Category talk:Àngel Guimerà

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Name

I don't know why this page and the related ones have been changed from the original name Àngel Guimerà (in Catalan) to Ángel Guimerá (in Spanish). This writer was born in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, son of a Catalan father and a Canarian mother, but when he was 7 years old he went to Barcelona for all his life. All his wide literary production was in Catalan, not in Spanish language. The surname Guimerà is also a Catalan surname. All this is absurd! --Enfo (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Not, it is not absurd. In this book from 1896 he has signed as «Ángel Gimerá», as he did here (1890). He has also signed as «Angel Gimerá» (1890), as he did here (1896), here (1903), here (1905) and here (1906). Still, he has signed as «Ángel Gimera» (1890). Àngel Gimerà i Jorge is just the modern catalanised form (that will be valid for the Catalan nationalist manuals), but not the real or historical name. Manuchansu (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to remark that user Enfo/Enric is calling in the Catalan Vikipedia for an organised movement about this category, to reintroduce the former catalanised name. Even they are discussing what kind of organised actions they can do, as taking a chosen Administrator to make whatever they wish to do. Ach, so bad. That's not fairplay. Manuchansu (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

All these examples with Angel Guimerá are written in this way because the standard of Catalan language was not already fixed in this time. Naming this author with his proper Catalan name and surname is not "recatalanizing" him nor a form of a supposed Catalan nationalism. In the same way, we must write Cantar de myo cid and not Cantar de mio Cid, because this is the original Castillian form in which this poem was written. --Enric (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't signed as Guimerà because he didn't do it, just that. It doesn't matter whatever was the Standardization of the Catalan language, there is no relation. About you told (to give a catalanised, anachronistic and false form of his Name that he didn't use)...of course is a form of Catalanism/Catalan nationalism. At least, in the way to manipulate the History and adapting it to the Modern vision of the Catalan nationalism. As same thing as Franco did with the no-Spanish names. Ah, you didn't say nothing, but inciting an organised campaign in Vikipedia is so Serious question. So...I guess it is enough. Manuchansu (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't sign Guimerà because the orthographic uses in this time were different as the modern ones; in the same way, Calderón de la Barca or Góngora didn't accentuate their surnames when they were alive. I think it's not so difficult to understand... --Enric (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, this is incredible. He could signed whatever he wanted, no need to wait for new orthographic uses. Calderón de la Barca and Góngora could signed too as they wanted. What you are saying is a little manipulation of facts. I see you are determinated to get your goals, even manipulating facts and asking for an organized campaign from other nationalist users of catalan Vikipedia. Now let me ast to you: Will you speak to us about this little question, or do you have any kind of Problem? If not, we can notify it, to keep off from organized campaigns from the catalan Vikipedia. That could be interesting. Manuchansu (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you know the sentence "Don't feed the troll"? Goodbye for ever! --Enric (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The only one who has [repeatedly] brought up nationalism is Manuchansu himself. This provides an interesting insight into the motives of his rather petty crusade.--Leptictidium (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah Leptictidium, a close user to one of the users of ca:wiki who proposed to take a friend administrador to manipulate this category. Lovely to see you here. Dear Lepticidium, I gave sources. Please bring me a source that says that while this man lived, he used the name Àngel Guimerà i Jorge, because then it's a bit strange that he used other names. So strange. Seriously, no more excuses or strange explanations of why he is called in a way that he never used. Manuchansu (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The books published after 1917, the begin of the normativisation of the grammar, but not when it was of full use yet, are signed as Angel Guimerà, as we can see in the cover page of its first editions: Indíbil y Mandoni (1917), Al cor de la nit (1918), Segon llibre de poesies (1921), Joan Dalla (1921), and so. I understand that when the author adopted the normative grammar and ortography he chosed its name, which is not Ángel Guimerá. --Panotxa (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

