Category talk : Basque Country

Category:Basque Autonomous Community (+ Spain)

Category:Basque Country (France) or Category:Northern Basque Country (+France)

Category:...

This was my proposal. Sorry, I am afraid that I won't be able follow this debate during the next week. I'll be back next Tuesday.--Assar (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also my proposal. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I agree also with this proposal. -Theklan (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category tree proposition 2

Category:Basque Country (Spain) (+ Spain)

Category:Basque Country (France) or Category:Northern Basque Country (+France)

Category:Basque Country (Spain)

Category:Basque Country cultural region (+disputed territories)

Note: This category tree proposition is based in the fact that several categories can be co-existent, covering different concepts. (Please, category tree propositions should include a signature of the editor). --Balbo (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question: Where would be Category:County of Treviño? In this last subcategory? --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. I just forgot to add it. I do it now.--Balbo (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is what is the difference between having a cultural region and having only Basque Country. As far as I can understand if you see the category tree from the Basque Country maybe you're disappointed about having it below the Basque Country, but if you see the tree from the optic that you can find this category and Basque Autonomous Community (or Basque Country (Spain)) below Spain, it's to say, the official political status, there's no such a big problem. -Theklan (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I just don´t understand what you are trying to say.--Balbo (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that both Basque Autonomous Community and NAvarre will be below Spain and also below Basque Country. So there can't be a misunderstood. -Theklan (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don´t get your point. Whatever you mean, (please could you explain it clearer or translate it, perhaps, to Spanish?) I see that the main point is that you don´t understand the difference between the two proposals, so both could be acceptable for you, as you find them equivalent. I insist, my proposal is, for me, only acceptable: I don´t feel fully identified with it. So if it fits you, plesae, say it clearly.--Balbo (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category tree proposition 3

I don´t have a preference if you like this better.

Category:Basque Country (Spain) (+ Spain)

Category:Basque Country (France) or Category:Northern Basque Country (+France)

Category:Basque Country cultural region (+disputed territories)

--Balbo (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand here and up is why to nest a category called Basque Country cultural region into one called Basque Country. I don't see the difference of putting all directly into Basque Country.-Theklan (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see what you mean. Because one, Category:Basque Country cultural region, involves the cultural concomitances between regions, (other names could be Category:Basque cultural region or Category:Basque cultural influence region, and some people call that Basque Country, but others don´t, and other people call Basque country only the Spanish Autonomous Community, considering only political status, and others, including European and Spanish legislation don´t include Navarre as Basque Country at all. We cannot make a categorisation that fits completely only to one point of view, (that doesn´t correspond to current legality), and nor we can make a categorisation that figures that Basque nationalism doestn´t exist at all, it wouldn´t be complete for anyone searching for information. So Basque Country is the term people searchs first, and then they can choose which images they want to view.

On the other hand, we are very close to a consensus, if you don´t see the difference between proposals, you can support proposal 2 or 3, just choose one of them and we will agree in the sketch!--Balbo (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the differences between both, and of course I prefer the first proposal. But I don't see the point of putting cultural as it is also political or even historical. For example, before the existence of the Basque Autonomous Community Navarre was proposed to be in the first autonomy statute in the 1930s. So for getting closer to your proposal. I propose this new categorization that avoids the reiterative use of the term Basque Country, making the page Basque Country a disambiguation page:

Category:Basque Country (Spain) (+ Spain)

Category:Basque Country (France) or Category:Northern Basque Country (+France)

Category:Euskal Herria (+disputed territories)

Category:Álava (Change for Araba-Alava)

Category:Guipúzcoa (Change for Gipuzkoa, despite the discussion on en:wp as is the official name, or if this is not accepted change to Guipuzcoa, without ú)

Category:Basque Country (cultural region)

-Theklan (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am closer to accept this tree, personaly, I don´t have clear preference in the proposal 3 or this one. (The main difference is the change of Cultural region for Euskal Herria). The only problematic point that appears is that the key language in Commons is English, and when a word or name has a possible (logical) translation, it should be in English. As it seems, the term Euskal Herria has no easy translation, so it could be a possibility. Some admin could say something about this "official language" stuff. About the names Guipúzcoa, Gipuzkoa, and others, I would prefer to make separate discussions and to talk about them in their own talk pages, not for making this discussion longer and even more complex. Unai, I find Theklan´s proposal much better than yours, sorry!--Balbo (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give Category:Euskal Herria and its IW's a try... --Foroa (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I propose now officialy this neutral (?) categorization with an explanation text telling this is a disambiguation in the top. Must we vote? -Theklan (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this proposal, because it makes a really strange difference between Basque Country and Euskal Herria, but I think it's better than propositions 2 and 3. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foroa, not very kind of you creating the new category Category:Euskal Herria before the discussion reaches to and end and a clear consensus, and including it in categories that are out of the proposals and your "own" text. You don´t like edit-warring, but you act as if you did!. Please, don´t create new categories about the subject before we get the consensus!!! Unai, I don´t like the proposal, too. This could be a signal of the good end of the discussion, when anybody feels the proposal is perfect, but everybody feels that it is good enough to accept it. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Category:Euskal Herria to check references to Euskal Herria on other wikipedia's and "upward" connections. As it is not connected with often used categories, it should not be quickly "discovered". I am particularly pleased with the en: connection where it is clearly historical. Personally, I am ready to defend the current position, and the only difficult point seems to be the acceptability of the name, especially around the basque regio's. I had no intention to create other categories or start connecting it "downwards". If you want me to delete or it, I can do it swiftly (and undelete as well). --Foroa (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea of making the Basque Country a pure disambiguation page might prove too idealistic. You have to decide what to do with the many basque related categories inside it. --Foroa (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Foroa, best and most respectful behaviour is not to start changing pages while we are debating about them. It should provoke new wars of editions, and we do not like them, do we?

