulting and not taunting others, and not using offensive ad hoc nicknames, would result in a much healthier relation.-- Froaringus ( talk) 12:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You're wrong, Froaringus t.p.m. means: "Trusted Platform Module". It's a cryptografic security microchip. It's useful for encoding things, storing encoded keys,and so on. You can look for information on the internet. I had not account in wikipedia, I never thought about it, that is the reason for differents IP's address. My internet connection is a dynamic IP connection, it changes from time to time. I've not differents accounts. So finally, I decided to register in wikipedia, only this, it isn't the story that you wroted. That is a tall story. Please, don't make up stories.
I don't know what is the problem to publish the two forms that exist in Galicia in order to naming the places.In Galicia you can use both galician and spanish while in the rest of Spain,you usually use the spanish form but if you want to choose another one, there's no problem.This is neither good nor bad,it's that way. By the way, the correct in galician it's "A Cruña", "A Coruña" was a political invention, they were who puts that odd thing as official name and remove the spanish one.This only happen in Spain and it's a long history.
What is the problem of Froaringus?, he can't sees the spanish form next to galician name and he deletes only the spanish form. Why does he do that? it's easy answer,he tells it us in this link: Talk:Galician_people, at bottom of the page,point number 7: "Look, I'm Galician, that's my national identity; I'm proud of our Celtic past,...". Yes, his national identity is galician, so he is galician nationalist and therefore he only deletes the spanish names.They have allergy to everything related to Spain and spanish.
There are many galician nationalists myths but I tell you nothing, it's very long and I'm tired of listening all of these tall stories. They're few people, althoug they are very noisy. They usually use these myths and stories to prove that they are differents to the rest of spanish people and they want to impose their worldview, of course, to the rest of spanish people.For example, how to name a place; only in galician, even though also that place had spanish name, otherwise you are "deturpando el nombre" (distorting the name). There are many examples. Each one chooses what he wants to use when he talks about it, there's no problem. I forgot it,there's no risk of edit warring for my part. -- T.p.m.11 ( talk) 10:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A Coruña. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The Economist has a full page article on La Coruña.
Dec. 17, 2016. "Behind the magic of Zara". p. 60.
Please rename this page to La Coruña.
English speakers are not Galicians.
207.35.33.162 (
talk)
19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the French did not just "leave" Corruna at the end of 1809. The guerrilla war was just beginning. Wellington was in Lisbon. What really happened? 71.178.191.144 ( talk) 23:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Poseidonblu: Could you explain this. Removing the only sourced content in the section, may come across, for all purposes, as an incredibly unconstructive move.--Asqueladd ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was improperly moved. You should go through Wikipedia:Requested moves, and you certainly should not just copy and paste the article text, which destroys the edit history. - Montréalais 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
"At this point the name Corunna entered English (with the Gallicized spelling Corrugna also appearing in the 18th century), although this name is now being forgotten, and tends to be replaced with the local names, which as noted above are La Coruña in Spanish and A Coruña in Galician." This strikes me as a POV. Please provide source for such a statment. If it were being replaced by anything it is not "La Coruña" or "A Coruña" but would be "Coruna". -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Since 90's National Geographic Atlas (or Times, or What You Want) only states "A Coruña". It has been the official name both in Galician, Spanish and Chinese since 1983. And yes, in 1600 text you can find "Corunna", and surely in AD75 ones "Portus Artabrorum". 212.51.52.4 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In Linguistic issues: How on earth is the phrase 'brutal deturpation' (deturpation=to make foul) neutral POV?
