Talk:Gipuzkoa

Title
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)
 * On 20:16, 8 April 2006 Jmgonzalez reverted back to Guipúzcoa saying "rv back to most common English spelling (using E. Britannica as source).


 * The pronunciation of Gipuzkoa (Basque spelling) and Guipúzcoa (Spanish and traditional spelling) is almost the same. The name Gìpuzkoa is the only official since 1991 and the Basque institutions use it both writing in Basque and in Spanish. Guipuscoa was used in English but I think it is out of use now. The issue is political rather than linguistic. I would recommend to use Guipúzcoa in Spanish even if it is not official, and also Guipuscoa in English has it has some tradition, at least until there is some definition within the province itself (Maybe there is a political turnover and then Guipúzcoa comes back, as even if it is not official it is still widely used).--alfanje 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be moved to Gipuzkoa as per the Official site in English.  T Rex  | talk  19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We're now (back) at Gipuzkoa as per the consensus reached between editors of WikiProjects Basque, Spain and France (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque). Akerbeltz (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Flag an coat of arms same?
If so we don't need both. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

In English is Guipuscoa not Gipuzcoa
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)
 * The consensus spelling is Gipuzkoa (see the debate and its conclusions on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basque). Akerbeltz (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Gipuzkoa isn't the official name
Guipúzcoa is. In the INE's webpage, there's a list of the Spanish provinces with its official names, and, as you can see, the official name of the province is Guipúzcoa, the Spanish toponym. 213.4.32.217 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. Wikipedia works by finding its own consensus and does not necessarily follow "official" usage. For example, there are several naming conventions such as that of Republic of Macedonia which does not follow the UN usage on the topic. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:44, 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!!.
 * Unfortunately, both consensus and the sources go against what you're claiming. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But in the introduction it's said Gipuzkoa is the only official name, which it isn't! Guipúzcoa is the true official name (Gipuzkoa isn't even official), as you can see in the link in my previous message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.32.217 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there, it's the official for the territory according to its own institutions, what the naming is for the Spanish language academy (Spanish language) or central Spanish institutions (Spanish language naming) is to include third parties. English language usage (if relevant in number), the criteria in the area affected and consensus of the contributors should be taken into account. Why include Spanish language in between? Iñaki LL (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that it would be better to focus on putting some references into the article, rather than sterile argument over naming. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Iñaki, I think you haven't understood it well. The INE's list contains the official names, even if they're not in Spanish (like Girona or Lleida). However, the official name for the province of Guipuscoa is the Spanish toponym, Guipúzcoa. I'm not asking for a title change, only for a correct introduction (it says Guipúzcoa isn't even official and Gipuzkoa is, contrary to the truth!). 213.4.32.217 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * I'm afraid you're wrong. Spanish provinces and autonomous communities have either one official name or two official ones (the three Valencian provinces are the only case). Other ones are valid, but they're not official. Again, I urge you to read the INE's list of the provinces' official name. 213.4.32.217 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You really have nothing better to do. Right, done some digging. Not being entirely convinced INE, a statistics organozation, being the regulatory body for Spanish place names it turns out there is the Instituto Geografico Nacional, the National Geography Institute. While I cannot locate a list of "official" place names, when searching for the Basque provinces it turns out they always list them bilingually i.e. Guipúzcoa/Gipuzkoa. So frankly, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, I urge you to try to maintain a nice discussion, without anything offensive ("You really have nothing better to do").
 * As I said, those toponyms (Gipuzkoa) are valid (that's why the regional gov't uses them, as well as the NGI), but they are not official. For example, there's a Catalan province whose toponyms are Lleida (Catalan, official) and Lérida (Spanish, still valid), and both are used. However, the INE (which uses the official names only) has only Lleida listed because that's the official toponym. There is other province whose official name is Alicante/Alacant, so its official name is Alicante/Alacant but both toponyms are valid.
 * Please don't misinterpret me, Gipuzkoa is a fully valid toponym, but it's not the official one -Guipúzcoa is. So the article should be corrected, as it says Gipuzkoa is the only official name and Guipúzcoa isn't. 213.4.32.217 (talk) 17:38, 23 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)
 * Agree with Akerbeltz, I don't understand all this time consuming and wasting again with the naming. It's official in the place (Gipuzkoa), this is the widely accepted and valid form in the Basque and Gipuzkoan society, we had Birmania before but it's Burma now... That said, if the issue is the word "official" in the introduction of the article, I have no problem in deleting it, let's get it over and done with.Iñaki LL (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The INE uses the official names that are taken from the BOE (Statal Official Bulletin, there you can see the change from Lérida to Lleida, from La Coruña to A Coruña and others), but not anything like Guipúzcoa to Gipuzkoa, the official names of the Basque provinces are the Spanish ones. Also, I think discussion is not a "waste of time", I think it's one of the best things Wikipeda has and that's why it's so great. And, according to that Talk in WP:Basque, the only pro-Gipuzkoa argument was "for historical and linguistic bases", without further explanation. So, for a more correct article, apart from the "official" label in the Spanish toponym instead of the Basque one, at least the title should be discussed, because there's been an edit war around it with no proper arguments, and now the page is protected we can talk and achieve a consensus. 213.4.32.217 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, unless you can point me to a page on the INE site that says "these are the official names" I'm going to ignore whatever you say about INE. In any case, Wikipedia is based on consensus decisions by its editors and does not always follow "official" usage. Official usage for example would demand use of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but Wikipedia editors have eventually agreed to use Republic of Macedonia against official usage (including the UN). On the same basis, the people who participated in the debate on Wikipedia regarding Guipuscoa/Gipuzkoa/Guipuzcoa were satisfied that Guipuscoa has no great currency in English, that usage of the Spanish form was not going to help the uninitiated in figuring out how to say the name, so we agreed on Gipuzkoa. In a nutshell, end of discussion, and a long enough one it was too.
 * Since its the word official you're taking umbrage to, I agree with Inaki that the easiest solution for now will be to remove the word. It doesn't exactly add much informative value and it would appear the issue is hard to back with evidence either way. So, can we please move on? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, as it happens I was editing too. I think I made my point clear and not going to repeat the arguments but 213.4.32.217 you can check | this for a reference. I wonder as well how much time you've spent actually contributing with actual content in this and other articles, you would understand this is a dead end discussion and a waste of time of the contributors. That said, since the issue seems to be Gipuzkoa branded as "official" in the introductory phrases and there are so many "official"s, Ok about deletion. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Guipuscoa
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)