About the other point, the categories that now are inside Category:Basque Country, it is really a problem, but it is easily solvable. The rest of the categories about autonomous communities, provinces, countries and cities in Commons follow this scheme: Artists (or whatever) of Basque Country (or Spain, or Villanueva de la Serena...), not Basque artists. Following this stucture the problem will dissapear, so Category:Artists of Basque Country (Spain), Category:Artists of Northern Basque Country and so on can be created, following that structure. or Category:Churches in Biscay will linked to all the concepts, because Biscay is in all the categories.--Balbo (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not eager to keep my current position but to reach an agreement, so I can also support Theklan's last proposal. As I think that the main entry point to Commons for people looking for Basque contents is Category:Basque Country, we should make an effort there to explain the different views of the term. So, Category:Basque Country could be just a disambiguation page. I propose the following text:

The Basque Country may refer to:
-The Basque Country (cultural region) or Euskal Herria, which literally means "Country of the Basque language",
 is a denomination used for a territory that shares distinct cultural features, but has not political
 or historical equivalent. Euskal Herria is a word that appeared firstly used in the XVI. century.
 It would comprise seven territories in the two sides of the Spanish-French political border:
 Alava (in Basque, Araba; in Spanish, Álava), Biscay (in Basque, Bizkaia; in Spanish, Vizcaya), Gipuzkoa (in Basque, Gipuzkoa;
 in Spanish, Guipúzcoa) and Navarre (in Basque, Nafarroa; in Spanish, Navarra) in the Spanish side,
 and Labourd (in Basque, Lapurdi; in French, Labourd), Lower Navarre (in Basque, Nafarroa Beherea; in French, Basse-Navarre)
 and Soule (in Basque, Zuberoa; in French, Soule) in the French side.
-The Basque Country (Spain), Comunidad Autónoma Vasca, Euskadi or País Vasco, used to call to a political entity
 integrated in the administrative structure of Spain. It is an autonomous community of Spain,
 composed of Alava, Biscay and Gipuzkoa.
-The Basque Country (France), Iparralde or Pays Basque français), French territory that has not current political status,
 as it is integrated in the Pyrénées-Atlantiques department. It is composed of Labourd, Lower Navarre and Soule.

Please note that I my english level is not that good, so some english native speaker should correct this text.--Assar (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category tree proposition 4

Category:Basque Autonomous Community (+ Spain)

Category:Basque Country (France) or Category:Northern Basque Country (+France)

Category:...

This is not my preferred proposition, but I think this tree would be accepted by Balbo. Is it so, Balbo? I have to say that I don´t like it, but I want to know if you would accept it, because I think that, at least, it resolves the nonsense repetition of proposals 2 and 3. I think it would be a good step ahead. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theklan´s proposal is fine for me, look at it and see if it fits you. Look that yours is by far worse for neutrality, because everybody would accept that all the concepts are a branch of the main concept Basque Country but a a unique categorisations many people may not accept that all the concepts are under Euskal Herria or its English translation, as a top category for everything. If the "absurd repetition" makes the categories more neutral, lets welcome it, then!--Balbo (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I leave my answer there, then. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for contributing so late but I didn't know that the talk was so active. I think that we have to keep in mind what are the categories for: they are to help people find contents on this site. The 2nd and 3rd proposals propose to create a category called Basque Country that doesn't feet nor the legal/historical view, nor the cultural one. Because a region that includes Basque Autonomous Community and Northern Basque Country (but doesn't include Navarre) is a really silly thing. There isn't any legal/historical region that include that. There isn't a cultural region that include that. So, who will find that category useful? Nodoby in my humble opinion. The only region that could be similar to that, it would be a category that include Northern Navarre and the Southern one. But following this way we just achieve to grow the complexity and decrease the usability.