86.133.21.97 10:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Article edited as part of work on the NPOV backlog. Since the disputed text seems to have been edited out, and there has been no discussion suggesting further disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with {{NPOV}} and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Partially reverted recent changes regarding name: included line 57: [1], rewrote this [2]. As an encyclopedia WP should use the official name, but include other forms in use/used. Steve Hart 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In the same way that wikipedia in English say Seville and not Sevilla, the common English language denomination should be used: Corunna. Both Galician and Spanish name should be mentioned in brackets but the article has got to be named Corunna. This article was moved out of process. I will submit a query on WP:RQM to restore its English language title and protect it against further disruptive actions. Regards, Asterion talk 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Asterion was the voice of reason here. Sadly, this article is an example of Wikipedia stuck in the hands of people that won't listen to reason no matter what. This is an encyclopedia in English language, not an Spanish official text. Whatever the official name in Spain is, it is irrelevant. What matters here is how do English-speaking people call this city, and one thing is for sure: it is not Coruña, for the ñ letter is not even on their keyboards. The idea of standardized toponyms for all languages is an utopic idea far from being a fact - and a childish idea when you consider that there is not even a standardized alphabet, which would be an unavoidable requirement. Will you force Chinese Wikipedia people to name their article 'La Coruña', even though they don't recognize that alphabet? Wikipedia needs reasonable people making the decisions, not unreasonable people. Ignacio.Agulló ( talk) 14:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
'What vanquished on Corunna's strand?' from the 1503 poem 'The Thrissil and the Rois' by William Dunbar. Ignacio.Agulló ( talk) 13:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 21:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
A Coruña → Corunna – Corunna is the traditional English language name for the city. Article was copied and pasted onto current location out of process Asterion talk 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments.-- Asterion talk 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
In Aldine University Atlas, London: George Philip & Son, 1969 this town is double listed in the index, as:
and on the map itself as:
with no listing at "A Coruña", blowing the wind out of Husond's unsupported claim above that "the city nearly always appears as "A Coruña" in road maps and atlases". Gene Nygaard 13:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there wasn't any internet either in 1969, but it is 2006 now, and
Expedia Maps
http://www.expedia.com/pub/ gives the following results:
La Coruña
(changed to) La Coruña, Galicia, Spain
Best matches
A Coruña
(changed to) A Coruña [La Coruña], Galicia, Spain
Best matches
Map itself (note size difference):
La Coruña
A Coruña
Corunna
several best matches, including most or all of above for either spelling with diacritics (note that there was very little overlap between them), others related to Coruña del Conde in Castille & Leon, an estuary, a railroad station, bus station, marina, as well as Corana in Italy, Coruja in Spain, and Coroana in Romania, and Koruna, Czech Republic likely showing up later in list because included only as similar spellings. Gene Nygaard 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has failed to take into account the "La Corunya" and "La Coruna" spellings in English (even "A Corunya" too). I think most of you would be surprised how often they are actually used. Gene Nygaard 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
<Back to margin>
Of course, "La Corunha" was only an afterthought in any case, not one of the serious omissions beging discussed in this section. I don't really care if you classify "La Corunha" as an error—even though it does have over 1,000 hits each in both Spanish and Portuguese, and that has been borrowed in a few English language pages. For the sake of this argument, let's just assume that it is a mistake, and get back on track.
The important ones are La Coruna and La Corunya, with hundreds or thousands of times as many hits.
