This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I notice that this page had gone through a number of title changes without discussion. I have always seen the name as Guipuscoa in English publications, prior to 2000. See the 800 or so hits in Google books. I suspect that Gipuzkoa is closer to the original Basque pronunciation, but is there a reason that we are not using the common English spelling? -- Bejnar 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If so we don't need both. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC).
It exists a manipulation of the real name in English. If Gipuzcoa is official is only in Spain, not in english language as allways has been Guipuscoa, the person that made this change is basque and want to impose this wrong form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayfrito ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Guipúzcoa is. In the INE's webpage, there's a list of the Spanish provinces with its official names, and, as you can see [1], the official name of the province is Guipúzcoa, the Spanish toponym. 213.4.32.217 ( talk) 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Gipuzkoa is no the name in english, always has been Guipuscoa, but a group of friends with Akerbeltz)as president, try to change english language and impose basque language. There is not consensus, there is imposition!!.
Official place names can exist at various levels mate; Gipuzkoa in this form is official in the BAC. It may be that outside the BAC this form is rarely used but that does not make it unofficial. Secondly, the spelling Guipuscoa was rejected on a number of points, the main one being that is has little if any currency in English language publications. So I would like to second Iñaki in saying that there are more fruitful uses of everyone's time that to argue this particulat point. Akerbeltz ( talk) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
And where exactly does it say that INE has either the authority to choose official names or that their list is a list of official names? I'm getting curt because you're wasting everyone's time with an issue that at best is banal. Akerbeltz ( talk) 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The article should be renamed (again) to "Guipuscoa", which is the name of the province in English, as the article Biscay (Bizkaia) uses the English name. We cannot have one of the provinces with an English name and the other one with a Basque or Spanish name; there must be some sort of unity. I believe there are some debate about the naming of the Basque articles, but it has been on a "hiatus" for long time. Until it is decided what to do with these artícules, this one should be renamed "Guipuscoa", at least to be in pair with Biscay. Greetings.-- Metroxed ( talk) 07:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
In the Encyclopedia Britannica is 'Guipúzcoa': http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/248956/Guipuzcoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.242.190 ( talk) 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The French name in the lead is irrelevant as per WP:Name "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)". Gipuzkoa was never inhabited by the French and was never part of France. Furthermore, there is no French minoroty and no official status for the French language. The fact that the province borders France is completely irrelevant because by that logic all neighbouring provinces of all countries that share common borders should also have the language of the neighbouring country. If French has to be included, this can be done in a section "Name and Etymology", not in the lead.
Also, I find your approach quite unethical. The French name was added without discussion a few months earlier and should be removed until a discussion is held. What has to be proved is the relevance of the French language in that article, not its irrelevance.
Regards, -- 84.22.10.6 ( talk) 07:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Neither of these arguements seem relevant enough. Basque, Spanish and French are generally not equally relevant in the whole Basque region because the Spanish Basque country was never part of France and was not inhabited by French. Why would you add the French name of Gipuzkoa and not of Alava? And why wouldn't Labourd and Soule have their Spanish name in the lead? The criterion should be one and the same for all. Basse Navarre was part of the medieval Iberian Kingdom of Navarra, to which Spain is a successor, so it is relevant to have its Spanish name. Alsace was part of Germany and was inhabited by German speakers.
Concerning the close relations with France, as every interaction, that is a two-way process. The San-Sebastian-Biarritz-Bayonne eurocity also includes French territory; Spanish visitors also visit neighbouring areas of France. Why don't you try to add the Spanish name for Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Bayonne or Biarritz, for example? I don't think this would be accepted. Recent foreign communities, whether French, Romanian or Moroccan do not set a necessity for adding the language of those communities. And cultural influnce is certaintly not a factor as well - many Erupean cities were influenced by French culture and trends during the Belle Epoque, many European cities were influnced by the Italian Renaissance but this is not a reason to add French or Italian names. -- 84.22.10.6 ( talk) 14:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gipuzkoa. 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) 21:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I notice that this page had gone through a number of title changes without discussion. I have always seen the name as Guipuscoa in English publications, prior to 2000. See the 800 or so hits in Google books. I suspect that Gipuzkoa is closer to the original Basque pronunciation, but is there a reason that we are not using the common English spelling? -- Bejnar 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If so we don't need both. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC).