So I prefer the proposal 1 and 4, taking in mind that the Basque Country is a cultural region (everybody agree that!). Like Category:Palatinate, a historical region inside Germany that includes some diverse areas. There is a category called Palatinate and a description that explains what it is. Perfect. Why have we to differentiate between "Basque Country" and "Basque Country cultural region" if they are the same? Basque Country is not an historical region nor a legal one. Everybody agree that it is a cultural region. So why can't we just call it "Basque Country"? -- Txopi (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first proposal. There's no need to create something called cultural region as it would be redundant with the category Basque Country. But maybe we can solve it with a disambiguation page, as people looking for Basque Country would be looking for Euskal Herria, Pais Vasco or Pays Basque, and the three are translated in the same way into english. Me, personally, I look for Euskal Herria, because if I want to look for something related to Basque Autonomous Community I would directly look with that name. But that's my case, and I understand that is not the case of all other uses. -Theklan (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can create a disambiguation page but as i tried to explain in my first comment, this situation is not the same as the two Galicias. In that case it has no sense to create a root category that includes Category:Galicia (Central Europe) and Category:Galicia (Spain), but it this one, it has. Besides, it is true that when French people say Pays Basque, they usually refer to the Northern Basque Country (the same for Spanish people), but they perfectly know that the Basque Country is bigger and they don't pretend to stole anything to the other side (i'm joking). So, we can show directly the whole category (with its subcategories) or create a disambiguation page that shows the whole category and the subcategories. It isn't almost the same? It worths to create the disambiguation page? I just ask, I don't have a clear opinion. -- Txopi (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, apart from the disambiguation page, we have to decide if we are going to duplicate all the categories and subcategories to differentiate BC and BC_cultural (?). As long as I have understood, Balbo is the one who deffend that option so I ask he/she to answer me about the need to differentiate BC from BC_cultural. -- Txopi (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am saying once and again the same thing, but here it goes other time: the differenciation is just because some people and institutions would never agree in including Navarre o the County of Treviño, for example, under the tag "Basque Country", plainly because they think that those regions are not in the Basque Country. And other people think that the only political entity established as Basque Country doesn´t represent the concept of Basque Country but only a small part of it, and it is not our mission to convince ones or others (lots of people have intended to do so several times, some of them with their particular methods), this is not a debate club, a forum or a parliament, but to find a useful categorisation system so verybody can find the image they are searching. So the dissambiguation page seems to be a good way to solve it without dogmatizing.--Balbo (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussion

Category:Guipúzcoa is redirected to the currently used Category:Gipuzkoa. --Foroa (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusión completa de la discusión

Se está olvidando la idea clave de que en ningún momento en Commons clasificamos los países ni provincias por el idioma que se habla. La caetegoría Euskal Herria debería comprender lo mismo que Francophonie, Hispanidad, Anglosphere, Mundo árabe u otros conceptos de zonas lingüísticas, debería estar bajo la categoría del idioma al que se refiera pero no debería incluir las areas donde se hable vasco, por la misma razón por la que no incluimos Mexico, bajo los más de 50 idiomas que se hablan oficialmente. Lo más objetivo es clasificar cada provincia bajo la división administrativa que le corresponde y q se estaban mezclando: comunidad autónoma (Category:Basque Country) departamento (Category:Pyrénées-Atlantiques) y región Category:Aquitaine y luego category:Euskal Herria bajo Category:Basque language.

PD: Tampoco entiendo porque complicarse hablando en inglés si todos los participantes son del mismo país.

Spanish: Te agradeceríamos que firmases con tu nombre para poder seguir el hilo de la conversación. Foroa por ejemplo no habla castellano y es Administrador de Wikipedia Commons, por lo que en la medida de lo posible, creo de deberíamos utilizar un idioma conocido por todos. Además, hablando en castellano impediríamos que francoparlantes pudieran aportar su opinión y sus argumentos. Lo que dices sobre los idiomas no tiene nada que ver con esta discusión, y me temo que no has entendido lo que estamos tratando de categorizar. Te recomiendo que leas el artículo sobre Euskal Herria en Wikipedia Castellano.

English: We will thank you if you sign with your name because this helps us to understand the flow of the conversation. Foroa for example doesn't speak spanish and he is a Wikipedia Commons Administrator so we should try to use a language that everybody understands. Besides, speaking in spanish we would block francophone users that could participate with their opinions and arguments. What you say about the languages is not related to this discussion, and I am afraid that you didn't understood what we are tring to categorize. I suggest you to read the article about Euskal Herria at Wikipedia Spanish. -- Txopi (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not worry too much about me since I am not really important in this discussion and I have some small notions of Spanish. I do worry however about the statement that you are all from the same country, so without participation of the French side, one can hardly say that you have a consensus.--Foroa (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be wonderful to have the oppinion of Basques from the French side, and we have some regular users of the Basque wikipedia who are from there, even there are Basque contributors in the French wikipedia, but I wouldn't dare to write directly to them to invite them to take part in this discussion.--Assar (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here comes the opinion of a French Wikipedia contributor (not Basque, though presently posting from en:Biarritz after a long visit to the public library to browse about books about Basquitude :-)) : in French, "Pays basque" is a bit ambiguous (can be used for the whole of Euskal Herria or the sole French part - generally the BAC is denoted either "Euskadi" or "Communauté Autonome Basque", but sometimes also "Pays basque". On :en we have a similar debate, and someone had the good idea to make a call. My advice : since these categories are obviously visited by a significant number of Spanish users, and though categories are supposed to be named in English, the name Category:Euskal Herria for the top category of the tree seems to me the best : its meaning is obvious for a Spanish or Basque reader, and can be understood with not too many efforts by a French or English reader. The Category:Basque country should not be used (as ambiguous) : use Category:French Basque Country or Category:Basque Autonomous Community respectively. Touriste (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose the "Category tree proposition 1", having Category:Euskal Herria instead of Category:Basque Country? I support that proposal! --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it "proposition 1" or "proposition 4" -this seems to be the same except the name of the tree root. Note I could be a bit cumbersome by suggesting to make special provisions for some French municipalities whose relation with the "traditional" Basque provinces is not clear (specifically Bayonne, Boucau, Sames, Came, Bidache, Escos and Esquiule) which would deserve to be put at the same level than County of Treviño to be perfectly neutral) but it might be easier if I forgot to notice this problem :-) Touriste (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with Category:Euskal Herria in "proposition 1". Anyway, I insist in having also a disambiguation page called "Basque Country", as I think that there are most users that look for that term in Commons, and I would like them having all the viewpoints in that page.--Assar (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom-up validation

