Jump to content

Talk:San Sebastián

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1813

[edit]

Some points: Somebody said in the article: 1813--British and Portuguese troops siege San Sebastian and eventually defeat French occupying troops. After being welcome by the inhabitants, newcomers burn the city down.

Are you sure they were welcome? So How Can you Explain newcomers burn the city? there is a explanation for that question. In 1793 Gipuzkoa decided don´t be Spain, if not an french allied and independent country. It was decided in Getaria and promoted by diferent basque-french people. It was named "Republica de Guipuzcoa" (Gipuzkoan republic). And Navarre did organise a "Junta" to do the same, but finally it wasn´t possible, because army wnt inside of the "junta". Donostia was pro-french in napoleonic times too, and in general native population defend the city against british and portuguese. There are letters between british army and general board of the army sayin how difficult will be to defeat San Sebastian because inhabitants support french army.

Statue

[edit]

Re: the photo with caption "Statue of Jesus on Urgull Mountain" -- I was told by a local that the statue was not of Jesus.

Its name is statue of "Sacred Heart." --JoulSauron 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure the statue is of Jesus and I visit the city every year. Bluepaladin


You both are partially right, it is "Jesus´ Sacred Heart"

Excessive Pics

[edit]

Do we really need so many pictures, and if so couldn't we spread them through the article, or put them into a gallery?? Discuss, DannyM 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Sebastian Redirect

[edit]

Donostia is not the only San Sebastian in the world. Kindly allow this to go to the disambiguation page first. 207.67.132.210 17:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donostia- San Sebastian

[edit]

Donostia is basque language and San Sebastián is spansih, so the correct use of the template is to put Donostia in the "native name" field and San Sebastián in the "spanish name" field. Besides, the box renders better using the fields correctly, the former Donostia-San Sebastián thing was too wide, it destroyed the layout of the infobox. David 12:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map is wrong

[edit]

I'm fairly certain the map is wrong - San Sebastian is a lot closer to the French Border. The red dot on the map seems to be Santander. 86.128.38.60 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Alasdair[reply]

Requested move (2007)

