Talk:Basque Country (autonomous community)/Archive 1

The economy section is incorrect in stating that the basque country has the highest GDP per capita of all the autonomous communities in Spain. That honour falls to Madrid. Please see http://www.lukor.com/not-por/0512/28133913.htm--72.136.144.29 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

english please. Not spanish! this is wikipedia in eglish!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.239.96 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article you link is from 2004!!! a bit old don't you think? As far as I know we are discussing current data here, and besides I don't think that "one of the wealthiest" means "the highest GDP" where did you read that? David (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If the page is going to be titled using the French term for Euskadi, it should mention that the Basque Country also includes areas of three French provinces, spreading along the coast as far as Biarritz. A revised map showing the whole Basque region, rather than just the Spanish section would be more accurate.

This article incorrectly speaks about countRy which indeed is partly in France. I can only second that Basques themselves (in Biarritz) say Basque country speaking about the whole region in France and Spain. IMHO the title should contain either "county" or "province" (something referring to the fact that it is only an administrative region in Spain and not to mess with Basque country), or as a direct translation "Basque autonomous community". The mess seems to come from Spanish terms - País Vasco (basque land/country) vs. Pueblo vasco (basque nation/people). -- Goldie (tell me) 14:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As Vertical123 says below, the official name is in Spanish Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Autonomous Community of the Basque Country), often shortened confusingly to Basque Country (País Vasco) or Basque Autonomous Community (Comunidad Autónoma Vasca), and often even to CAPV or CAV. The article should probably use all the time the ofical name or the shortening ACBC or BAC (that's the one I use in English), so the administrative region is not confused with the ethnic/historical one. --Sugaar 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

País Vasco is the official name in Spanish, País is Country and Vasco is Basque. There is no other way of going around. You can speak yes about a historical (and living) Basque nation which includes part of France too, but that is another article and not this one which is the political unit of spain called 'autonomous community or region', in this case we are talking about País Vasco .-Vertical123 20:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)-

Ahem. One thing is the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country (comprising the Western Basque Country only) and another quite different one is the Basque Country, as historical, linguistical and self-percieved entity. Spaniards are not the only ones who can speak Spanish, you know, Basques ourselves do and call the whole country by that name when we speak in Spanish, French, Basque or English. --Sugaar 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The following was bluntly pasted in the article.If you want to translate from Spanish, do or do not.There is no "try".--Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back 1982.

El nombre de País Vasco recoge dos conceptos diferentes. Por un lado, el País Vasco o Euskadi es una Comunidad Autónoma situada al norte de España, lindando al norte con el Mar Cantábrico y Francia, al sur con La Rioja, Castilla y León y la Comunidad Foral de Navarra, al oeste con Cantabria y al este con la Comunidad Foral de Navarra.

El nombre de País Vasco también recoge otra acepción, que es una región socio-cultural situada a ambos lados de los Pirineos ocupando, parcial o totalmente, territorios de Vizcaya, Guipúzcoa, Álava y Navarra en España, y de Zuberoa, Baja Navarra y Lapurdi en Francia, denominada Euskal Herria ("Pueblo Vasco") en vascuence. Véase el artículo Euskal Herria para más información a este respecto.A pesar de su relativamente pequeña población, el País Vasco concentra un gran volúmen de industrias y es una de las regiones más ricas de España.Pese a su cultura antigua y lenguas únicas (pre-románicas y de origen desconocido), el País Vasco siempre ha sido una pieza clave en la formación de España y su población. Los territorios de la región histórica de Castilla fueron repoblados en parte por vascos durante la Reconquista, así como contingentes leoneses y cántabros.

Provincias

• Álava (Araba). Capital: Vitoria (Gasteiz)
• Guipúzcoa (Gipuzkoa). Capital: San Sebastián (Donostia)
• Vizcaya (Bizkaia). Capital: Bilbao (Bilbo)

Municipios

• Lista de municipios del País Vasco.

Historia

Antiguamente se conocía a estas tres provincias como Provincias Vascongadas y cada una poseía una Diputación Foral.

El nacionalismo vasco considera este territorio parte de Euskal Herria.

Política

Partidos políticos con representación en el parlamento:

• Partido Nacionalista Vasco
• Partido Socialista de Euskadi, federación del Partido Socialista Obrero Español
• Partido Popular
• Eusko Alkartasuna
• Ezker Batua - Izquierda Unida
• Batasuna, actualmente ilegalizado como partido político por su apoyo a la banda terrorista ETA, sin embargo aún posee un grupo en el parlamento vasco.

This article's lack of information needs to be addressed immediately. This region has a rich, though complicated, history and culture, and a specialist should step up and include information beyond the Basque Country's favorite foods. Wikipedia has more information on thousands of pornstars than it does on the Basque Country. Get it goin'!

take a look at Basque Country (historical territory), Basque people and Category:Basque for the set of artciles encompassing Basque history and culture. Mtiedemann 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are the official names right?Estatuto de Guernica Ley Orgánica 3/79, de 18 de diciembre de 1979:

Artículo 1. El Pueblo Vasco o Euskal-Herria, como expresión de su nacionalidad, para acceder a su autogobierno, se constituye en Comunidad Autónoma dentro del Estado español bajo la denominación de Euskadi o País Vasco, de acuerdo con la Constitución y con el presente Estatuto, que es su norma institucional básica.

Art. 2. Alava, Guipúzcoa y Vizcaya, así como Navarra, tienen derecho a formar parte de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco.