This parallel categorisation works welll in theory and in a top down fashion. Those schemes however are much harder when you have to apply a bottom-up categorisation, which I intended to try tomorrow. While I am at it, one has to think about the bottom up categorisation from for example:

an easy case to start with: a politician from Biscay
a politician from Navarre
a modern singer from the County of Treviño
an old poet from Navarre
a very old writer from Lower Navarre
other special (historical, political) cases ?

Here, you will see a number of problems appearing because finally, people tend to want to be as close as possible to the top category. Do they end up in the Basque country part or in Euskal Herria, the cultural part ? I think that this discussion will eliminate some of the proposed options. --Foroa (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big problem here. I agree that some users will want to have their things in upper categories, but those cases you mention are easily solvable creating categories under the territorial categories that we agree: Navarre, Biscay, Gipuzkoa, County of Treviño, and so on. For example, to classify Category:Sabino_Arana we can create Category:Politicians of Biscay (as in Category:Politicians_of_New_York) and put in under Biscay.

I see more difficulties when there isn't a clear knowledge about the origin of some people.--Assar (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More info

Back from holidays in Rhineland (by the way: wonderful place, great white wines:D ), I compiled some more information in favour of my proposition.

I just reviewed how these cases were tackled in other places inside Commons. I hardly found any case in which an adjective like "historical region" or similar is placed after the main name, when there is a name to call them. Let's take Category:Disputed_territories: except rare cases ("Claimed territories of Antarctica" or "Territories claimed by Argentina"), we have regions, either ethnical, political or cultural ones, that are not qualified using any additional word. Even Gibraltar is there. Kashmir and Kurdistan are the most similar cases to the Basque Country, as they are disputed territories spread across two or more states, and their names are used as is.

If we go to Category:Regions_of_Europe, we have more examples of actual and past territories that are not constrained by borders and use their real name. The only exception is just "Basque Country (historical territory)"; the others are named with their real denomination: historical ones (Savoy, Silesia), geographical ones (Caucasus, Balkans), ethnical ones (Ossetia, Chechnya, they are under Caucasus), and so on.

If we go to Category:Historical_regions_and_countries_in_Europe, we will see similar things there: Pomerania, Galicia (Central Europe), the "Central Europe" tag is just to not mix it with Spanish Galicia. Well, "Ancient Crown of Aragon" wouldn't apply to our case, it would be similar to have a category called "Ancient Crown of Navarre", but it could be useful if we want to have historical information related to Navarre, not in our case.

Do we have to correct "Kurdistan", "Kashmir" and "Ossetia", to write "Kurdistan (cultural region)" or "Ossetia (ethnic region)"?

In short, I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post: I am still in favour of proposition 1, and I think that we could avoid confusions writing a good description of what is the meaning of the term in this context. Regards.--Assar(talk) 22:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more examples in en:Category:Divided_regions--Assar (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar discussion in English Wikipedia

There is a similar discussion taking place in the English Wikipedia. It seems that there they are reaching a consensus around "Greater Basque Country". I personally don't like that term.--Assar (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions? Decision?

So, now what? It seems that nobody else is going to make more contributions to the discussion. Which is the more usual way to resolve this question?--Assar (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right... what now? -Theklan (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we reached a consensus here with proposal 1. It is a pity that Balbo doesn't continue talking. I don't have enought energy to participate on English Wikipedia, and it seems that users from that site are not going to participate here. So what we can do? I think that the best option is to make the changes we have decided together. Perhaps in the future more people (basques living in the french side) will participate in a discussion like this and nobody will left the talk until we reach a consensus. But for now, I think that we have quite clear how to improve the categories. So why don't we just make the improvement? -- Txopi (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset). Ok, i will retry to reread everything for tomorrow morning. In the mean time, I repeat the proposition 1 here because some names have to be decided upon. --Foroa (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basque Autonomous Community (+ Spain)

Category:Basque Country (France) or Category:Northern Basque Country (+France)

Category:...