[edit]
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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below and our naming convention on common names. It seems to be agreed that San Sebastián is the most common name in English language sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donostia → San Sebastián — Per WP:NC, which states "In the absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used." I would contend that, although Donostia is official within the Basque Region, its common English name is San Sebastián. As evidence, I present a fact and an assertion. The fact is that searching with Google for English-only results, we get 1.3 million for "San Sebastian" (admittedly not all in Spain) and 363,000 for "Donostia". My assertion is that insofar as the town is famous outside Spain, it is for the festival, which is known by its Spanish name, and for featuring in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, where he also uses the Spanish name. —Biruitorul 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
Comment - yes, that could work, but San Sebastián, without Donostia, is the common name in English. Biruitorul 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Preferably without the accent/diacritical, which is not normally used in English. This is a well-known town as San Sebastian - I had never heard of Donostia. I also remember in the protracted discussions at Guernica some time ago, strong supporters of Gernika-Lumo saying that of course they would never dream of using the local version for well-known places like San Sebastian! Johnbod 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well, I don't think the accent is such a big deal. For instance most English speakers probably refer to "Orleans", but they readily grasp it's the same thing as Orléans. There's no way to tell from the words themselves that Donostia and San Sebastián are the same, but San Sebastián and San Sebastian are basically the same, plus the former is correct in Spanish. However, I wouldn't strongly object to its omission. Biruitorul 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Donostia is also widely used. I would support moving to Donostia-San Sebastián though (a name not unlike Vitoria-Gasteiz). If moved, the diacritic must by all means be placed on "San Sebastián, for the sake of primordial encyclopedic accuracy.--Húsönd 01:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Donostia–San Sebastián I agree that San Sebastián is more common in English. But people who are careful about geographical names seem to use Donostia–San Sebastián. This is the official name, as ugly as it is, and when you're treading on eggshells, it's best to stick to that. I found this in a text [1] of the UNGEGN (UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names). It's in French (although ideally it would have been nice to have it in English), and uses Donostia–San Sebastián despite the fact that the French name Saint-Sébastien (which is only a few miles from France after all) is much more common in French than San Sebastian or San Sebastián is in English: Du 12 au 16 juin dernier, s’est déroulé à Donostia−San Sebastián, au Pays Basque espagnol, un stage de formation en toponymie. So if that's what toponymists write, it's good enough for me. I also agree that the accent should be used. Note: though the name should be spelt with an en-dash in the body of the article, if the title is hyphenated it should be with a hyphen-minus. Joeldl 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, if you're happy to ignore WP policy completely! Johnbod 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can say that the hyphenated form is the form used by toponymists at the UNGEGN. Since we're supposed to give more weight to what the experts do, it makes sense to look at them. More generally, it makes sense to look at what people do when they are very well informed and are making an effort to be perceived as neutral. It seems plausible that in those cases Donostia–San Sebastián is most common. You can do a search for +UNGEGN +"San Sebastian" and +UNGEGN +Donostia. There's an example in Estonian too. As has been mentioned previously, it's the official name. Even in Spanish you'll see Donostia–San Sebastián. This official list of mayors in Spain [2] (written in Spanish) says, "See Donostia–San Sebastián," at the entry for "San Sebastián". Joeldl 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCGN says "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." That's all we need to know. Johnbod 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. No offense, Joeld, but when I saw reference to UNGEGN, my eyes began to glaze over. What concerns us here is common English usage. Biruitorul 06:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Most common English names should be used. And I would go for San Sebastian, since the tilde is a Spanish spelling, not needed in the English version of the name. David 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Donostia-San Sebastián is the official name of the city in both Spanish and Basque, whereas "San Sebastián" is the old, unofficial Spanish-only name. I think people are only calling the city San Sebastián because traditionally the Spanish name was predominant. I don't think its particularly correct to enforce this in Wikipedia, considering that "Donostia-San Sebastián" is not only more neutral and inclusive but also the official name in both languages of the city. I would thus support a move to Donostia-San Sebastián. Ronline ✉ 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on our Odorheiu Secuiesc discussion, perhaps I should support this, but the difference is that while nearly no one in the English-speaking world knows about Odorheiu Secuiesc in any of its variants, so it has no common name in English, English speakers do know about this town, and they know it as San Sebastián. Biruitorul 06:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I had never I think heard of Odorheiu Secuiesc under any name though I know both Romania & Hungary a lot better than most English-speakers. I notice the official town tourism website uses "San Sebastian", only, and without the accent, in the English version. "Saint Sébatien-Donostia" in the French, etc. [3] Johnbod 07:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments

  • Note to closing admin: if the eventual outcome is to move the article, then there's a prior cut and paste move which should probably be repaired, in or before doing so. It appears that this article was formerly at San Sebastián, until some anon nearly two years ago cut and paste the contents to this present title, Donostia (see cut, paste). Both have non-trivial edit histories. In fact, even were the article to remain where it is, this cut'n'paste should be fixed up.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1936

[edit]

In July 1936 the right-wing military coup, at least in Saint Sebastian, was held at bay and quelled basically by the Anarchists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was page not moved —harej (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


San Sebastián → Donostia-San Sebastián — Since San Sebastian is a disambiguation, I think that San Sebastián should redirect there. San Sebastian and San Sebastián are both used to find the same articles, and should lead to the same page. As for disambiguation, there is no reason why this San Sebastián is more notable than any other. Additionally, to reduce confusion, the article should be named after the city's official name, Donostia-San Sebastián. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Additionally, to reduce confusion, the article should be named after the city's official name" - no, to reduce confusion, the article should be named according to its most common name in English-language texts - read WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAMES.
Encarta uses San Sebastián, Britannica uses Donostia-San Sebastián, Columbia uses San Sebastián. Pending evidence of the predominant use of Donostia-San Sebastián in English-language texts, there is no option but to oppose this proposal. Knepflerle (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Latest serial edits