Autonomi Estatutua

1.artikulua.-Euskal Herria, bere naziotasunaren adierazgarri, eta bere burujabetasuna iristeko, espainol Estatuaren barruan Komunitate Autonomo gisa eratzen da. Beronen izena Euskadi zein Euskal Herria izango da; eta Konstituzio eta Estatuto honetan adierazten direnak izango ditu oinarrizko instituzio-arautzat.

2.art.-Araba, Bizkaia eta Gipuzkoak eta era berean Nafarroak ere, Euskal Herriko Komunitate Autonomoaren partaide izateko eskubidea dute.

So Euskadi is official in Spanish and Basque and it should be Euskadiko Komunitate Autonomoa or Euskal Herriko Komunitate Autonomoa instead of Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoa.Has some later law changed the official name or is just de-facto practice?

yes it has. it is now EUSKAL AUTONOMIA ERKIDEGOA. (signed: a basque)

To Vertical123 The official name is Comunidad Autonoma Vasca, which means Basque Autonomous Community. That must be the name of this article. País Vasco, depending on who you listen, with different meanings. What is more, Euskal Herria is the original name in Basque for the whole land of the Basques, the one divided in Spain and France. Euskal means Basque and Herria Country. So Basque Country must not be used here, but in the article whis says (Greater_region) and take 'greater_region' out. This is an encyclopedia, so we must keep ideas clear and not mix with politics. [User:Larbelaitz] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larbelaitz (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Basque Country (autonomous community) (this talk page) → Talk:Basque Country autonomous community – The talk page has been separated from the appropriate article after a series of moves and redirects. Mtiedemann 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support Mtiedemann 15:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've aborted this nonsense; the article should be at "Basque Country (autonomous community)", *not* having parentheses around the dab term is sheer nonsense. —Nightstallion (?) 21:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading Basque people it seems to me that this page's history should be expanded. It currently basically starts after Franco, but the Basque community (in both Spain and France) basically functioned as autonoumous regions in both countries for a long time before 1978. (From my reading, it seems to be sometime in the 16th century where France and Spain were established countries). I would recommend a better history section reflecting those times. -- Jeff3000 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really: except for the brief and incomplete autonomy of 1937, in the midst of the civil war, the Western Basque country was not unified except under Pamplona/Navarre. Under Castile (since 1200) the three provinces were separatedly autonomous, along with Navarre (since 1512-21).

The same happened in France, where the three northern provinces had separate statuses, Lower Navarre being united to Bearn under the name of Navarre, but Labourd and Soule being separated.

So the territories were autonomous but under different circumstances. --Sugaar 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

it is quite hard to really know the history since Franco did a great job destroying a lot of things and it should be known that basque is such a "multi face" language, what I mean is that even nowadays we need an oficial team making spelling corrections and taking the Basque language to a common language to all basque, since it changes quite a lot between towns (not only pronounciation but also complete words). Since it was forbidden to speak basque, and basque people have always been living in farm kind of houses not really attending "school", written documents before franco era are rare. And taking history lessons from the "enemy" (spain for quite a long time) is not a good idea, because it should probably be unaccurate.

Your ideas are very wrong. Basque was never an unified language, you are biased by nationalism, you are inacurate, and sign your posts 88.17.60.73 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, get real guys. Spanish was never a unified language either until someone unified it. What on earth does that prove? The valid point is that the roots of the autonomous community go back further than the Franco era. You can't really write an article about Britain either without taking pre-Act of Union history into account. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not anachronisms in this article as such, but as a result of links to it.

I'm just wondering: it seems odd to me when an article like Pierre Loti or War of the Quadruple Alliance refers to "Basque Country" and disambiguates it to Basque Country (autonomous community). Obviously, there was no such entity in the relevant period: it was the Provincias Vascongadas. I'm open to suggestions; my own suggestion would be to place that name a little higher in this article and/or to bold it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Basque Country (historical territory) also doesn't fit for those disambiguations either, because they are referring to the region in Spain (which was a country by then). My understanding of the situation (which is very limited) is that while the Basque region in Spain was not officially called an autonomous community, it basically acted as a autonomous community within Spain, and thus the disambiguation to Basque Country (autonomous community) is more appropriate. -- Jeff3000 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I noted in the above section there should be an expansion of the history; if there was an expansion, it would make it much more relevent to the articles that are linking here. -- Jeff3000 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Basque Government used the "Laurak Bat", which included the arms of Navarre, as its symbol for many years. Yet tribunals ruled in favor of Navarre and the Basque Government replaced it with an empty red field."

What did the article say about Navarre? Where did the article say that Navarre wanted an empty red field? This is totally illogical. -Slash- 23:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The government of Navarre, that is Spanish nationalist, sued the BAC on the use of their coat of arms. As Spanish tribunals gave them the reason (independently that all the BAC was once part of Pamplona/Navarre and that the Spanish constitution and the Basque and Navarrese statutes explicitly provide for a possible incorporation of Navarre to the BAC) and the BAC authorities replaced it by an empty red field. I think it's clear: they made it a "copyright" issue - any wikipedian should understand that. ;) --Sugaar (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sugaar, this last comment of yours, is it about the article or about your own particular "political" opinion? I'm referring to the description you give of the government of Navarre or the reasons used in their demand for removal ("copyright"). Any proper opinion to give about that topic? Escorial82 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an explanation of what happened. Regarding to the supposed "grammar weirdness" I understand the sentence perfectly (it's not my work anyhow) but if you think you can write it more clearly, please go ahead and improve it. --Sugaar (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some major information, such as geography, climate, commerce, landmarks, culture, and such should be included. -Slash- 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, really poor page, very little information about the culture and tourism. Mark us street Nov 22th 2006

Yes, and almost two years after is still pathetic... too much politics, it happens a lot in this land. We talk about politics and forget the important things... I may make an effort and create the so needed geographical and cultural information, but meanwhile you can check the complete information about Basque mountains and Biscay to get a better picture. David (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"was rejected without debate in the Spanish Corte"

That say and the beginning and is false, the plan was debated and then rejected, i will change it.