Hey, guys! I am over here! It is only that I have less time to be that active in the conversation. But I will pass over here to participate in the conclussions soon.--Balbo (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what?!!!!! -Theklan (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t know the proceedings. Perhaps an administrator could help proposing a votation structure, as the discussion seems to be over. --Balbo (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to formulate a proposal with potential voting in a couple of days. I've been reading quickly all the discussions and we are running in circles. I will re read it all over again. I think that the problem can be solved on Commons in a quite simple way (with some goodwill). --Foroa (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a conclusion - Voting round

I have seen many discussions and from reading all that, I propose the following.

On Commons, Category:Basque Country is a wide category that covers all the aspects of the Basque country: its history, culture and its current political situation. Commons is a media repositary that should be organised to find quickly media related to the Basque Country. The Commons organisation should be efficient, no matter how one thinks about the past, current and future organisation of the Basque Country.

Category:Basque Country (Spain)

For the French and Spanish Basque countries, we propose clear, simple, symmetric and politically neutral names, avoiding the words Northern and autonomuous. --Foroa (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote here below for the principle and the structure. For discussions on potentially other names, please add that in the comments on names.

Voting: support

Support --Assar (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zorion (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Theklan (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Txopi (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting: oppose (+ number alternate solution)

Oppose --Balbo (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussion (voting)

Comment I would remove the accent mark in Álava and Guipúzcoa (See en:Guipúzcoa), but I'm not sure if this mark is accepted in English language or not.--Assar (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with that. The accents should be removed. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why removing accents when they are used on en:wikipedia and commons (follower) anyway ? --Foroa (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree with the structure and accents should be removed too

Support Agree also about accent and will talk further about using official naming instead of only spanish one. -Theklan (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I didn't have any chance to participate in debate (only get in touch today). So far, so good. Everything seems fine but I'm opposed to this category's name ::Category:Basque Country (Spain). It will mislead people, those who have no idea what Basque Country is about. And for some, Basque Country (Spain) includes Navarre. ::Category:Autonomous Community of the Basque Country is a well-defined unambiguous choice. I hope you consider my request here as a valid approach --Zorion (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. In a first round, I tried to select names without any political connotation and that are clear for people that don't know a lot of the Basque country (like me); to me, "Northern Basque Country" and "Community of the Basque Country" were confusing and dont tell me where they are. In a second round, we can go for the voting of the names: one problem at a time. --Foroa (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...

What does Basque Country mean?

Apart of the English Wikipedia's Basque Country page, I have found some new information about this issue that perhaps you will find interesting. Lonely Planet has published its new gide for 2009 and it mentions "BASQUE COUNTRY France & Spain" as a recommended destination. So, it uses the same names we are voting right now and with the same meaning, as it mentions touristic places at french side and at Navarre. Other international sites also use the word Basque Country as we are using here [1]. So, everybody in and out of the Basque Country, in and out of Wikipedia, seems to be agree.

So I don't understand Balbo's negative voting in this voting round. Reading his comments, it is clear for me that he was agree of using category names Category:Basque Country (Spain) and Category:Basque Country (France). And that is exactly what Foroa has proposed and the rest has supported. If the reason is that the root category includes Navarre inside it, everybody here agrees that and also the English Wikipedia does. So, after reading all the arguments in this talk, I don't see any reason to be opposed to the proposed category structure. I really don't!

This talk doesn't seem that can advance more so based on the agreement we have reached, I think that we should make the changes in the wiki. That is my opinion. -- Txopi (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If we have no new arguments or constructive suggestions by the end of the week, I'll just go for it. We can always change it afterwards. If we don't move forwards, some people might forget that the Basque Country exists. --Foroa (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys! By now I am a bit busy, but tomorrow (friday) I will have time to ansewr Txopi and foroa, with (I hope so) arguments and constructive suggestions. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Country belongs to 2 different countries, is under 3 major administrative districts and a county, with 7 historical provinces.

Illogical	Logical	Logical
:Category:Basque Country ~~Category:Basque Country (Spain)~~ Category:Álava Category:Guipúzcoa Category:Biscay Category:Basque Country (France) Category:Labourd Category:Lower Navarre Category:Soule Category:County of Treviño Category:Navarre	:Category:Basque Country Category:Basque Country (Autonomous community) Category:Álava Category:Guipúzcoa Category:Biscay Category:Basque Country (France) Category:Labourd Category:Lower Navarre Category:Soule Category:County of Treviño Category:Navarre	:Category:Basque Country Category:Basque Country (Spain) Category:Basque Country (Autonomous community) Category:Álava Category:Guipúzcoa Category:Biscay Category:County of Treviño Category:Navarre Category:Basque Country (France) Category:Labourd Category:Lower Navarre Category:Soule