[edit]
Not really a good period of the year to start over again with an old barren time consuming discussion, is it? Please if any edits are to be made stick to detail and not like the latest ones based on vague general ideas. The latest edits are not contributing anything, but disrupting, and as it happens they are even inacurate or gratuitous, like deleting city festival subsections for one. I don't know if you, Generalpotato, happen to be the first editor, but looks to me almost all of them are one purpose edits with little grounds. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about wasting time, it's about making the article better. The fact that you don't like the changes doesn't mean that they are not good or necessary. I don't care if it's Christmas, Santa Ageda or El Pilar. Let's discuss them, one by one:
  • 1) New reference to Spain: "The city is in the north of Spain, in the Basque Country, on the southern coast of the Bay of Biscay.". Due to the fact that in that part the article describes the general location of San Sebastian, I think it's appropriate to make a reference to Spain, the country, rather to the Basque Country, whose borders are less well known by international wikipedia readers. However, and if that helps to agree about the changes I've just made, I'm ready to accept your version, without any reference to Spain in that line.
  • 2) Donostia or San Sebastián? The Estación del Norte train station standing right across the bridge was inaugurated in 1864 just after the arrival of the railway to San Sebastián, with its metallic shelter being designed by Gustave Eiffel. I think it's necessary to use more often the most common name in English, and the name of the article, San Sebastián, rather than Donostia. Wikipedia must reflect the reality, not try to change it, therefore it's necessary to make things easier using more often the name of the city the best known internationaly. However, I accept also to mantain Donostia, to help to get to an agreement.
  • 3) Konstituzio Plaza: At midnight, in the Plaza de la Constitución/Konstituzio plaza (Constitution Square), in the "Alde Zaharra/Parte Vieja" (Old Part), the mayor raises the flag of San Sebastián (see in the infobox). No logical reason to write the Basque name and not the Spanish one. Moreover, the people of the city use normally, much more often, the Spanish name. Both versions should appear.
  • 4) Olentzero and Santa Ageda: This is not an article about the Basque culture, but about the specific city of San Sebastian. Olentzero and Santa Ageda are general aspects of the Basque Country, and they are not particularly linked to or traditional in Donostia. Should we write a reference to them in the articles of all the Basque cities and villages? I strongly defend that we remove them.
  • 5) El Peine del Viento: as everybody who knows this city knows, the only popular name of the sculptures, and the name used by the author himself, Eduardo Chillida, is Peine del Viento, in Spanish. I would even reject putting both versions, as the only popular one is the Spanish name.
As you see, I accept to leave some aspects as they are now, but I firmly defend some small changes. Generalpoteito (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please don't change edits until the discussion comes to a termination. I think you've missed a point in your explanation above (the 1813 events). I'll address that first:

0) The city was not ransacked and burned down by the English, but the Portuguese and English troops, allied with Spain at this stage of the Peninsular War. Both statements are equally right: they were Anglo-Portuguese and they were the allied forces of Spain.
1) The new reference to Spain is not necessary, it's clear stated at the beginning (infobox too) as well as the reference to the Spanish administrative region (the autonomous community), I see no point in adding it, it can only raise suspicion about the final intention of the repetition. There would be no point in adding time and again Basque Country either, looks like there's is a hidden, ideological drive.
2) The San Sebastián/Donostia issue was discussed before. Not only San Sebastián was chosen (I don't agree myself, didn't participate there unaware of its being taking place), but in a way it was decided to rule out the naming pair, as it has been in so many other articles for the purpose of clarity and shortness. I'm not meddling with that naming issue again anyway, time consuming for the technical and content contributors of the Wikipedia, let it be so. I'm willing to accept this change if Donostia is not totally rejected from text. Donostia is recognised internationally too (maybe because of the signs and maps) and helps disambiguation, besides reflecting what the locals often call the city and a dynamic and conspicuous cultural and social reality.
3) The same, the whole article, this and others, could be full of these pairs. Someone changed the main subsection name Old Part to Parte Vieja (Spanish language use). I don't agree, this is a descriptive name (could be Old Quarter too...) typical in most of the towns/cities. Alde Zaharra may well be as valid as Parte Vieja (Basque language use). However, as far as I see it there's a point in not being all the time edit warring on naming, I decided not to undo it. The naming is pretty balanced now, I strongly oppose the pairs as a general practice.
4) This is a clear-cut point, the section is much about the festive calendar of the city. It gives an account of the festive events (not passive ones actually) whoever goes to the city may encounter. Olentzero is a milestone and popular festival in the city, celebrated in many places of the Basque Country (but not all) and with a strong presence in the city. El Pilar is a Spanish bank holiday in the labour official calendar, but that doesn't exclude it from being mentioned in Zaragoza. The deletion is depriving the readers of city-specific information. More clear so about Saint Agatha, not everywhere in the Basque Country is celebrated, it is recognised as being a Donostiarra festival and it's not an official day of the Basque Country (in whatever sense you want).
5) Yes in Spanish. The sculptor seems to have been strong on calling it Haizeen orrazia, the original and current name. The name in English is the "Comb of the Winds" and this is the English wikipedia. I'm not saying anyway that sometimes a Spanish name shouldn't be mentioned (for whatever it is), since it may be widely recognisable in that language. Do it in good faith and things may run smoothly. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that there's an ideological element in this discussion, and, in my opinion, the ideologically most influenced point of view is yours, because:
  • Olentzero and Santa Ageda are not specific festivals from San Sebastian, and shouldn't appear. Euskal Jaiak, Semana Grande or Tamborrada are, and they must appear. Pretty simple. If you want, we could include a reference at the beginning of the Culture and events section, like "additionally, the city hosts some traditional Basque festivals, such as Olentzero in Christmas and Santa Ageda, that it shares with many villages of Guipuscoa".
To get to an agreement I accept maintaining the other aspects.Generalpoteito (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you came here to just touch a sensitive issue and a previously tackled with, like the naming. Obviously each contributor leaves their personal slant, I'm leaving mine, you leave yours in the articles you contribute or draw up, but common sense must prevail, for sure. However, landing into articles to leave one's ideological mark or national view is not welcome
*Listen, I don't have set views about Chillida's sculpture. I have read quite a lot of times that he decided to call it "Haizeen orrazia" on purpose. I would say the original text is in Spanish and the translator to English has just stuck to the Spanish name... Anyway, if their website or family decide now to call it otherwise I won't turn this thing into my battleground, so let's move on.
*It is quite clear-cut that these are local versions (explained with quite a detail in each subsection) of a festival celebrated in other places too but that doesn't deduct ANYTHING from the specific nature of the festival in the city, who owns even its own Olentzero song ("Olentzero begi gorri... Zurriolako arroketan"). That there is a Christian saint St. Mary doesn't prevent towns from having their own St. Mary festival that may stand out over that of other cities, carnival applies to almost all places but Rio and other cities are quite special. Well, Santa Ageda is not celebrated everywhere and it is celebrated and cherished in the city, so I find its a forced attempt the deletion of these subsections.
To sum up, I'm willing to accept the Donostia you mentioned replaced by San Sebastián and Chillida's sculpture into an English or Spanish version name. The remaining points have strong proper grounds to stay unaltered.

Greatest Density of Bars

[edit]

I recall being told that "San Sebastian has the greatest density of bars in the world, much like Hong Kong has the greatest density of restaurants" and it seems plausible, but I don't know if that's either correct, nor how it would be measured (by area/population ?). No idea where you might find a reference to confirm it, but I thought I'd mention it. EdwardLane (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language!

[edit]

You really need to add the fact that Euskera is spoken a lot here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.208.250 (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in San Sebastián

[edit]