-Fco

Image:Euskadi escudo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask "are you retarded?" but obviously the answer is "I am a bot". How come the schuteon of the autonomous community dealt with in this article is not fair use? Someon deactivate this bot, please. --Sugaar (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In some legislations, heraldry is indeed protected by copyright law. It's the lawyers that need to be deactivated. Maproom (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get a consensus on that: there's been an ongoing edit war about this rather minor issue and it can't keep going on. We need a consensus or at least a majority stand.

The two maps are:

• Image:Localización de la CA de Euskadi (NUTS ES1).png
• Image:Localización Comunidad Vasca.png

Personally I cleary prefer the first one because it shows the continuity of the coast, France and Portugal, while the other makes Spain look like an island without context. Additionally it shows the location within the largest context of SW Europe, what can be of help for some people. Finally it also has a larger view of the BAC as whole. Overall the first one seems better quality.

I'd like to hear others' opinions instead of edit-warring without a rationale. --Sugaar (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• The first one is the best, no doubt. David (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed, the first on (NUTS ES1) Akerbeltz (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's 3 votes and that's pretty fair consensus when no one else can be bothered to participate in the debate other than edit war... Akerbeltz (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Make that four - first one (NUTS ES1) is a better map, I agree with Sugaars rationale. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've come across your discussion because we are having a similar one at Talk:Catalonia, which also applies to other autonomous communities. My point there is that the old NUTS maps were providing a nice close up on the community while giving a very much needed global context for a globally-minded encyclopedia as this one. However, some users prefer a map where the whole Spain can be seen (and there are better versions than the one you have linked above). Maybe a nice possible consensus to be considered is the one used in Scotland, England or Wales. --Carles Noguera (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It might but I'm not good with maps and don't know of anyone who has the time/skills. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No possible doubt here guys! it is an anonymous IP user trying to edit war around an issue that was discussed two years ago and we reached a consensus. David (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry to break the consensus, though I don't think this is a very important matter - seeing frequent reverts in my watchlist moved me to have a look at the question. As always when a binary choice must be done (show a map inside Spain or not) a completely NPoV choice is not possible - obviously Spanish-nationalist biased editors will prefer a map like Image:Localización Comunidad Vasca.png and Basque-nationalist biased contributors will promote Image:Localización Comunidad Vasca.png. To find out which choice is more natural, I have opened a few pages where a similar choice could be necessary, some with potential nationalism issues, some quieter :

• • Baja California : a map of Mexico with the state highlighted ;
  • North Brabant : a map of Netherlands with the province highlighted ;
  • Province of Bolzano-Bozen : a map of Italy with the province highlighted ;
  • Silesian Voivodeship : a map of Poland with the province highlighted ;
  • Tibet Autonomous Region : a map of China with the province highlighted - a different color shows contentious border issues with India ;
  • Northern Ireland : the only one to be of a quite different type, though the location inside the UK is heavily shown.

Considering all these examples, the map Image:Localización Comunidad Vasca.png seems to me more "impartial" since this is what is done on non-contentious issues. There is also an obvious logic to use similar maps in similar infoboxes of articles which are part of a series, here the autonomous communities in Spain. Note that this would be an argument for a _third_ map, similar to the one found on articles like La Rioja (Spain) or Navarre, that is Image:Localización del País Vasco.svg (I see this is the one lastly included, in fact). Why not this third one ? French Tourist (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New alternative

The rather ugly Image:Localización Comunidad Vasca.png seems now outdated, maps going back and forth in the article are now :

• Image:Localización de la CA de Euskadi (NUTS ES1).png
• File:Localización del País Vasco.svg

There had been a consensus _against_ the outdated picture, but some arguments against it don't apply to the new one, that is : "it makes Spain look like an island without context". On the present alternative, it seems I am the only contributor to have given a motivated opinion. A new discussion seems to me necessary. Note a similar discussion is taking place on Talk:Catalonia and, though different pages don't necessarily follow the same choices, a good amount of arguments can be common to both discussions.

Rather than an ugly "vote" (we don't vote about article contents), let's try to enumerate arguments for each of the maps French Tourist (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) :

For map 1 (or against map 2 :-)) :

• The smaller insert showing the position of Basque country in a larger scope (Western Europe) adds value ;

• Choosing a map covering all of Spain, up to Canary Islands so far from Bilbao is not neutral : it is a subtle endorsing of a Spanish-nationalist point of view, according to which País Vasco is first of all a part of Spain.

For map 2 (or against map 1 :-)) :

• Choosing a different map for this autonomous community while a large majority use a common format is a subtle endorsing of a Basque-nationalist point of view, according to which Euskadi is definitely something else ;

• Coloring the seas blue, with nice shadows along the coasts make it nicer on a plainly visual PoV ;

• Using similar formatting on similar articles is by itself desirable ;

• Showing an administrative region in the context of a map of the whole state containing it is common practice on Wikipedia, as well on non-contentious issues (Dutch provinces, Mexican states...) as on more contentious ones (South Tyrol, Tibet...).

(the above (map 1 and 2) was written by French Tourist)) What French Tourist writes makes a lot of sense, and map 2 above solves a lot of the issues originally raised about the "outdated map". Another point in favour of map 2 is that this article is about an Autonomous community in Spain, and therefore it makes sense to have a map which shows all the other AC's as well.