William Shakespeare used to sign as "William Shakspēr", Guy Fawkes used to sign as "Guido Fawkes", and yet no-one in their right mind would suggest renaming the Wikipedia articles to these names. An argument built on centuries-old signatures makes little sense and, frankly, comes across as grasping for straws.--Leptictidium (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, Panotxa, some one finally take original sources! But please, Panotxa don't make laugh: Did he have to wait for them to come up with a language policy to adopt his true name? C'mon. In this issue he could signed as Guimerà in 1888 if he wanted, it's just a question of how catalanist has become his feelings. Or more simply, it is a matter of will, just how he wanted to sign his works. Because it does not have a defined criterion. About the sources, I see he signed as Angel Guimerà, but not as «Àngel» or «Àngel Guimerà i Jorge» as was previously written. Even so, Guimerá was the most used form. And even with that fact...doesn't automatically convert it in his official or real Name. About sources t depends on the time you get it. As I said before, coud you take a source that says that while this man lived, he used the name Àngel Guimerà i Jorge? Historical, not current, or open nationalist and low quality "sources" as Gran Enciclopedia Catalan. Manuchansu (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so we've reached the point where you just keep repeating ad nauseam an argument that has already been exposed as flawed. To save time for everyone involved, if in a couple of days no valid arguments have been presented in favour of using the acute accent, I will initiate the renaming to the previous name, which had stood for eight whole years before Manuchansu unilaterally ripped up the consensus.--Leptictidium (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

So you decide what are valid arguments, and what are not valid arguments, right? By your own criteria, my arguments and sources are not valid. Lovely. Sincerely, eight years of silences doesn't mean consensus. Now we are discussing, and I'm asking for sources (only Panotxa give good sources). Sinces days ago I have given dozens of arguments and sources. Do you want more sources? Take it: for the Encyclopaedia Britannica he is Ángel Guimerá too. While the Biblioteca Nacional de España (1) and the Bibliotheque nationale de France (2) catalog him as «Ángel Gimerá y Jorge» or just «Ángel Guimerá», the Library of Congress (3) and the National Library of Australia (4) catalog him as «Angel Gimerá». In relation to your threat, I would like to remind that some of you have proposed organised actions from ca:wiki in order to manipulate this category, so it will be funny to see how it goes. Manuchansu (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no much to talk about, since I added some reliable sources from the early times, just after any spelling rules were adopted, and they haven't been contested. Its easy to understand that when a literate like this one aknowledges that he did something wrong in his writing when a new rule comes to light, tries to correct it. He could not undo its past published (then) mispells, but in later editions, its name (and literature) were corrected by himself as rules said, so it's enough proof that its previous spelling was understood by Guimerà as mistaken.

