Talk:Vitoria-Gasteiz

message: :Image:TAU Ceramica.gif 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 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TAU Ceramica.gif

message: The image :Image:Deportivo alaves.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:TAU Ceramica.png
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Deportivo alaves.gif

message: It just like Biel/Bienne. It commonly refer as Vitoria but seems the site also use vitoria-gasteiz http://www.vitoria-gasteiz.org/. Matthew_hk tc 00:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I have moved this page from Vitoria to Vitoria-Gasteiz. This is because, according to a decision by the city hall, the official name of the city in Spanish, English and Basque is Vitoria-Gasteiz. See this page which refers to the city as "Vitoria-Gasteiz". This page in Spanish also refers to the city as "Vitoria-Gasteiz", while this page is Basque also calls it "Vitoria-Gasteiz". Therefore, I don't see the logic of keeping at "Vitoria".  Ronline ✉ 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could always restart the debate... though I don't think the chances are MUCH better this time round for reaching consensus. I'm not sure where the best place would be to debate that but perhaps we could frame it as a wider debate about these double-barrelled Basque & Spanish place names that you get when the linguistic gap is too large. If we got consensus on a general approach, we could then perhaps deal with them all in one go. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a wider debate/discussion/consensus-building round would be desirable.  I also agree that reaching consensus for this particular article in another go-round is unlikely.   I'm very disillusioned with the vagaries of what can only euphemistically be called the Wikipedia consensus-building process.  It seems to me that the person who unilaterally moved the article won, since the article has sat under his or her preferred name for 1.5 years.   I don't even see that this user received so much as a gentle rebuke about not making blatantly controversial moves to articles.  Since Wikipedia rewards unilateral action and frustrates those who seek consensus before making controversial edits, seems that the lesson is to take more unilateral actions and stop wasting time treating consensus seriously.   - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Vitoria-Gasteiz with many, huge google hit. for sure it passed common name criteria. Please cite for Vitoria, Spain is a common name in English world.  Matthew_hk tc 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand you're meaning Matthew? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

text: the requested move was failed due to they claimed Vitoria is the most common name but the fact seems not. Matthew_hk tc 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do also think that the name of the article should be Vitoria-Gasteiz. It is the official name. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Different suggestiong? We could open a debate on double-barrelled Basque place-names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque so we can reach consensus on what to do with names like Vitoria-Gasteiz, Donostia-San Sebastián, Arrasate-Mondragón in general? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus 

message: :Vitoria, Spain → Vitoria — The name is Vitoria, and there is actually no other article with the title Vitoria, so there is no reason to put ",Spain" in the title. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That've already been discussed. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why bring it up again? Akerbeltz (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move (March 2010) 

message: Nobody is saying that "Gasteiz is the translation of Vitoria" — so please stop deleting referenced info under that nonsense of denying an argument that nobody has used here. Both Basque and Spanish languages have their ruling academies, and they both are clear: Gasteiz is the Basque name and Vitoria is the Spanish name of this city. The references provided show that fact properly. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 21:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree, this is a long-running issue of continuous removal of referenced content by Vasconia and related IPs, clearly disrupting fluent editing and nagging good editors. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting names' info because "Gasteiz is not the translation of Vitoria" 

message: , you have been here long enough to know that WP: Verifiability 'not' truth, is what is required on WP. That text was added in 2008 and had been un-sourced ever since, 7 years, and 8 months.
I looked for a source and couldn't find one. 
* I couldn't find a verifiable mention on WP. ie. 1976, and March 3 didn't mention it at all. Other text added by the same editor is also un-sourced.
* You have to provide a reliable source to retain that information on this page. 220 of Borg 01:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , indeed WP:Verifiability is there, but by the same token you might as well remove half of the WP. WP is a collaborative project, where consensus is a prime concern. The tag at the top does not mention exactly that paragraph, but the whole section, all section removed then? (Except for the bit referenced) A bit of knowledge on the matter in question is helpful for this case, do you actually hold some insight? I do. "Alleged"? Given the circumstances on-sight, that comes across as not very fortunate. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, whack me with a trout! I just found Massacre of 3rd of March in Vitoria. I can't read Spanish, if you can all we need to do is copy a suitable source from there! And link to that page. 220 of Borg 10:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the paragraph, copy-edited it & and linked it to the appropriate main page, here. Seriously, I originally couldn't find any mention of the event. Just needs a cite now. As you mention, it should all be referenced.- 220 of Borg 10:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, let us leave the trout in the river;) I can add the reference myself when I have time, pretty busy right now. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert re alleged "March 3 Killing of 1976" shooting