So, no longer consensus in the talk page, but that might be a good thing - hopefully we can get a discussion leading to a consensus in the article, I was getting tired of reverting drive-by-ip's. That said, I'll still revert the next one who changes the map without prior discussion here (if Akerbeltz doesn't beat me to it ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the main reasons I prefer the green map is actually because of the peculiar shape of Euskadi, on the larger scale map it's not that easy to see that Trebiño is an enclave and not just a pixel error. It's not as relevant on maps like the one for Catalonia because it has a much simpler outline. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This matter is very politicized. Some of you want to add a map where the whole country does not appear, because you are nationalistic. The rest of Spanish autonomies have the same map, where the whole country appears. Sometimes I feel shame for you. The map 2 must be. 79.154.22.192 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

79.154.22.192, that's not a reason you've given, especially since you didn't really address any of the issues above, none of which are anything to do with nationalism. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of them have, even if you think they are irrelevant. As concerns Trebiño, as far as I can judge, it is as obviously an enclave on map 2 as on map 1 (that is obvious on the map sized as it is on its Image page, and unclear on the thumb) - it might even be a bit clearer on map 2 where the yellow/red contrast is stronger than the green/grey contrast of map 1. I really don't understand your new argument concerning this enclave. French Tourist (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Then French Tourist... we don't vote anymore in Wikipedia? That's a twisted "argument" indeed. If we don't vote what should we do, oh wise man? I still prefer the green map, not because nationalism as the suspectful IP user said, but because it is a much better map for showing Euskadi. The other map:
    • Is geographically inaccurate, because of its cylindrical projection, absolutely inadequate for representing the Iberian Peninsula.
    • Euskadi looks tiny in the red one (it IS tiny), a close-up map like the green one is better.
    • The green one gives more context, it is better for non-European readers.
    • I prefer green to red, but this is personal perception of course.

David (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As concerns your puzzlement following my remark about "voting" see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

As concerns "cylindrical projection" do you really _see_ a difference ? Spain is not Greenland or Antarctic, and I don't feel able to recognize which projection is used on a local map inside Europe.

As concerns the insert showing the position in a larger context, somebody has constructed a model of map 2 containing a similar insert, for Catalonia : it is here (quite sadly it was not very professionnally done - the insert is quite blurred). We could imagine a similar improvement of map 2 (but of course work is needed - I am not interested in drawing maps so I am of no help here). French Tourist (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought for once my argument was simple and couldn't be misunderstood ;) Euskadi has by far the strangest shape on the Spanish map. Simply on the basis, map 2 being what, 1/3 bigger, makes it easier to make out. I'm not that concerned about the red or green issue though the greens seems gentler on the eyes. So until someone actually steps up to the mark and puts in the time to make a new, clear map, I'll be supporting that. Simple. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Still going on and on, new reverters drop by, and the issue is still open. No one, and I mean no one, has provided a valid argument instead of "It is the same in all communities". You listen: IT WAS the same in all comunities not so long ago... I mean, the GREEN one in all the autonomous communities. Then some smart boy from the Spanish wiki came in here and changed all the maps in a row to the same one used in the Spanish wiki... and then that makes a valid argument? come on! I tried to revert other autonomous communities to the green map, but it was useless. And they say WE are the nationalistic, when it was all the same green map not so long ago. I challenge anyone not to see a Spanish nationalistic POV in the red map issue. David (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That "smart boy" updated that image from a png to svg, one that can be clicked on and visualized at a bigger scale, allowing those that all of you who want to see Euskadi's "unique shape" to do so. There is no reason why the green image, which has the highlighted area stuck in a corner, is still being used.

I don't care how many times you can blow up the red map; as a thumbnail, it's nowhere near as clear at first sight as the green one is. You and I may be computer savy people who can blow up a map and make it dance sardana across the screen but average surfers like my mother never even consider that you can click on stuff that's not in blue and underlined... Akerbeltz (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I request to use the map Akerbeltz added, or create one like the following ones:

— Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Give over, I did not ADD that map, you may want to read the section above. We're all sick of this stupid map debate, at least the way it's conducted most of the time, via drive by edit warring.

If someone can do a map like that, we can talk about it but nobody to date has offered. So please find someone who is willing to do such a map or give the topic a rest. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that many readers, particularly from outside Europe, will not easily identify what piece of the world that map 1 shows, even with the help of the locator inset it includes. Map 2, showing the whole Iberian peninsula, is more easily recognised (though it would be better without its inset of the Canaries – which I will offer to remove, if there is a consensus for Map2.) Maproom (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No reason why that could not be considered but I think we'd have to see it first before we can judge if it would be any better. I'm not opposed to changing the map as long as it's an improvement, whether it's the blue, red or green one. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Here they are. Maproom (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The second one is Catalonia? That aside, I don't see how the red one is an improvement. Sure, the Canaries are gone which makes it slightly less wide but still not much clearer. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see there was a consensus. Anyway, I just wanted to mention the reasons why we should display the map of Europe:

1. Spain functions as a de facto federation, having devolved many competences to its "nationalities" (and regions)
2. The peoples of Iberia are quite pro-European, with most of us defending further integration or a reform of the EU (unlike many British)
3. The Iberian nations receive more visitors (tourists) than any other nations in Europe (except for France)
4. Most people aren't used to the wide shape of Iberia — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: I request to move this convo where it was originally — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are interesting topics but ultimately not relevant to the choice of map. A map should allow a user from anywhere in the world to identify the country/province/whatever within its wider area and its delineation/shape. Whether Britain is pro or anti European has no relevance to its display on a map unless there is a boundary dispute or some such issue.