It exists a manipulation of the real name in English. If Gipuzcoa is official is only in Spain, not in english language as allways has been Guipuscoa, the person that made this change is basque and want to impose this wrong form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayfrito ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Guipúzcoa is. In the INE's webpage, there's a list of the Spanish provinces with its official names, and, as you can see [1], the official name of the province is Guipúzcoa, the Spanish toponym. 213.4.32.217 ( talk) 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Gipuzkoa is no the name in english, always has been Guipuscoa, but a group of friends with Akerbeltz)as president, try to change english language and impose basque language. There is not consensus, there is imposition!!.
Official place names can exist at various levels mate; Gipuzkoa in this form is official in the BAC. It may be that outside the BAC this form is rarely used but that does not make it unofficial. Secondly, the spelling Guipuscoa was rejected on a number of points, the main one being that is has little if any currency in English language publications. So I would like to second Iñaki in saying that there are more fruitful uses of everyone's time that to argue this particulat point. Akerbeltz ( talk) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
And where exactly does it say that INE has either the authority to choose official names or that their list is a list of official names? I'm getting curt because you're wasting everyone's time with an issue that at best is banal. Akerbeltz ( talk) 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The article should be renamed (again) to "Guipuscoa", which is the name of the province in English, as the article Biscay (Bizkaia) uses the English name. We cannot have one of the provinces with an English name and the other one with a Basque or Spanish name; there must be some sort of unity. I believe there are some debate about the naming of the Basque articles, but it has been on a "hiatus" for long time. Until it is decided what to do with these artícules, this one should be renamed "Guipuscoa", at least to be in pair with Biscay. Greetings.-- Metroxed ( talk) 07:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
In the Encyclopedia Britannica is 'Guipúzcoa': http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/248956/Guipuzcoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.242.190 ( talk) 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The French name in the lead is irrelevant as per WP:Name "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)". Gipuzkoa was never inhabited by the French and was never part of France. Furthermore, there is no French minoroty and no official status for the French language. The fact that the province borders France is completely irrelevant because by that logic all neighbouring provinces of all countries that share common borders should also have the language of the neighbouring country. If French has to be included, this can be done in a section "Name and Etymology", not in the lead.
Also, I find your approach quite unethical. The French name was added without discussion a few months earlier and should be removed until a discussion is held. What has to be proved is the relevance of the French language in that article, not its irrelevance.
Regards, -- 84.22.10.6 ( talk) 07:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Neither of these arguements seem relevant enough. Basque, Spanish and French are generally not equally relevant in the whole Basque region because the Spanish Basque country was never part of France and was not inhabited by French. Why would you add the French name of Gipuzkoa and not of Alava? And why wouldn't Labourd and Soule have their Spanish name in the lead? The criterion should be one and the same for all. Basse Navarre was part of the medieval Iberian Kingdom of Navarra, to which Spain is a successor, so it is relevant to have its Spanish name. Alsace was part of Germany and was inhabited by German speakers.
Concerning the close relations with France, as every interaction, that is a two-way process. The San-Sebastian-Biarritz-Bayonne eurocity also includes French territory; Spanish visitors also visit neighbouring areas of France. Why don't you try to add the Spanish name for Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Bayonne or Biarritz, for example? I don't think this would be accepted. Recent foreign communities, whether French, Romanian or Moroccan do not set a necessity for adding the language of those communities. And cultural influnce is certaintly not a factor as well - many Erupean cities were influenced by French culture and trends during the Belle Epoque, many European cities were influnced by the Italian Renaissance but this is not a reason to add French or Italian names. -- 84.22.10.6 ( talk) 14:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gipuzkoa. 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) 21:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)