 * This is not as clear as you say. Compared to toponyms such as Lisbon or Rome (or even Biscay — remember the Bay of Biscay, quoted profusely in English texts), this is a name with not a very abundant tradition in the English language, and if you look at Saragossa or Corunna, you will see that Gipuzkoa is not a lonely exception when not observing old English names. Anyway, this has been thoroughly discussed and a consensus was already reached (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque), so this article should not be moved, unless another consensus is reached. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 08:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Xabier. We had a good debate and reached a consensus which has been stable. There's no rationale for using the Guipuscoa spelling which is mostly used in French. And not everything has to come in pairs. Biscay is the English form, Álava the Spanish, Gipuzkoa the Basque... it's all a bit mixed anyway and I'm loathe to open this box of worms again. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. No change needed then, thanks for your answers.--Metroxed (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Thanks for bringing it up on the talk page first! Akerbeltz (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica
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)


 * Reverted, see the section above and more importantly the debate where consensus was reached: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basque Akerbeltz (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

French name
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)


 * Ok for starters, not every edit requires lengthy discussions. A discussion usually only precedes an edit if it's likely to be controversial.
 * As a politically split region, many things to do with the Basque country cannot be easily assigned to one or the other and in most cases, both Basque, Spanish and French are equally relevant. We're not talking about the Japanese name for the province, we're talking about the country bordering Gipuzkoa which, on top of that, contains the northern part of the ethnolinguistic region Gipuzkoa is in. Wiki policy is meant to be applied with common sense, it's not statute law, even though some people seem to think it is. And secondly, Guipuscoa does crop up in English sources and was even considered as the default name for this province on Wikipedia for a while. Does it reach 10% of English sources? How can anyone know, we haven't counted. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unethical??? (...) It suffices the wish to make an honest and valid contribution and an explanation to add something to the wikipedia, it remains refutable and that is the main weakness of the edit if no verifiability has been added, so the burden of evidence to the contrary remains on the side of the editor contesting the new information. That seems pretty common sense in the wikipedia and outside. As regards the issue itself, I took the pain to check the link provided and other articles in similar border situations. Girona adds the French name, but others do not, Roussillon doesn´t, Bordeaux does add its Basque historic name, and Lower Navarre includes the Spanish name. Alsace does add French and German name. Strictly speaking, it wouldn´t apply the French name transcription here. However, I don't see any harm in adding it. Why? Close relations to France and French in modern history, starting from the War of the Pyrenees, the Belle Epoque donostiarra in late 19th early 20th century fraught with French characters and products (architecture, etc.), not to mention the centuries long relations with Bayonne or its Gascon tradition. Since the 1990's there is a small community of French in Donostia, plus a fairly large flow of neighbouring visitors to eastern Gipuzkoa every weekend. Eastern Gipuzkoa is part of the Donostia-Biarritz-Bayonne eurocity Short, I don´t know how it can ever harm having the French name there. Voilà Iñaki LL (talk) 13:13, 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)


 * I like it when people assume they know my views on life, the universe and everything in general. I would personally not object to the French for of Alava either but adding French is not high on my list of priorities so I'm not doing it. And you're conveniently ignoring the point that there *are* English sources which use the French spelling. Honestly, can't you find a more constructive way of using your time by *adding* information rather than quibbling about removing such? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We can compare the terms in the three languages via Ngrams, as here. You'll see that Guipuscoa was the main term in English until about 1880, when Guipuzoca overtook it. It has remained the dominant form every since, and the French form has declined steadily. Since about 1990 Gipuzkoa has become popular and has completely replaced Guipuscoa, but is still not as popular as Guipuzcoa. Guipúzcoa, with the accent, is rare (probably because of typesetting issues) until recently. This is all in English books. Srnec (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Srnec - and also for introducing me the the ngram viewer, great tool, had never come across it! Akerbeltz (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726031049/http://www.gipuzkoaturismo.net/WAS/CORP/DITPortalTurismoPublicoWEB/GenerarPDF.do?idioma=en&codigoFN=E.4.2.2 to http://www.gipuzkoaturismo.net/WAS/CORP/DITPortalTurismoPublicoWEB/GenerarPDF.do?idioma=en&codigoFN=E.4.2.2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)