San_Sebastián#Food is the section where the inline tags being discussed are located Lentower (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might help improve discussion if you look this entire section over, before commenting on any of it. Lentower (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lentower, I saw your edits on the article. As a main contributor to the page, it took me somewhat by surprise the citation needed tags that frankly I don´t understand. Usually when someone adds such a tag, it is because s/he has something to doubt about. You added three in row, to sentences that don´t state anything especial. However, perhaps I'm wrong, you specialize in the topic, and have good grounds to doubt them. Please let me know, I look fwd to your reply. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an article of it's length, this one has very few citations. Generally each paragraph should have at least one citation.
I didn't have the time to review the entire article for text that needed citations. In this section on Food, those three spans of text, are things that should be cited. They are claims attributed to a source without supplying a cite to the source, that allows the claim to be easily verfied. Note WP:V and other policies & guidelines.
Also phrases like "most recent", should not be used on Wikipedia. A date should be given. If the text could change in the future, the Template:Asof should be used. The reason is that the age of the info is then exactly clear to the reader.
If you have to, please reply here, I look at my Watchlist most days. best - Lentower (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this Food section, because one of the text spans I marked had been added on Tuesday with no citation. I hoped the editor who added that text could easily add the citation. Lentower (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, ideally sentences and paragraphs should have citations. However, we are not professionals and that's why in the wikipedia there are loads of articles without citations. The credit of the information relies on the verisimilitude, exposure to public (refutability), and consistency of the data, and are subject to change as we all contributors now. Many info relies on first-hand knowledge and that doesn´t mean is bad information. I expect that when someone adds a citation tag s/he has some leads to think that the info in question is not so, especially when it's three citations needed in a row. The data provided here are not exact figures, just pretty approximative. I may have better understood that you added a tag for the statement asserting that "it's the city with the most Michelin stars per square foot", since that's a very specific and "big" claim. So what's the point? I don´t see the point. By the way, I summarized and organized the info included on this section, but I didn´t add most of the info. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what you said here goes against WP policies & guidelines. First-hand knowledge is against WP policies & guidelines. Though you are entitled to your expectation, adding requests for citations can be done whenever the text requires it; the way to remove one is to add the citation. It should be easy enough to get a copy of the Michelin guide, and add the citations involving that. Thanks, I just added a 4th. The other point of adding these tags is to let the reader know that the uncited info doesn't meet WP guidelines. We owe our readers the best encyclopedia we can create, and that includes citations. It would be better for this article to be shorter but fully cited, than it's present state. I suggest you spend some time reading the guidelines before you go back to editing. Start with WP:N, WP:V, & WP:RS; and go on from there. It be best for WP and this article, if you fully cited it, before any other editing. Lentower (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yet another example of someone applying a very narrow ruleset to the letter, well done Lentower. Look around you... this encyclopedia is FULL of unrefd information and while of course having refs is better, the reality is that it only becomes a critical issue when the information is making tall claims or controversial. If you tagged all unreffed info on WP, the tags would outnumber the content 2:1 I'd bet... or even worse, if you removed it, it would probably collapse into 1/3 of its size. Why do the hard thing and chase vandals when you can drive by tag... Akerbeltz (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making changes, we are talking, you know...? First of all, I didn't object to your bringing the discussion here, and I don´t object to avoiding talk page switching, but for reasons of traceability and clarity, if someone posts in your talk page don´t copy - paste and transfer discussion to another place, someone may think you are trying to hide something, and doesn´t help building trust. Secondly, you are showing little regard for this discussion and the WP guidelines by further editing without finishing it. Be contributive, if you think there are dubious statements edit them and add the corrected information with an explanation, and preferably a citation. Three citations in a row without claiming a inaccuracy is WP:POINT, and are just disrupting with indiscriminate edits. The article would benefit from more citations? Yes. Does it have citations? Yes. You might as well carry on your "polishing" pursuit by adding citation needed and improve tags in most of the articles on cities of France and Spain, congratulations, thanks for your contribution Iñaki LL (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been clear about some of the problems in this section in my replies above.

I'll probably add a few more tags in a few days.

A few more points. I've separate them into signed paragraphs, so replies can be right after them and this talk page section more focused. Lentower (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

In the time it took to write the replies above, one of those editors more experienced, than me, with the article and the city should have been able to add one or more of the requested citations. That would have benefited the readers much more than all this Talk Page posting. Lentower (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

If one is mentioning a source, e.g. the Michelin guide, it is easy to add a citation. You either have the guide in front of you, or have gotten if from another source you have at hand, which you can easily reference. This makes the policy WP:V possible for readers and much easier for editors. Lentower (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

For a source, like the Michelin guide, that has many editions, you need to include which edition for the policy WP:V. Quite clear if you add the reference. Lentower (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