So the criteria for any map (to replace the green map) should be in descending order

• shows the shape of the AC
• shows the location of the AC in Spain
• shows the location of the AC in Europe

On that basis, the most sensible choice would seem to be the green map which has the world map for global position and an inset allowing the user to identify the shape of the AC and the country within which it sits. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and I agree with your proposal — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

Gavin madrid (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)The name of Vitoria in Euskera is not Gasteiz. Gasteiz is a town near Vitoria, but because of the growth of both towns they have blended into one.

The only official name for this city, both in Spanish and Basque laguages is "VIOTORIA-GASTEIZ"--Abalizelay (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the naming issue was discussed at Talk:Vitoria, Spain in mid-2008 without consensus. Perhaps we should reopen this discussion there. I agree 100% that the correct canonical title of the article is Vitoria-Gasteiz-- Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, whatever the origin, the double barrelled name is official as is common practice in the Autonomous Community with place names where the Spanish form and the Basque form are distinct. For example, Guetaria is not only Getaria officially as this is seen as differing only in spelling. Places like Vitoria-Gasteiz, Arrasate-Mondragon, Donostia-San Sebastián have the double names on the other hand as they represent different derivations. However, off the official signage, people use only one or the other, especially in speech and particularly when speaking or writing Basque. For example a Spanish speaker might say me voy a San Sebastián, but a Basque speaker Donostiara noa. But not *voy a D-SS or *D-SSera noa. So in practice, a Basque speaker would only say Gasteizera noa and the Spanish speaker voy a Vitoria, but not both at the same time. Does it make more sense now? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Satesclop, why do you insist on re-instating the Vitoria link in such a way it redirects? The page is now located at Vitoria-Gasteiz, so what are you up to? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Akerbeltz,Thank you for the message. (As you see I am an infrequent visitor to my Wiki account). I understand what you say and from my frequent visits to the Basque Country, for example San Sebastian, am aware of people using one or other name only. I was simply trying to make a comment that whereas Donostia and San Sebastian are the same place, or Bilbo and Bilbao, Vitoria and Gasteiz are not. Althrough in usage people may now use the terms interchangeably, Gasteiz was originally one town and Vitoria another, a bit like Buda and Pest joining to form Budapest.All the best,

Gavin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin madrid (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gavin,

The origins of both names of this city are well explained in its article: "In the year 1181, Sancho VI the Wise, King of Navarre founded the town of Nueva Victoria as a defensive outpost on top of a hill at the site of the previous settlement of Gasteiz."

So both names refer to the same place. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 16:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with references in this article are considerable.

Here is a sentence that is problematic:"uses social disovedience to go against the project and impulses referendums against it in the most affected countryside towns"

but the lack of a reference here and elsewhere is a more serious issue, in my view.G. Robert Shiplett 13:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the English, the issue with the refs is correct but I don't have time to fix it. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason why I'm winding down on the English wikipedia but here goes anyway.

Please check out Wikipedia:Use_of_flags_in_articles#Flags, especially the Avoid flag icons in infoboxes section. That's why we stopped using them; there was a debate on the of the Basque pages too with the same outcome though I can't remember which.

The thing about the name and concept of Euskal Herria is simple. In the historical record, it predates any modern name/concept (first documented in the 16th century [1] whereas Basque nationalism does not appear until the 18th/19th century) and was simply the name by which Basques referred to the places that made up the "places inhabited by Basques and or Basque speakers". It did not carry connotations of political ambition. Political ambition in the early days was either tribal, based on the province in question or the kingdom in question, most notable Navarre. Political ambition appeared much later, most notably with the coining of the neologism Euskadi. You're right that the term Euskal Herria is used a lot in the nationalist/independist camp but that use is not exclusive.

I'm sure you're well-intentioned but you can't just breeze through hundreds of wiki articles and assume an interpretation is a substitute for knowledge of a topic. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I marked a couple of months ago as Clarification needed this statement:

Basque language experienced a gradual contraction throughout the last five centuries, and very severe contraction for much of the 20th century due to Franco's repressive policies (see "Language policies of Francoist Spain").

The sentence would be understood by most people as indicating an acceleration of language shift in the Basque-speaking area during the 20th century, which is not true: the pattern during that century was similar to previous ones. A very different question is that, during the 20th century, especially the final decades, there was massive immigration to the Basque country, including the Basque-speaking areas, therefore the percentage of Basque speakers diminished, without language-shift. If that is what is meant, the wording was absulutely lousy, and needs to be redone. It could also happen that the sentence meant that immigration was part of Franco's repressive policies; in any case nobody has bothered to clarify it in two months. The Clarification needed tag is not for decoration.

I expect somebody to untangle this, and meanwhile the deleted sentence is well deleted. Jotamar (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see any objections to the sentence, what's more, it can be clarifying in itself in that it left the Basques in a make-or-break situation as never before, i.e. a telling language attrition in the last traditionally Basque speaking medium size urban areas and a shift of all relevant economic and political activity to Spanish speaking milieus, e.g. younger generations fail to learn and use Basque in Donostia's Old Town in the 1940's (native residents in their 60s today are not able to speak it unless learnt or relearnt later); Tolosa (Gipuzkoa) a predominantly Spanish speaking town in the 60s and 70s in trade and public interpersonal communication. Basque couldn´t be fostered by public action, since the language was banned in most public events and punished at schools. To sum up, it showed in the 60s features of a final agony towards language death, only reverted by strong determination and the later dynamics we are familiar with (ikastola movements, political devolution, spread of Basque literacy, revival of Basque music and culture, etc.).

