Category talk:Escos

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Historically, Lower Navarre has been part of Béarn, and Escos, formerly in Lower Navarre, is now considered to belong to the Béarnais part of Pyrénées-Atlantiques, as far as I can find out. I propose to maintain Category:Béarn. --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, Lower Navarre was NOT part of Béarn, though under the juridisction of parliament of Pau during XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries -I hope for you nobody from Lower Navarre will read you, they might be a little shocked by your assertion :-). "Now considered to belong to Béarnais part of Pyrénées-Atlantiques" seems to me quite unsourced. I did quite a lot of work on fr:Liste des communes du Béarn, I fear this concept is too evanescent for rigorous categorisation, indeed. Touriste (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Les vicomtes de Béarn, au 15ème regnèrent sur Béarn et Basse-Navarre avec leur titre vicomte de Béarn, plus tard, Henri IV était appelé Le Béarnais. Que l'histoire féodale de la france est complexe.... Je suis en train de categoriser les villes des Pyrénées-Atlantiques selon Labourd, Soule, Lower Navarre, et maintenant Béarn. Puisque tu en sais plus que moi, peux-tu contrôler et prendre la suite de la liste Category:Cities and villages in Pyrénées-Atlantiques à partir de la lettre J? --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And the source: Les guides du Livre de Poche: pays basque béarn (1977) divisent les Pyrénées-Atlantiques in two complementary parts: Pays Basque and Béarn. But what touriste books say is often approximative. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) One more source: Guide Michelin, Pyrénées-Aquitaine: Le Béarn, le plus vaaste des États Pyrénéens, couvre à peu près les deux tiers du département des Pyrénées-Atlantiques, le reste étant occupé par le Pays Basque. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your systematic categorization is a good idea - indeed I had obtained on :fr the suppression of a similar category : fr:Discussion catégorie:Ville du Labourd/Suppression. Your sources are "vulgarisation" books, not sufficient to give a complete perspective. I was the author of the lengthy article fr:Géographie politique des communes des Pyrénées-Atlantiques sous l'Ancien Régime, you'll find in it the complete list of the communes whose categorization can be problematic, with indication of sources explaining why. Indeed nowadays at least two communes remain in a serious blurred condition, even if one admits low quality popular sources : fr:Esquiule was politically in Béarn when this province existed, but with a Basque population, and is today sometimes considered as part of Béarn and sometimes as part of Soule, and fr:Sames (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), which was in Gascony and absolutely neither in Béarn nor in Basque country is often to be found in lists of communes of Lower-Navarre but is considered as part of Labourd by some sources (e.g. (es) Atlas Turistico Euskal Herria, Sua Edizioak, 2008 (ISBN 9788482162928)). But do as you like, I have no will to struggle for such a tiny affair ; I simply think this categorization operation is a bad idea. Touriste (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. My primary aim was to improve the Basque Country category tree making better dichotomies into a french and a spanish subtree. I did not invent Soule, Labourd and Lower Navarre: I followed the listst at the main articles in fr:wiki and eu:wiki, and the (complete?) sets of locator maps. I really have no knowlegde of my own; you may arrange these lists according to your knowledge. Also, I thought that all what remained could be categorised Béarn, but I stop now with Béarn classification. Kind greetings, --Havang(nl) (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. I find more and more subdivisions of Pyrénées-Atlantiques: Arrondissements, communautés de communes, anciens provinces, and recently added Pays de l'aménagement du territoire ( Basque (aménagement du territoire). Geographic categorisation is not so simple indeed as it looks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)