Also, you mention three different ways to spell the name as different sources (none in catalan, the writer's native language) in different languages (Ángel Guimerá, Ángel Gimerá and Angel Gimerá), and you haven't enlightened us why you chosed one of four above all the rest as the right one, when you have sources for them all. --Panotxa (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No Panotxa, not exactly. But, as you give rasonable arguments and sources, allow me to explain it. As soon as I was told that Àngel Guimerà i Jorge was a modern Catalan version of his name that he had never used (in life), that's when I started to have my doubts. I started searching sources, historical sources, and finally I took one version (or one spelling, if you prefere) that was supported by reliable sources. At that moment, I did nothing else. After some days, we're discusing. As I think I said before, maybe it's not so clear with the question of his prename «Angel». At the beginning Ángel Guimerá was the most sourced version, but now it could be Angel Guimerá. One more thing: I didn't said "three ways to spell the name in different languages", I didn't say nothing about languages. I didn't take historical Press (then I can take dozens of sources), but I have seen they were used this three different ways in both (Spanish and Catalan) languages. But it doesn't mean that each one of these ways to spell come from each different languages. So now, as you didn't ignored my sources, what is your proposal? If you have (I guess that you have one). Manuchansu (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Spanish, so, for me the internal differences are not important. I think that the name of the category should stay, because it was the name that the writer used in life and because it is the most used in international sources. Change it can lead to condusion and distort of reality.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosymonterrey, after the grammar was fixed (1917) and the vowel "a" was decided to always be open, the author began writing always its name as Guimerà, as sources above stated. --Panotxa (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahá, after 1917 it seems to be right. But as I said, as sources stated, it doesn't makes its official or most used name. So that's still the question. Manuchansu (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi,Panotxa, why did you think Guimerà is the most used form currently? As It was quoted previously there are sources the Encyclopaedia Britannica or national libraries (as Biblioteca Nacional de España, the Bibliotheque nationale de France, the Library of Congress  and the National Library of Australia) catalog him as Guimerá. So I think it should stay. Or may you should find an intermediate solution. Manuchansu said previously that Angel Guimerá was a used form not only by him (alive), but also by national libraries at the present time.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Guimerà is the most used form, as it is as is spelled in fixed catalan, author's own writing language. If there are other forms in use today is because they are using spanish or english transliteration, but even in many spanish and english specialyced books is easy to find the form Guimerà. As I see it, is the same case as Calderón de la Barca, Velázquez, Góngora, García Lorca or Shakespeare, who, in some cases din'nt spell its own name as the modern form, or in many sources we can find its name without accents, and we don't use any but its modern form in its own language at the title of the category. --Panotxa (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm...Guimerà is used, sure, but the mostly used form? I don't think so. As we talked some days ago, while he was alive «Guimerá» was the more used form to sign his works. The fact that many authorities considere to use another spelling is a reflection that they don't recognize Guimerà as the most used form. About examples, these cases you (and other) have quoted are quite diferent to this one. The fact is that on these authors that you have cited (and others) there is a common and clearly defined criterion on how to write their name, but in this case you find disparate criteria among various cultural institutions. The fact that it is easy to find different criteria is a reflection of that there is no unified criterion, nor that Guimerà is the form used.

But there are other accurate cases to quote here, and we have a perfect example with the case of Francisco Ferrer Guardia. In the current Catalonia (and many catalan works) quotes him as «Francesc Ferrer i Guardia», but he was born as Francisco Ferrer Guardia, he always used that name and he never changed his name. In fact, he is buried as «Francisco Ferrer Guardia», but still, in Catalonia many prefere to quote him by this catalanised form of his name. So, is «Francesc Ferrer i Guardia» the more used name because of this mode? No, it's not. The fact that many sources or authorities prefere to quote him by this anachronistic form doesn't makes it the most used form at global level.

So, as I said previously, that's the true question. Manuchansu (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A) Building a consensus in favour of renaming is required to move a category whose name has been in use for a long time (in this specific case, over 8 years)

B) This requirement has not been met, with 2 users in favour of the change and 3 against (plus the precedent of the same discussion on the German Wikipedia)

C) Therefore, the category should return to the last stable name it had before the unilateral renaming: Àngel Guimerà