Category:Basque Country (Autonomous community) could eventually be replaced by Category:Autonomous community of the Basque Country. Category:Basque Country (Spain) is a false information and a misleading choice for the title at this scale. --Zorion (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My negative to support the category tree that is being voted is because it shows only the nationalis point of view. Lots of people, including myself find that Navarra is not a part of the Basque Country. Not "everybody in and out of the Basque Country, in and out of Wikipedia, seems to be agree". It is, however, curious that the only person involved in this discussion page supporting the inclusion of non-Nationalist views in the categorisation is me. I don´t know why anybody else has been interested in this discussion, (perhaps the question is that the discussion is in English?) but all of you will agree that there is an important part of the population (in and out of Euskadi and in and out of Spain) that don´t agree with the taxative inclusion of Navarre as Basqu Country. I think that nobody can deny this. My solution to this was to make the dissambiguation page to include different concepts of Basque Country. Then, one can find the different concepts. That is why my proposal is still making Basque Country (Spain), Basque Country (France) and Euskal Herria (as we found that translation of this term was not that easy it could be in euskera. This could be very similar to this wikipedia disambiguation page, which is really clear, and I don´t understand why it should be unacceptable by anybody of any political ideology. [2]. If the name must be Basque country (Spain) or Basque Country (Autonomous community), Northern Basque Country or Basque Country (France), and Euskal Herria, Basque Country cultural region, or Basque Country Greater Region , as it is in English Wikipedia, it doesn´t really mind to me. I just ask for a bit of mental wideness to include in the scheme not only your own point of view. As things are by now in this discussion, I am completely alone, so it could be easy just to finish the voting, and just change things to fit the nationalist view. But it wouldn´t be coherent with a traditional Nationalist parties request at the Spanish parliament: to consider minories and not to act as if they just didn´t exist.

--Balbo (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my proposal:

Category:Basque Country (Spain) or Category:Basque Country Autonomous Community (+ Spain)

Category:Basque Country (France) or Category:Northern Basque Country (+France)

Category:Euskal Herria or Category:Basque Country cultural region or Category:Basque Country (greater region) (+disputed territories)

--Balbo (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any logical in this above category tree, just a spanish POV in which you oppose to a pretending ideology as seen by nationalists. I'm canadian, it's like you would have a special treatement for New-Brunswick in Canada because only a third of the population speak French. As long as Navarre is in the definition of the Basque Country, it has to be at the same level of administrative scale in order to make it with comprehensible corpus. Before making any category structure, make sure you are agree with this english definition of the Basque Country:

«The Basque Country (Basque: Euskal Herria, Spanish: País Vasco, French: Pays Basque) as a historical region (not to be confused with the homonym autonomous community of the Basque country) is a region in the western Pyrenees that spans the border between France and Spain, on the Atlantic coast. It comprises the autonomous communities of the Basque Country and Navarre in Spain and then the Northern Basque Country in France».

If you're not agree tough anybody go lively with its own POV. According to the Basque Country definition, we have only tree logical choices. --Zorion (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: By country and factual	B: Administrave way	C: Historical provinces
:Category:Basque Country Category:Basque Country (Spain) Category:Basque Autonomous Community Category:Álava Category:Guipúzcoa Category:Biscay Category:County of Treviño Category:Navarre Category:Basque Country (France) Category:Labourd Category:Lower Navarre Category:Soule	:Category:Basque Country Category:Basque Autonomous Community Category:Álava Category:Guipúzcoa Category:Biscay Category:Northern Basque Country Category:Labourd Category:Lower Navarre Category:Soule Category:County of Treviño Category:Navarre	:Category:Basque Country Category:Álava Category:Guipúzcoa Category:Biscay Category:Navarre Category:Lower Navarre Category:Labourd Category:Soule Category:County of Treviño

Personnal choice

A	B	C	User	Reason
2nd	1st	3rd	Zorion	A seems to be the best but B is clear enough to me and faster to categorize.
2nd	1st	3rd	Unai Fdz. de Betoño	B is good and short enough. Anyway, I would change from Category:Basque Country (Autonomous community) to Category:Basque Autonomous Community. I would also delete the accents, because they are strange to english language.

Agree with everything Zorion has said. I would only add a small change to his B proposition: Category:Basque Country (Autonomous community) ==> Category:Basque Autonomous Community, because it's shorter and easier. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is an appropriate one and following the guidelines. Would you mind to fill out your choice on A, B or C to know what you want. Thank you. --Zorion (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to take part in the same discussion again. We made a voting on Foroa's proposal, we know the result and I would like to know if I can already use that tree. I don't mind if it is "Basque Country (Spain)" or "Basque Autonomous Community".

Foroa: all the borders dividing countries are created from nationalist views, including the border between Spain and France, so don't pretend that your point of view doesn't have that fault. I agree with you that Category:Basque Country must have a good disambiguation text explaining the different points of view, but I also think that the tree voted before should be kept. Again, I would like to remind you that we are not discussing about "País Vasco", but about "Basque Country". And, in English, "Basque Country = Euskal Herria", not "Basque Country = País Vasco". --Assar (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zorion:

I don't see any logical in this above category tree, just a spanish POV in which you oppose to a pretending ideology as seen by nationalists.

False. In the "Spanish" intolerant and restrictive point of view Navare wouldn´t be even in the scheme, and Euskal Herria as a category wouldn´t even exist. That would be the opposite-ideology paralell to your category proposals.

I'm canadian, it's like you would have a special treatement for New-Brunswick in Canada because only a third of the population speak French.