A source doesn't have to be perfectly formatted to be added. For example

<ref>Michelin Guide to Spain, Nth Edition, Page Number, Copyright Date, ISBN, "quote from the page that backs up the text, as it helps tell where on the page", http://if.from.the.web</ref>

is enough. Lentower (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

This section and much of the article has issues with the WP:NPOV policy. It's written in the manner that a government or business association tourist promotion agency would market the city to potential visitors. Glowing non-neutral language promoting and marketing the city, which is against WP's policies & guidelines. We owe WP's readers the negatives, as well as the positives, presented in a neutral writing style. Adding citations would also help resolved these WP:NPOV issues. Lentower (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

There is nothing wrong with tags being in an article - article, section, and inline tags. In the short run, they inform the readers that there is an issue with the article. In the longer run, as the issue is fixed, the article and WP are improved. Lentower (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

The fact that WP's policies & guidelines are not followed elsewhere, is not a reason for an editor to not follow them. This is stated in quite a few places in the Wikipedia:Project_namespace, not only in the policies & guidelines, but in essays & elsewhere. Lentower (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

You don't need to be a professional to find sources, as Iñaki LL (talk) seems to imply above. There is much help in how to find and format references in the Wikipedia:Project_namespace. You just have to spend a little time to learn how, which is time well-invested, as it helps WP and our readers alot. Here are three aids to help find sources to reference (they have some overlap).

Someone else might copy one or more to the header at the top of this page. Lentower (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

The WP policies & guidelines have evolved over more than a decade since WP was founded in 2001. By hundred of thousands of editors. They are not a very narrow ruleset as Akerbeltz (talk) wrote above. All editors are expected to follow them, especially the policies. If you don't wish to do so, you should go edit elsewhere, perhaps starting an encyclopedia of your own. You could also try to change and improve them. If you haven't read any of these WP policies below, please do so. it will help you make WP even better.

Lentower (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

In my experience, this article is quite under referenced. Another editor's experience could go either way. I'm not aware of any reliable source on this, of what the reference count per 1000 words is over the entire encyclopedia, and how an article rates against against all articles. Writing the robot, or making changes in the WP server software to do this has a lot of subtle issues, and would put more load on the servers. This different in editor's experience is far less important. that the issues concerning the policies & guidelines. Lentower (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

Where I used "guidelines" above, I should have used "policies & guidelines". I have corrected that. Lentower (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here

There are other points raised above, which are quite peripheral to the WP issues about the section. I'll leave them unanswered for now. I expect what I would say to them is fairly clear anyway. Lentower (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, reply here
Good grief, all that text... if folk like you spent less time droning on about the policies as if they were statutory law and edited content instead, Wikipedia would be a whole lot better. We really need to change the tagline from the free ecyclopedia that anyone can edit to ...that anyone can edit as long as they've spent 4 months on a course of reading reams of policy. Get some common sense, Lentower. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I got my account, an intro showed up on my talk page inviting me to read the policies. It took me about 40 minutes to read the three core content policies and five other content policies. Not a lot of time. I learned alot that has helped me edit WP for the many years I've been editing here.
Otherwise, what you wrote just above is repetitive of what you wrote before, and I see no reason to repeat myself, as I have already answered you. Lentower (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lentower, thanks for the resources provided but sorry this sounds like a lecture on WP philosophy and general policy, I would appreciate you go straight to the point, underline the weaknesses wherever there are by trying to improve them, instead of shouldering the burden of your hygienic pursuit on others. Wikipedia encourages people to edit and contribute, not to discourage editors. I have been in Wikipedia for quite a long time, and I do know what an excellent article is, what a good article is, and what a bad article is. Actually it takes quite of an effort to get an excellent article, which doesn´t dismiss other articles not living up to that level, remember that they are the bulk of the wikipedia. So I will insist, get to the point, taking an article and filling it with ref needed tags is WP:DISRUPT, and I will take them just as that. Your POV claim is unfounded as far as I am concerned, so I will just insist, get to the point and try to improve it. May I add, this article is no worse than the average of other wikipedia articles on towns and cities, in fact I think it's pretty descriptive and informative, while admittedly it would benefit from more contributions and references.
I won´t extend further, you seem to be very guideline conscious, but you are not sticking to them as refers WP:Talk page guidelines. Honestly the layout of your comment above comes across as pretty peculiar and its extension doesn´t add to its readability. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My overall guiding principle is: Do what's best to develop an encyclopedia for the readers. Beyond that, I am very conscious of the WP policies, they are what define an encyclopedia. The guidelines are not as well developed, and contradict themselves in places.
WP:DISRUPT clearly does not apply here.
Otherwise, what you wrote just above is repetitive of what you wrote before, and I see no reason to repeat myself, as I have already answered you. Lentower (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you made your point. I sorted out a bit your mess and trimmed the citation overkill. Clearly you have taken this article and the section in question to illustrate a point (WP:DISRUPTPOINT) irrespective of the very content and information conveyed, and put the burden on others, instead of expressing reasonable doubts on specific pieces of information, and/or adding it yourself to improve the article. However admittedly the article overall has a low citation rate, so I added some to enhance the article and settle the thing. I may add some more in the coming weeks. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you are making content changes that improve the Food and other sections in this article. (Throughout this discussion, I have done so elsewhere on WP, in areas where I have much more expertise and experience). Though you are entitled to your opinion, tagging as I did does not make a mess. I explained above how I came to add these tags earlier, and it wasn't [[WP:DISRUPTPOINT]. It was to encourage those with more knowledge and experience to improve this article - in particular the editor who had just added uncited text to the Food section. Lentower (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Sebastián. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments requested on title for disambiguation page

