Category talk:Gipuzkoa

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

Interwiki's[edit]

Category interwiki's[edit]

ast:Categoría:Guipúzcoa

ca:Categoria:Guipúscoa

en:Category:Gipuzkoa

es:Categoría:Guipúzcoa

eu:Kategoria:Gipuzkoa

fr:Catégorie:Guipúzcoa

gl:Categoría:Guipúscoa

nl:Categorie:Gipuzkoa

ru:Категория:Гипускоа

Article Interwiki's[edit]

af:Gipuzkoa ar:غيبوثكوا an:Guipuzcua ast:Guipúzcoa br:Gipuzkoa ca:Guipúscoa cs:Guipúzcoa da:Gipuzkoa de:Gipuzkoa en:Guipúzcoa et:Gipuzkoa es:Guipúzcoa eo:Gipusko eu:Gipuzkoa fa:گیپوسکوا (استان) fr:Guipuscoa gl:Provincia de Guipúscoa - Gipuzkoa hr:Gipuzkoa it:Guipúzcoa pam:Guipúzcoa lad:Provinsia de Guipozkoa la:Ipuscoa lb:Guipúzcoa nl:Gipuzkoa ja:ギプスコア県 no:Gipuzkoa oc:Guipuscoa pl:Gipuzkoa pt:Guipúscoa ro:Provincia Guipúzcoa ru:Гипускоа fi:Guipúzcoa sv:Guipúzcoa tr:Guipuzcoa vec:Gipuzkoa war:Guipúzcoa zh:吉普斯夸省

Gipuzkoa Naming[edit]

When following up this category, I noticed many renaming/moves and naming inconsistencies about the various naming possibilities for the province. Options are in alphabetic order:

English: 1a. Province of Guipuscoa
English: 1b. Province of Guipuzcoa
Español: 2. Provincia de Guipúzcoa, en España
Euskara: 3. Gipuzkoa, Euskal Herriko the current naming

Not sure if we need to have this discussion here or in COM:CFD. In the mean time, please don't start redirect or rename requests. --Foroa (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the general decission is to put the names in English when they exist or are commonly used. The point now is to see whether Guipuscoa is the specifical English name or not.--Balbo (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Using the English name (if it is accepted by English speaking people) is a good way to avoid conflicts.--Assar (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Municipalities in Guipuscoa" versus "Cities and villages in Gupuzkoa"[edit]

In some areas in Spain, the one is preferred, in others the other. I think indeed that they better don't coexist. Opinions ? --Foroa (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think that there has to be just one denomination. In Álava I chose Category:Municipalities of Álava because the two categories were created and I wanted to merge both in one, and I think that it is more adequate to represent the geographical reality of Álava (for instance, in the municipality of Vitoria-Gasteiz we have 1 city and 64 small villages, from 2 to 200 inhabitants). In fact, I created a Category:Villages of Vitoria-Gasteiz inside Category:Vitoria-Gasteiz. However, I am not against "Cities and villages", and I don't know the geographical reality of several parts of Spain. In this case, I think that Category:Municipalities of Guipuscoa fits better.--Assar (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
That is yet another way of organising indeed. In most countries, one has a hierarchical categorisation system (country --> province --> district/county/condado --> municipalities --> Villages --> hamlets. In addtion, one tend to have a parallel system (as used to be in Spain), such as "cities and villages in xxx province" which offers the following advantages:
  • Most image geolocations are limited to a village/city name and possibly a country. A person that is not knowledgeable about the Spanish village organisation can still find his way and start a categorisation in Spain
  • When stumbling on a unknown village, one can find out in one or two clicks that the village is in Spain (several villages with the same name might exist in other countries), which is problematic in a deep hierarchical categorisation system, especially if province and city names overlap, combined with the confusion created by province and autonomous community organisation.
  • within a province, it is easy to see what villages are existing in Commons, which ones are still missing and which ones might have naming conflicts with villages with the same name in other provinces or countries. This is even more interesting if for the village names, names in several languages are possible.
So I think that "Cities and villages in Gupuzkoa" have been created within this spirit, so I am not enthousiastic to rename them to "municipalities in xxx" before having a better sight on the original intention. --Foroa (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
A nice example related to Category:Villages of Vitoria-Gasteiz: A person that brings for example a picture of a church in Ihurre or Asteguieta in Spain: how will he find the way to categorise it without analysing the whole Spanish organisation ? --Foroa (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Other example: Aretxabaleta in Vitoria-Gasteiz and category:Aretxabaleta, --Foroa (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Let us add notices in ambiguous entry pages, like this. --Javier ME (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Good initiative: the more one document categories and foresee them, the less one has to correct afterwards. --Foroa (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Municipalities in Guipuscoa es lo mejor. Patricia Rios (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been spending hours in all sorts of reference works, and so far I found no reference work that, besides Biscay, uses English names for the various Basque Country main components, only Spanish and Basque namings. So, I propose that I let go the change to the Guipuscoa compromise as at least, there is not too much protest for it. --Foroa (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)