hits | English | |
---|---|---|
Spain "La Coruna" -wikipedia -Coruña -site:en.wikipedia.org | 3,360,000 | 915,000 |
Spain "La Coruña" -wikipedia -Coruna -site:en.wikipedia.org | 4,620,000 | 282,000 |
Spain "La Coruna" -wikipedia -site:en.wikipedia.org | 5,640,000 | 1,640,000 |
AltaVista | hits | English & Spanish |
---|---|---|
Spain "La Coruna" -Coruña | 888,000 | 854,000 |
Spain "La Coruña" -Coruna | 0 | 0 |
Spain "La Coruna" | 1,410,000 | 1,360,000 |
NOTE: The middle one shows that AltaVista uses different sorting algorithms from those used by Google |
Gene Nygaard 13:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Gene, your results are not completely accurate. Not only the figures, as shown below, but you fail completely to understand the way Google works for discrimating languages and determining whether a page is in English or not, that is using metatags such as <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Language" CONTENT="EN">. The problem is that unless the webmaster does alter the preferences on their software, it will default to Spanish or whichever other language they use generally, therefore making it something like <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Language" CONTENT="ES">. As an example, every single one of the results for Spain "La Coruña" -wikipedia -Coruna -site:en.wikipedia.org -deportivo without even using the setting "English language only" in the first six pages is in English, which basically proves my point. So, it seems that, at the end of the day, La Coruña is indeed the most widespread name in English language. Personally, I would still prefer Corunna for historical reasons but I think we needed to put the record straight after your comments above. Regards, Asterion talk 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
hits | English | |
---|---|---|
Spain "La Coruna" -wikipedia -Coruña -site:en.wikipedia.org -deportivo | 1,750,000 [14] | 744,000 [15] |
Spain "La Coruña" -wikipedia -Coruna -site:en.wikipedia.org -deportivo | 3,100,000 [16] | 214,000 [17] |
Spain "La Coruna" -wikipedia -site:en.wikipedia.org -deportivo | 9,010,000* [18] | 1,110,000* [19] |
* (flawed results, as google also includes ñ as n)
Quote: The city has a football club in Spain's top division, Deportivo de La Coruña (note that the club name still uses the Francoist spelling). In La Coruña we use to talk in Spanish. Adalbertofrenesi 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
All of this could be avoided if the spanish (and the galicians, in imitation) didn't insist in considering the article as part of the name. The spanish go as far as writing nowadays officially 'de/en/con/a/para A Coruña', which is unidiomatic, as they should use their own article; in galician, those are, of course, 'da/na/coa/à/prá Coruña', as all those prepositions contract with the article (though coa/prá are mostly colloquial, the others are mandatory).
In galician, anyway, the traditional name was 'Crunha' (with -nh-, like portuguese, for current -ñ-, as traditional usage didn't have a graphical standard), without an 'o'. I even suspect the 'o' is a literary development, to avoid a cluster felt as low class. The etymology may or may not be 'columna'; nowadays, I'm convinced it's pre-Roman.
As to what name should be used, it's quite simple. Either use a traditional english name, or the current official name - it's what wikipedia does EVERYWHERE. And currently the only official name is the galician one, as is only fair since we're talking about GALICIA. The usage of the spanish name here would actually be vexing since the spanish name isn't any different from the galician original, except in the most obvious phonological developments which separate spanish from galician/portuguese; as a result, using the spanish name in any other language than spanish sort of like gives a spanish identity to the city which erases the native galician. Which is far from being a considerate approach.
On a related note, to consider 'galician nationalism' on equal footing with 'spanish nationalism' is perverse - the former is about fighting for the survival of galician culture in its own territory, the latter is about imposing spanish culture in places where it isn't native. It's ridiculous that the desire that wikipedia uses the galician name for a galician city, of which is it the only official name, a name which moreover is nearly the same as the spanish one and poses no problem to searches, should be considered 'galician nationalism'. 85.241.113.244 ( talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The only official and legal name for the city is A Coruña, as specified in the Galician Statute of Autonomy of 1981 and ratified in a number of occasions by the High Court of Galicia. This is an old and silly argument originally maintained by (mainly) the former local corporation, which attempted to use La Coruña officially; the new corporation eventually dropped the issue [20]. The case even went to court. Although, as mentioned, the High Court of justice has always insisted that the only correct version to be used officially is A Coruña, notwithstanding what particulars can say or use in daily speech. The Constitutional Court of Spain backed the decision of the Galician Court [21]
It has even been recommended to all Spanish public administration to observe the native name (that's why sometimes one may find A Coruña used even if the context is in Spanish). The same applies to the rest of Galician placenames, etc. Swamp Greetings ( talk) 09:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the names in the infobox. A Coruña was as the Spanish name, and La Coruña as the Galician name. -- Fryant 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There are several uncorrect data in the article, which I would like someone to correct:
1st. It is not true that A Coruña is the most important city in NW Spain or Galicia. Vigo has more inhabitants and is the industrial centre and main port (no A Coruña), and Santiago de Compostela is the political capital. A Coruña is the financial and economical centre of Galicia, where the leading banks and companies have their headquarters (Caixa Galicia, Banco Pastor, Zara, Martinsa-Fadesa). Its port is just the first regarding petrol and coal, no regarding fish, neither containers. The information given regarding population neither is true. A Coruña and Vigo develop their population more or less at the same pace.