I don´t believe a word of this pretended "external and aseptic" point of view. You may be Canadian, but a Basque-speaking-and-living-in-Basque-County-for-ten-years-and-with-Basque-ancestors Canadian [3] can be also a nationalist, and even without that. It is not a sin, but don´t pretend to be an independent jugde.

As long as Navarre is in the definition of the Basque Country, it has to be at the same level of administrative scale in order to make it with comprehensible corpus. 
Before making any category structure, make sure you are agree with this english definition of the Basque Country.

Really? Is Navarre in the definiton of Basque Country? Who has the honour to make an official definition of Basque Country? I guess it is not you or me, nor even any governement of Europe (which by the way say the opposite) but English Wikipedia. I have been an editor of English Wikipedia for years and found really funny things that anybody checked for years. Come on! And even finding the present edition-moment of Wikipedia as and article of faith, I repeat once and again that when you write Basque Country what appears is this: [4] (which matches with my proposal), not what you are trying to say.

If you or anyone is not agree with this definition though, anybody could directly draw a category tree with its own POV.

Beg your pardon? I just don´t understand the sentence.

According to the Basque Country definition, we have only tree logical choices.

It is clear for me that you really don´t have the possesion of the Basque Country definition. It is subjective for different people, so your three only logical choices may not be that logical for other people (and governements)

On the other hand I can understand Assar. We have voted, nobody else wants to participate or knows about this discussion and you have the right to change things accordng to that tree. The problem is that it will be a false end for the discussion. As soon as the categories will change to the new tree, much more people will be informed of the changes, and new edit warrings and discussions will appear. I am not Rappel [5] :-) , but it is very possible that another talk like this will be needed when new discussions with other newly-informed users (mostly navarro editors) find Navarre under the plain tag "Basque Country". Well, I know how to lose, and I know that I don´t have a chance, but I think it will be better to make a long-distance categorisation, not one that will change in months or in a year. On the other hand, we have spent time and effort in this discussion, and we have the luck to have a good place and dialogant participers to really improve this to get a really solid and permanent scheme. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Told me your POV, POV, POV... nice but guessing who I'm, you go over the limit.(Basque-speaking-and-living-in-Basque-County-for-ten-years) First, my site has been translated in Euskara by someone else (so my level of Basque language is very limited). Secondly, as far as I know, I've been visiting Basque Country for 15 years (doesn't mean I live there, mister smart guesser). After this personnal guessing on me and personnal attack on who I suppose to be in order to desperately attempt to discredit my judgement, I will not wasting my time with a such person like you. (By the way my first and last name are German ... lol) Adios --Zorion (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foroa,
It's time to go ahead towards a final conclusion. On your last proposal, we (Unai Fdz. de Betoño and I) seem to agree on changing :Category:Basque Country (Spain) into :Category:Basque Autonomous Community. Removing accents was also a request from the majority. Let's start a All Star Final Vote for this ;) . Nobody suggested minor changes on the previous voted category tree. Regards --Zorion (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balbo's last proposition has a flaw that has been already explained here. Basque Country is the same as Euskal Herria, is just a cultural region and obviously Navarre is part of it. Balbo is trying to add a conceptual difference that doesn't exist (or he is not able to explain it with rational arguments) so I can't agree with him. I think that English Wikipedia's categories are good enough but we have an opportunity to make things a bit better here. Just a bit better, because they are almost the same. In my point of view, Balbo's last proposition is clearly worse than the English Wikipedia's structure and of course worse than the one we have prepared here. If new people doesn't comes to this talk, I think that we should take Foroas proposition as the acepted one. Else, if we extend this more, I am afraid that we will fall repeating things, fighting between us and making this talk becomes an unproductive brawl. Everybody has voted? After changing the categories structure, we can focus on the accents, etc. --Txopi (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Txopi, I am afraid that you are right: repeating once and again things won´t improve the debate. The positions are clear, and the votation has been done. Nevertheless, I think I am going to try to transmit for last time my rational arguments. First: indeed, English wikipedia is not a bible or a law book. I agree that is written there has (almost) always lots of things to improve, and sometimes clear errors. The reason to put English wikipedia entry of Basque Country as an example was to clarify a falsehood asserted by other editor that said something about a "definition of Basque Country" quotating Wikipedia as his/her source. But I don´t find that wikipedia hasc the Truth of Things. Second (and for the umpteenth time): The difference between Basque Country and Euskal Herria is clear for a section of the population and not for other section. You don´t find any difference but other views do, and my only request was to include also the others, not only this one. And I agree clearly with you in matching the concept Euskal Herria as a cultural region. That is why I proposed to translate Euskal Herria as Basque Country (cultural region), to difference it from other concepts withe the same name, as Basque Country autonomous community. Cheers!--Balbo (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zorion, I don´t want to turn this talk about categories in a personal quarrel. I will answer about your personal charges at user talk page. I assume that you din´t even read my arguments. ¡Agur!--Balbo (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balbo. I clearified above the sentence (my mistake) and for: «spanish» POV my apologies for making assumptions based on past experience. After guessing who I am, you assume I didn't read your arguments. Wrong again! ... I didn't comment because you were beyond the limits about me. No discussion is possible after that. Enough is enough. «Adios» for good over here --Zorion (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Country Naming Round

From the above voting and discussions, it comes clear that the voted solution and the second proposed B solution from User:Zorion|Zorion]] is as below. I repeat the intro for people that jump to the end first before reading the discussion ...