I guess, however, that the above sentence may be rephrased and fine-tuned. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

About what you say of Donosti, my understanding is that the city has always had a Romance-speaking majority (first Gascon then Spanish). If there was a native Basque-speaking minority that has disappeared, then that sounds as something very particular of that city, not general in the Basque country. As for Basque not being used for public purposes, is that a new thing for the last 5 to 10 centuries? The main cause of language death is the rupture of intergenerational transmission, which in this case would mean Basque-speaking parents not teaching the language to their children; did that happen? That is what the word contraction evokes for me. Jotamar (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A cut in intergenerational transmission happened often, a significant amount of parents ceased to pass over the language to their offspring on the grounds that it would create them problems or it was worthless or totalling lacking in social prestige. Donostia's is but a telling example of a general pattern of language substitution in the whole Basque Country. However, we are talking here about the autonomous community, and I can assure that Donostia's natural and main language was Basque since at least the late Middle Ages, it is thought that by the early 20th century Spanish was understood by all inhabitants in central Donostia, and language substitution was taking place in the 40s (new generations fail to learn the language). The repressive policies (including fear and no margin for autonomous regional policies) may not be to blame 100% for Basque language's critical situation during the period, but they certainly had a key role. Immigration and an almost inexistent tradition of Basque schooling may have added to it, I think that could complete the sentence in question.Iñaki LL (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We still have this text on the page: ... and very severe contraction for much of the 20th century, and I'm still wondering what exactly contraction could be meant to stand for, obviously not territorial contraction. And if I don't understand it, and I have some knowledge about the matter, it's unpredictable what the casual reader will understand. Does it mean language shift? Low prestige? Fear of speaking it? And whoever has the answer, please have the sources to support it too. Regards, Jotamar (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, yes let's try to sort this out. I agree the term as I see it now implies geographic shrinkage, which is still the case to a certain extent (bordering areas) but not what I understand to be the most important thing. Most importantly, Basque suffered serious deterioration in core areas traditionally almost totally Basque speaking, as I pointed out above. Sticking to the Basque Autonomous Community, a gap in language transmission started to take place in urban areas, e.g. Eibar, Ermua, Arrasate, Donostia, Irun, Errenteria, to mention just what I know closer up. I proceed, avoiding the geographic meaning of "contraction". By the way, I already added a citation as requested by you to dispute your "five hundred years" claim. Don't have citation right now, I am not a professional of the wikipedia to keep adding citations all the time, but do as you please if you still think that what I say is not correct. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not move it to Euskadi? That's the proper name for it. Adding "country" seeems silly and forced, especially when there IS another word.(Lihaas (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)).

Hi there, I'm opening this to deal with the recurrent disruptive edits affecting this wikipedia article lately, no explanation is added and the editor fails to engage in discussion. Please add your comments here. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm treating this as (hopefully unintentional) vandalism. 213.254.88.62, the 'Portals' don't mean anything in a political sense, stop being hyper-sensitive. Portals on Wikipedia are just groupings of people with a special interest in working on particular topics. Nobody from the EU Portal has any particular interest in this page, it's mostly people from the Basque portal who work on this article, that's all that means.

As for deleting references from bona fide sources, that's not a good idea, especially not without a good reason and explanation. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The rule of the 3 reverts has been violated, whether he's aware or not..., obviously 213.254.88.62 (BernardaAlba?) is freewheeling. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What?

what ethnic realities is talking about? that a guy say so does not make it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.241.16 (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently that is the opinion of a guy called Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal. No matter that it is sourced, it goes against everything that has been stated about the autonomous communities in Spain, which have been explained in terms of history, tradition, etc., but never of ethnicity. The statement should be taken out. --Jotamar (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