[edit]
Hi, I'm trying to build a consensus on the appropriate page name for the San Sebastian disambiguation page, and that discussion also affects the name of this page. Please add your thoughts at Talk:San Sebastian#Requested move 16 May 2017. Many thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on San Sebastián. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 22:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small?

[edit]

Is it really a small city, as it is said in the introduction? I don't consider it as such.--85.23.98.247 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of sourced information

[edit]

Hi Oshwah, Iñaki LL, Kgfleischmann, you have all reverted Anon User:80.246.136.72 (and before that other anon IPs) bizarrely removing the same seemingly-uncontroversial information over and over, without engaging in any explanation or discussion. What are the options in this case? Jdcooper (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper - The article is now semi-protected in order to stop the repeated removal of content by anonymous users. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool, thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Oshwah, it looks to me it is a tantrum derived from reverts in another article (spin-off). Iñaki LL (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people

[edit]

I think the list is too long and poorly defined: Who counts as "notable"? (the mother of a former president of Mexico? a porn star?) What relation to San Sebastian is needed (born there? lived major part of life there? did major work there?) Don't Juan Mari Arzak, Daniel Innerarity, Pedro Miguel Echenique belong on the list? Do bands belong on a list of "people"? Should one structure the list according to field within which the persons were/are notable (sport/science/politics/literature/...)? Wouldn't it make sense to limit the list here to the, say, the 20 most notable ones and create a List of people from San Sebastián for the complete listing? --Qcomp (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic representation

[edit]

Akerbeltz, Sol505000: Can you please stop edit warring and discuss your disagreement here? Largoplazo (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the stress mark to the Basque IPA page, should resolve the issue. But seriously ... Akerbeltz (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not resolve the issue. Per MOS:PRON, section Other languages, you have not gone through all of the relevant Basque transcriptions and added the stress marks there, so now the situation is even worse than it was. I've created a discussion on Help talk:IPA/Basque#Stress mark. Sol505000 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-issue you have created, you have started removing relevant information based on some legalistic interpretation of the MOS and you're expecting other people to pick up the pieces. Nice try. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion waiting for you on Help talk:IPA/Basque. Your manipulative interpretation of me citing MOS:PRON is not going to make the issue go away. And the issue is: transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/Basque have to agree with the guide and vice versa. You don't get to change 3 transcriptions, then the guide and pretend everything's fine. We have far more than 3 IPA transcriptions of Basque that link to the guide on WP. I strongly suggest that you start engaging with me on Help talk:IPA/Basque#Stress mark. Sol505000 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Sebastián&oldid=1252174062"