2nd. Regarding the polemica on the name of the city. The Galician form is the unique name of the city both in Galician and Spanish, as even Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) supports. [22] and, especially, the TS sentence: [23]
Regarding the use of the names, in Galician A Coruña is the only name used, in Spanish both A Coruña and La Coruña are used (even Coruña, without article, is used, too). In the area of A Coruña and in Galicia, A Coruña is the most (almost the unique) form used, even among Spanish-speakers (A majority in Coruña speaks Spanish, although it is still the municipality with the larger number of Galician speakers, some 100,000 or 125,000), so the statement "The Spanish form is more used" is FALSE.
3rd, the subdivision of the city in "districts" has varied, now there are only two, but, as this is a non very used (neither very useful) subdivision, I do not remember their names.
4th and last: You can found evidence of the use of "The Groyne" in D.Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. (After they go out of the island, they come to Europe and arrive in Spain, where Robinson decides not to embark in The Groyne and go through the Pyrenees instead. [in my edition, Penguin 2001, p.227]). I've read that it was usual that sailors named foreign cities with names of parts of the body, but I have no citacions to back me.
Thankyou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.52.8 ( talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to expand and develop the tourism section? There's a lot of information on numerous websites (e.g. http://www.wikitravel.org/en/La_Coruña, http://www.bestacorunabars.com/) but I doubt they would be considered suitable sources for Wikipedia. Any ideas?
Is anybody active on this page? I was just wondering if there was anybody thinking of improving it. The article seems to have been written by a non-native english speaker and has a terrible amount of typos and badly written sentences (no offense to the original writer). I've done my best to correct any mistakes but there are quite a few instances where its not actually clear what's wanted to be said, or the mistakes are so bad that whole paragraphs would have to be changed. The whole history section is also badly titled. There seems to be confusion over terminology. You can't title a section as 'Middle Ages' and then mostly talk about premiddle ages, as in, before at least 1200 AD. The 'Modern Age' section, a period of time which is from the 18th century up to now, is filled with dates in the middle ages. The whole article needs a gramatical tidy up and then probably an expansion and improvement in general. I'm guessing the original writer is Spanish, and English as a language is not their mother tongue. I don't want to be mean in what I've written above but to be honest if your going to write an article on the English Wiki you should atleast have gotten help from a native English speaker. The article needs a lot of work, so I was just wondering if there's anybody with more then a passing interest in La/A Coruña that would want to collaborate and improve the page. Ru ( talk) 04:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm responsible for the badly-titled History section, my apologies. I just titled it à la Spanish, forgetting about cultural contrast. Regarding badly used English, I am Galician, I have Galician language as my mother tongue, and I apologise again if I actually made any linguistic mistake in the History section. In fact, it was worse earlier, and I tried and corrected what I could. In relation with the linguistic issue, English is not my mother tongue, though I feel I am competent enough to write on the English Wiki, my opinion about this is that natives of a place/city/country should write and give the most info about what they know, and, should it appear any linguistic mistakes, there would always be plenty of native speakers to mend it, don't you think? However, my knowledge of A Coruña is limited, as I am not exactly from there, so, I am not the person you are looking for. However, I can tag as incorrect any false data, as I did above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.52.5 ( talk) 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Im a Coruña local. The Hercules Tower was always a lighthouse, from 2 thousand (yes, thousand) years ago. It is true that in 1791 it got a remodelation getting his actual form. Except the bridges, it's the only roman build that conserves their original function.