With no further comment in 9 days, I proceed to delete the statement. --Jotamar (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are attempting to change the article with no reason added, plus you added non-consensual terminology. Leave your message here, thanks. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for autoreverting Ackpriss. The short answer to Basque Autonomous Country is no. We know the name is potentially confusing but that's just the way English usage works out. This has been debated endlessly. Basque Country/Pais Vasco/Pais Basque are just inherently vague. So we stick by usage and dab with (autonomous community) etc. There is very little basis in English source for the term Basque Autonomous Country and it's mostly, doing a quick Google search, Basque sources which have been translated into (often slightly dubious) English. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Akerbeltz that Basque Autonomous Country is not a good option: it is a dubious English usage. On the other hand, as a non-confusing term, I would favour Basque Autonomous Community, which is widely used in English-language books (look at Google Books, for example), but I am not sure if Basque Country (in the sense of the autonomous community, i.e. excluding the instances where it is used in the sense of the greater region) outnumbers it in such a rate that would make inadvisable the change to Basque Autonomous Community. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 19:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Since Basque Country is a dab page, I agree with Xabier that we could avoid the dabbed title here by using BAC, that usage is fairly common, best as one can tell. I'm certainly familiar with it from various books written in English about the BC. But if this turns into a tug of war, my first preference is the status quo. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I would just let it rest, in order to avoid foreseeable litigation over "Basque Country", and lengthy discussions based on existing literature, tradition, and statistics. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a severe POV problem with the "Present-day political dynamics" section. Apart from being totally unreferenced, phrases such "Spanish Government's rigid, uncompromising stance" and "frequent and contentious meddling in Basque political and parliamentary decisions" are clearly not written from a neutral point of view. I suggest someone who is familiar with politics in the Basque Country to rewrite the section, including if necessary referenced, detailed and neutral information concerning the relationship between the local authorities and the Spanish Government. Otherwise, as this is a contentious subject unsupported by sources, the material may be removed. QueenCake (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, I agree with you that the section is unreferenced, no question of that. However, how many unreferenced statements are in the wikipedia??? Granted, the statements are meant to summarize a large number of supporting evidence. Sorry, I do not what your "neutrality" claim is about? Is it about form or content? Your claims sounds to me like a deficient knowledge of present-day politics in the Basque Country. I am familiar with Basque politics myself, I hold a very good insight into Basque topics, and have contributed lavishly to Basque topics with text, references, pictures, and maps. The statements are perfectly accurate, enlightening, and quite a soft approach actually if you know what Basque and Spanish politics have been during the last 4 years. I may add further information and reference when I have time. Now there may be political parameters relevant to the case still missing and the section may benefit from further constructive editing, accurate and relevant. A sweeping POV tag does not add anything, it may come across as disruptive. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As an outsider, I would also agree that the wording is quite tame in relation to what actually goes on. Refs are of course always good but finding neutral English sources about modern-day Basque politics, that is quite tricky. Newspapers from Spain rarely seem to be able to find an editorial middle ground on any topic that involves the term 'vasco', it seems to be a bit of a red rag. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, a POV tag may not add anything, but it is however very necessary when there are POV problems. While I do not necessary doubt you when you say the description is accurate, the problem is not only that the statements are unreferenced, but the wording used is not impartial enough for Wikipedia. Words such as "gripped", "uncompromising" and "meddling" are very much words to watch, as they can suggest a bias towards the Basque political argument when used without any attribution. In addition, there is no detail on any specific actions or policies of the Spanish Government, or attributed statements informing the reader which Basque persons or groups are against these actions. This leaves the reader being told that the Spanish government is being disruptive in the Basque country, without knowing what exactly has happened, the reasons for these actions, and the positions of the two sides over this dispute. QueenCake (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It is in a summary introductory style. I find no reference in WP:WTW to the words you pointed, they may be quite informal or it is perhaps a bit of over-zeal on your part, I do not know. You might as well find synonyms that suit better for them. Rigid and uncompromising are descriptive adjectives, I do not know any that could go better, "invasive" would suit better actually (infringement of the Statute of Autonomy attributions, Spanish constitutional guarantees, intervention of Madrid tribunals in relevant political debates and decisions, ad hoc intervention of deputy governors against Basque institutions flooding tribunals with politically related issues, etc. Quite honestly, the inline tags (to whom tag is just WP:BLUE, it is just an introductory formula, let's avoid tag overkill) and a verifiability requirement at the top should do for your concerns, instead of a sweeping POV tag. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

For WTW, look under the Editorializing and Contentious labels sections. Some of the phrases used do fall under those. Wikipedia shouldn't be telling the reader that certain actions are rigid or uncompromising - but what we can do is present a referenced quotation from an involved party stating that Spain is rigid and uncompromising. Do you see the difference? Also, while summary style is appropriate for this article, you still need to provide a little detail on the subject. Adding in what you have just told me, (infringement of the Statute of Autonomy attributions, etc) would be sufficient. QueenCake (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The section looks so irredeemably biased to me that it doesn't want tagging: most of it wants plain deleting and someone can try again from a clean slate. Sorry to be brutal, but I really cannot identify any incremental tweaks that will make it read acceptably. If a rewrite includes adding referenced quotations saying something similar to what is currently there already, then fine, although it would be good to hear from the other side as well. (I am not volunteering; I don't have enough knowledge to do so.)--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I also request to improve the infobox and use the same type than Quebec or Scotland. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 01:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This autonomous community is not Scotland or Quebec, is one more region of Spain. The rest of communities have the same type of map. Please, you stop the vandalism. Satesclop 04:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not, however that doesn't prevent us from creating a specific infobox for this type of subdivisions. With regards to the blasted green map – many users agreed to use it, can you respect that? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

If you like symmetry (which is ironic, as Spain is very asymmetric)... we could create more green maps for the others autonomous communities (especially for those with nationality status); and btw you should use the right terms (nomenclature) when you speak to me or any of us, otherwise you'll probably be ignored. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

I add the later edits below with breach of trust of the contributors and vandalising of previous content in a new section: Iñaki LL (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. I think that this voting is ridiculous. All the regions of Spain should have the same loc map, as the regions of France, states of Germany or states of USA. It is absurd that a Spanish region has a map as if it was an European nation. Only it rests to this map nationalistic users. — Satesclop 02:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 04:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Support.--Dani jaem (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The above POV pushing editor with nationalistic views, Satesclop, has vandalized existing content and breached the vote with total disregard to the procedure or outcome. Besides the absence of civility, Satesclop, you are totally wasting my time at this moment! By the way, proselitising is not allowed in the WP, so I will act accordingly. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I add a new case of proselytizing / canvassing by the referred editor. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki, do not lose your time trying to convince in something absolutely unheard-of. You are the nationalist, I am not. You have organized a voting in which only you have voted four independence users. And when I warn several users on this voting, you accuse me of manipulation. Your efforts will not work. This map is unacceptable and you know it. Satesclop 04:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm frontally opposed to the way Satesclop is managing things here. He just commented on my talk asking for my intervention here and just saying how I should vote, surely just to influence the vote's outcome (which would violate WP:CANVAS). I've also seen out there that he may have also violated WP:SOCK. I can't just opine on that since I don't know if that's true, but I believe that a formal request for investigation should be done, if that's the case, instead of just throwing it out here as an accusation.