On Commons, Category:Basque Country is a wide category that covers all the aspects of the Basque country: its history, culture and its current political situation. Commons is a media repositary that should be organised to find quickly media related to the Basque Country. The Commons organisation should be efficient, no matter how one thinks about the past, current and future organisation of the Basque Country.

Category:Basque Autonomous Community

Category:Gipuzkoa

Category:Basse Navarre

Category:Navarra

"Alea jacta est" concerning the structure. No voting required anymore, this is the baseline: Comments:

This structure will be formally documented and implemented within one or two days. Some naming might change depending on the outcome of the discussions. --Foroa (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Decisions

I removed the accent from Trevino and inserted Navarra, Gipuzkoa and Basse Navarre, but I do not think that it is realistic to expect that we can change the accents or names of categories that are existing. You can't win them all. I think that we first have to try to fit in the system. Other opinions ? --Foroa (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that County of Treviño is now in Category:Condado de Treviño. Can we use that name, do we have a chance to get that name changed ? --Foroa (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Structure Voting

I think that I understand the concern of Balbo and personally, I think that it might be a workable idea to have an additional parallel structure that is flat, meaning independent from any political or national thinking, so that any area is as "basque" as the others. So what are you folks thinking about additional links so that each region is equally directly linked to Basque country making a flat structure as follows. I am not avocating, just a question:

Category:Basque Country
Category:Basque Country regions or something simular
Category:Álava

Category:Gipuzkoa

Category:Biscay

Category:Labourd

Category:Basse Navarre

Category:Soule

Category:County of Trevino

Category:Navarra
~~--Foroa (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~What is this? We have already voted for one category tree... --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Parallel structure voting: support
[edit]
~~(+)~~
Parallel structure voting: oppose
[edit]

Oppose --Zorion (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that as a structure inside, but the interpretation of Unai Fdz. de Betoño is correct. Cancelled. --Foroa (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative naming voting

Only one argument in this area where three languages are official: English only. For Trebiño, 100% of what I've seen is with the accent --Zorion (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basque Autonomous Community

Category:Alava now en:Álava

Category:Guipuzcoa English definition, now Category:Gipuzkoa

Category:Lower Navarre (English definition) - now redirected to category:Basse Navarre en:Lower Navarre

Category:County of Treviño now Category:Condado de Treviño

Category:Navarre (English definition) - now redirected to Category:Navarra

Voting: support

Support --Zorion (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support These names are more correct from an english point of view. I think this is a good category tree. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would change from Category:Álava to Category:Araba / Álava because it's the official name, which englobes both basque and spanish names.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I vote again from the same... hope to be the last for the moment and can change the category tree. -Theklan (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure comes online shortly. --Foroa (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting: oppose

(+)

I think that we cannot defend a (re)naming rule which is based on several different sources and interpretations. We have to stick to one rule and reference. I see the following possibilities:

Naming as in English Wikipedia: the lazy solution but avoids debates here
Encyclopedia Brittanica as reference (check if not debatable)
Encarta

--Foroa (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zorion: that's not polite. I gave my opinion, and then you changed the name of Alava ==> Álava. I think we could follow Encarta, as Foroa says, because it's quite neutral in the war between spanish and basque. For example, Álava is spanish, and Araba basque, and Encarta gives the official (bilingual) name: Araba / Álava. It also gives Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia. In this last case there's quite a big tradition in the english Biscay, so we could use this last name.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English or Spanish/Basque mix - Realistic ? --Foroa (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As names are in last proposed category tree I find incoherent to put together Basque Country Autonomous community and Basque Country (France). I think it is much better to mention the countries (Category:Basque Country (Spain) and Category:Basque Country (France)) in both cases or in none, calling the former Category:Basque Country (Autonomous Community) and the latter Category:Nothern Basque Country. --Balbo (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balbo is right Basque Autonomous Community has to match with Category:Nothern Basque Country which is the right English definition on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I would go with English wikipédia guidelines, will save time, solve all problems at once and for good. Forget my pseudo-approach Foroa (Britannica & American encyclopaedia), I think I messed that up --Zorion (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure needed

we are drifting away in all sorts of directions

Suspend voting while subject is being changed
English or Spanish/Basque mixes (one choice for all names)
Reference: Britannica seems to be the current line of thinking
Community namings: Category:Basque Autonomous Community, ::Category:Basque Country (France),
Region namings

This voting needs to be reorganised when baselines and disputed names are known. --Foroa (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's be pragmatic. I propose to use the tree above, with the correction suggested by Balbo (Category:Basque Country (France) ==> Category:Northern Basque Country, otherwise, if we use Basque Country (Spain) we would leave Navarre outside), and using Álava and Gipuzkoa as they are right now. The final result would be:

Category:Basque Autonomous Community

Category:Gipuzkoa

Category:Northern Basque Country

Category:Enclave of Treviño