The ethimology of "Coruña" is incorrect too. There are a lot of theories, none of them confirmed. The spanish wikipedia article is very good for that
I dont want to edit because my english is bad. Thank you a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.8.53 ( talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You are right about the Lighthouse. It has always been a lighthouse, I am going to edit it. Also, someone really should clean all the name wars from the article, and put them all in one sentence. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.163.172.180 (
talk)
15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is right in that the official name for the city is "A Coruña" and the Spanish form "La Coruña" is also used, but it's also worth noting that the form "Coruña" (without any article) is very very common. I'd say that it's the most widespread choice for locals, at least when speaking in Spanish ("vivo en Coruña", "estoy en Coruña", etc.), and I think it's much more common than "La Coruña" -- 91.117.99.155 ( talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Is A Coruña because it's a Galician Town and must be in it language.
OK, the question is how it's referred to in English, rather than what locals call it, but I see no reason not to take note of this usage in the "Name" section. Really it would need a citation. I must say I haven't found any English examples on the Web, except in reference to the football club. AdeMiami ( talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Instead of spending thousands of words arguing about the spelling of two words how about actually including some information about the city during the Spanish Civil War? It seems to be a peculiarly Galician approach to history, to write (with mostly pure conjecture) about ancient Celtic history while ignoring the province's immensely rich history from medieval times to the present day. This page is an absolute joke as it stands (Drake? Dampier? Armada? 1809? Mexican War? etc etc etc) but to write NOTHING about the civil war is beyond pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.172.36 ( talk) 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Montajecoruna.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
If you try to inform properly and with a NPOV, it cannot be oculted that the "name debate" is purely a political one, and only a part (a very minoritary one) supports the use of Spanish name, I don't understand why this article allows quoting statements which are completely false and with links either nothing to see with or untruth ones. The only form is the Galician one, and it is used overwherlmingly nowadays in all communications of all type, including commercial brochures, simple addresses, quotings in practically all the spanish press (and ALL the galician one, no matter language employed), with the notable exception of two very far-right-wing spanish newspapers; also, the article does not mention the incountable lawsuits done by the municipal council under Francisco Vázquez trying not to use the Galician form, all of them lost at each and every Court, including the Constitutional one, and the fact that the PP itself, a party which usually combates (locally) the Galician form was precisely the party which legalised it in a Galician toponym names. Not to state clearly all of this simply means to supply an incomplete and deturped vision of the matter, it means, a false one.
This problem is used as many others as a distraction and targeted to a very concrete public. It is very simple to confirm all what I am saying, so Wikipedia is being used to amplify a very minoritary and interested campaign. There is (and never was at such a large extent as anyone could think reading the article) no broad usage of La Coruña at all, except in a minority who uses it a a political consign, even in Spanish, the unformal common form is Coruña, with no article at all, and practically in a public level, the legal toponym is the only used. The article is creating misleading perception. 91.117.9.231 ( talk) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Very nice. Someone have just reverted my edit about Coruña being the political capital of the Kingdom of Galicia from the XVIth to the XIXth century. With the unfortunate assertion "nonsensical edit". Nice, I've been gratuitously insulted ("if don't know nothing about it, it don't exist, and that guy is a baboon"):
First: In XV century the Catholic monarchs established in A Coruña the 'Real Audiencia del Reino de Galicia' (google books), which would become the embryo of the later local administration of the Kingdom of Galicia, now as a royal dependency inside the Crown of Castille (which was composed of several kingdoms, as the Crown of Aragon).