However, despite his manners, he has a point. The red version of the map shows the community's borders clearly as they are, while the green one looks mostly like a rushed up map. The green one is also smaller and of a worser quality, not talking that it is an image dating from 2006 that has never been updated or improved (the red one is from 2008, and has been updated several times, the latest version dating from 2010). The format it uses is also the main format used for Spanish autonomous communities, and Satesclop is right when he says that it's weird that regions from the same country use different map styles. And most importantly: for other countries, when depicting a region of a country, the whole country is shown in the image, with the said region being highlighted in another color. There's no rule in Wikipedia forcing for that, true, but it can't be denied that it's customary practice, and some times, customary practice can turn into an unspoken rule. From what I'm seeing, some people are just defending to use the green version for the sake of it, but can't really propose advantages that it has in respect to the red one. And they just defend a weird format just because of it. Just by quality and aesthetics, as well as coherence with other articles, I believe red should be used. That's my opinion, that I comment here just because I was asked for it. Impru20 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Impru20 for your honest approach to this discussion. However, form and manners are content, and WP has its rules. The first one is building consensus and trust, all of them breached by Satesclop in a row. A sock puppetry investigation applies should there be any further disruptive interventions. This discussion has been going on for ages, I joined in on its last stage with discussion still open, made my case like others had done, not "for the sake of it", with a view to getting it over and done with once and for all, and spare editors a never-ending headache. Later interventions in this section are the fruit of a campaign, and can only be taken as reactive, on-demand, and therefore not out of genuine concern for the article. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You are alone defending this. Well, really you are four ... have you read the user Impru20? He gives arguments, only you apologize in a voting abolutamente fraudulent. I warned users to taking part in this voting, which you closed without arguments, and I do not know these users. Some of them have voted and others not. There are more people in opposition to the green and blue map that the independence users you support. Satesclop 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand anything. Clearly independence users realize a consultation and only independence users vote for a .png map, where there does not appear the whole country (Spain), with colors and forms that do not have relation with the rest of maps of the regions of Spain, and when they vote other users accuse of manipulation. This is very absurd. It is absolutely intolerable, unjust and unacceptable. I contest the "paripé" of previous voting. Satesclop 04:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: I do not wish to take part in a simple voting (and nobody canvassed me, cof-cof ;_( ), but I will post here a non-exhaustive analysis I've posted in Talk:Valencian Community about maps elsewhere in en:wiki.

After a non exhaustive wiki examination, I would say the following template is the standard (as in "customary") template in terms of features and colours for subdivisions of sovereign countries in en:wikipedia (with only some of them deviating from the norm in the tones of red), as in:

• Italy (see: Sicily)
• United States of America (see Vermont)
• Czech Republic (see: Central Bohemian Region)
• China (see: Tibet Autonomous Region)
• Chile (see: Coquimbo Region)
• Brazil (see: Rio Grande do Sul)
• Canada (see: Quebec)
• Bolivia (see: Santa Cruz Department)
• Russia (see: Chechnya)
• Australia (see: South Australia)
• South Africa (see: Limpopo)
• Romania (see: Harghita County)
• Venezuela (see: Zulia)
• Turkey (see: Van Province)
• Nigeria (see Kano State, (*slightly different red )
• Algeria (see Adrar Province (*slightly different red)
• France (see: Brittany) (*slightly different red)

Up to my knowledge the Basque Country autonomous community fit the description above. By the way, you already have that basic scheme for the 17 spanish autonomous communities here: Commons:Category:SVG locator maps of autonomous communities in Spain (location map scheme). I also see there are exceptions that deviate further from the norm in terms of colors and features (but they are not consistent in relation to each other). For example:

• México (see: Querétaro) (black instead of bourdeaux, I don't know why, Spanish wikipedia uses the standard one here: see es:Querétaro)
• Spain (see: Castile and León (using the es:wiki model light yellow instead of light grey and also featuring ugly shading in the coasts)
• Argentina (see Tucumán province (naming regions, green provinces)
• Poland (see: Lower Silesian Voivodeship) (uses a physical map)
• Germany (see: Lower Saxony, I don't know why, German wikipedia uses the standard one here: see de:Niedersachsen)

And last, I've only seen a sort of "internationalised style" in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Vojvodina and warzones.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. I am ready to accept this map. But these maps are not the most correct. The region of Canaries appears in a square in the sea Mediterranean, and it is very offensive for the Canarian people. I continue thinking that the "yellow maps" are more correct. With what we all coincide it is that the "green map" is unacceptable. Satesclop 02:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basque Country (autonomous community). 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/20150413231500/http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2015/04/10/actualidad/1428678577_179364.html/ to http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2015/04/10/actualidad/1428678577_179364.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Basque country is a historical nationality. It is included in the Spanish Constitution and in the Basque Statute.

https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/es/Pa%C3%ADs_Vasco

https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/es/Nacionalidad_hist%C3%B3rica

--83.213.201.241 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia is not a valid source. Anyway, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article already explains very clearly the matter:

The Basque Country or Basque Autonomous Community was granted the status of nationality within Spain, attributed by the Spanish Constitution of 1978.

There is no need to repeat the same data once and again. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 19:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basque Country (autonomous community). 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/20100407091254/http://www9.euskadi.net/q93TodoWar/q93Desplegar.jsp to http://www9.euskadi.net/q93TodoWar/q93Desplegar.jsp

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

the sentence starts by saying 4 restaurants have earned stars, but then lists people. Are these owners? chefs? Do they get the stars? or the restaurants? --142.163.195.253 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The restaurants are named in brackets behind the chefs. Stars are awarded to a restaurant but they're often linked to the tenure of a particular chef, so mentioning the chefs is relevant though perhaps it ought to be Restaurant (chef) rather than the other way around. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)