Second: From the XVI century on, A Coruña became the place where the 'Junta/Juntas del Reino de Galicia' (google books again) met. The Junta was a representative body, composed by a plenipotentiary deputy representing each one of the first five, then seven provinces of the Kingdom: A Coruña, Santiago, Ourense, Tui, Lugo, Mondoñedo and Betanzos. From 1599 the Juntas were presided by the Governor, as representative of the king. This representative body, abolished in 1833, even declared the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Galicia in 1808, during the Napoleonic wars, when Madrid was lost to the French. -- Froaringus ( talk) 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I see user OttomanJackson has moved this page, without any prior discussion. The title and lead of this article are the product of years of attempts to reach consensus, and I will propose that the page be moved back forthwith. AdeMiami ( talk) 09:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I dont care how will be in english La Coruña, but I guess if you dont have the letter Ñ you dont have to use this form, But the reason because I m writting here is because the arguments they are using in pro A Coruña and not La Coruña they are lies, In spanish language allways has been and will be La Coruña, so La is our article, in galician and now officially is A Coruña so that is their article, so all the lies about Franco and political reasons are not true, La Coruña allways in spanish has been La Coruña to prove it I put a link of a map of La Coruña from 1903 when Franco had only 11 years, please stop lying!!! http://www.todocoleccion.net/mapa-corografico-coruna-galicia-original1903-benito-chias-gran-tamano~x24523867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.107.89 ( talk) 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a big lie! All the time here they are saying that was Franco who inveted that name and is a Francoist form and come from Franco times. It´s not true, Allways has been La Coruña!!
Long story short:
I understand that we all can get upset when our contributions are reverted, but we all should presume good faith of other editors and PROVIDE MEANINGFUL SUMMARIES OF ONE'S EDITIONS. Also, not insulting and not taunting others, and not using offensive ad hoc nicknames, would result in a much healthier relation.-- Froaringus ( talk) 12:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You're wrong, Froaringus t.p.m. means: "Trusted Platform Module". It's a cryptografic security microchip. It's useful for encoding things, storing encoded keys,and so on. You can look for information on the internet. I had not account in wikipedia, I never thought about it, that is the reason for differents IP's address. My internet connection is a dynamic IP connection, it changes from time to time. I've not differents accounts. So finally, I decided to register in wikipedia, only this, it isn't the story that you wroted. That is a tall story. Please, don't make up stories.
I don't know what is the problem to publish the two forms that exist in Galicia in order to naming the places.In Galicia you can use both galician and spanish while in the rest of Spain,you usually use the spanish form but if you want to choose another one, there's no problem.This is neither good nor bad,it's that way. By the way, the correct in galician it's "A Cruña", "A Coruña" was a political invention, they were who puts that odd thing as official name and remove the spanish one.This only happen in Spain and it's a long history.
What is the problem of Froaringus?, he can't sees the spanish form next to galician name and he deletes only the spanish form. Why does he do that? it's easy answer,he tells it us in this link: Talk:Galician_people, at bottom of the page,point number 7: "Look, I'm Galician, that's my national identity; I'm proud of our Celtic past,...". Yes, his national identity is galician, so he is galician nationalist and therefore he only deletes the spanish names.They have allergy to everything related to Spain and spanish.
There are many galician nationalists myths but I tell you nothing, it's very long and I'm tired of listening all of these tall stories. They're few people, althoug they are very noisy. They usually use these myths and stories to prove that they are differents to the rest of spanish people and they want to impose their worldview, of course, to the rest of spanish people.For example, how to name a place; only in galician, even though also that place had spanish name, otherwise you are "deturpando el nombre" (distorting the name). There are many examples. Each one chooses what he wants to use when he talks about it, there's no problem. I forgot it,there's no risk of edit warring for my part. -- T.p.m.11 ( talk) 10:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A Coruña. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The Economist has a full page article on La Coruña.
Dec. 17, 2016. "Behind the magic of Zara". p. 60.
Please rename this page to La Coruña.
English speakers are not Galicians.
207.35.33.162 (
talk)
19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the French did not just "leave" Corruna at the end of 1809. The guerrilla war was just beginning. Wellington was in Lisbon. What really happened? 71.178.191.144 ( talk) 23:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Poseidonblu: Could you explain this. Removing the only sourced content in the section, may come across, for all purposes, as an incredibly unconstructive move.--Asqueladd ( talk) 01:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)