--Leptictidium (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. But in eight years there were no actions, no opinions, no discussion...just silence. You couldn't call that a "previous consensus". Discussion began just after the renaming, not before. Now we are trying to find a consensus, but it seems that all are your interventions in the same line: Sabotage the debate. Please, if you have no sources or new arguments, stop disrupting the debate. Manuchansu (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Community guidelines are very clear that potentially controversial moves should be discussed before they are carried out (and may be reverted if done without discussion). To comply with the rules and clear the air after this unfortunate start to the debate, we should restore the category to its long-standing name (as the rules provide) and then continue the discussion in good faith. Agreed?--Leptictidium (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rules, haha. You have no interest on dicussion, you have given no sources or arguments: your only mission here is to recover what you think is correct. That's the reason they called you from ca:wiki. After that, you won't do anything more here. Manuchansu (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I laid out my argument (that people's signatures are a rather poor source for naming articles, as demonstrated by the Shakespeare and Guy Fawkes examples) in my second statement on this page. No need to copy-paste it every two hours. On another note, your constant accusations and personal attacks do not contribute to a productive discussion.--Leptictidium (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well. There was no previous consensus, that's an invention, just eight years of silence. Anyway, it's obvious that some users just came here to grow the number, but nothing more. This is not a question of three users versus two. Consensus involves finding a solution, not sabotaging any opinion that does not match. It seems that some users have come in a group, to manipulate the outcome of the debate.  On the other hand, Leptictidium, it is amazing your contempt for the opinions of those who do not think like you. Manuchansu and Panotxa haver their owns opinions, and I respecht them. My opinions and arguments are so valid as yours, and I don't see motives to recover the former name.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• The way things are done in Commons is to use the spelling used currently in the language the person pertains to. Therefore we have William Shakespeare, in current English spelling, not Vilhelmus Hastacommotor or whatever variation; we have Eça de Queirós, in current Portuguese spelling, not Eça de Queiroz, as spelled in his day; and so many others. Since the person in question did most of his work in Catalan and since his name in current Catalan spelling is Àngel Guimerà, the category should be named Category:Àngel Guimerà. Simple as that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• I'm with Tuvalkin here. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Tuvalkin too. --ESM (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• De acuerdo con volver la categoría a su nombre inicial: Category:Àngel Guimerà. No sólo por su uso en "manuales catalanistas actuales", también en instituciones Nacionales de España se usa su forma correcta en catalán como en la Hemeroteca de la Biblioteca Nacional de España:[1]. --MarisaLR (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• We're in the 21st century ... Or not? :S Agree with Tuvalkin too. --Yeza (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Facts are (whether we live in the 21st century or not) nowadays VIAF still uses Ángel Guimerá, BNE still uses Guimerá, BNF still uses Guimerá, DNB uses the new Guimerà, Library of Congress still uses Angel Guimerá. (How glorious being more modern and up-to-date than most of more reputed European and American libraries, isn't it?). CANTIC, of course, shows Àngel Guimerà, shockingly not even mentioning a "Guimerá" possibility.

Both forms are ok for me here in Commons (I'm happy with just avoiding the unnecesary second-surname-part, with the also anachronic "i" in between) and maybe Manuchansu's move was not needed and I'd have probably kept the former spelling (Guimerà) (since the move may produce these little tiny conflicts and Commons categories are not such a big deal), but in an English environment, as Commons categories are, Á(a)ngel Guimerá is not (Britannica, LCCN, etc) the outlandish-XIX-esque-grotesque-complete-nonsense-utter-crap spelling some guys are trying to suggest ("Eça de Queirós" is "Eça de Queirós" in VIAF, BNE, BNF, DNB and LCCN). By the way, I suggest being somehow coherent and moving Category:Eduard Marquina “sic” to Category:Eduardo Marquina. Strakhov (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Datos sobre Àngel Guimerà i Jorge en la Biblioteca Nacional de España (BNE):[2] y [3]--MarisaLR (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Check Guimera's authority, not a book in the BNE about this guy or a empty work-ID in the database. Stop spreading confusion. Main name there ...is (yet) Guimerá, Ángel, whether you like it ...or not. As it is (Guimerá) in VIAF, LCCN, BNF and Britannica. Lies and wishful thinkings are not needed to return this category to the former "Category:Àngel Guimerà". Strakhov (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Naming categories states that Modern personal names are generally not translated (...) A single name by given subject: we should not use different names to label a single subject. In particular, translations in other languages, or language variants are not an acceptable way... . The modern form for the name in catalan is Àngel Guimerà i Jorge, as all actual catalan sources state, so that is the one that must stay. Shortened to Àngel Guimerà, if we want. "Á" doesn't exist in catalan, so it can only be used in mispells or translations, which both are not correct as naming rules state. --Panotxa (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Ángel Guimerá" is not a translation of anything. Strakhov (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ángel Guimerá is the spanish translation of the catalan name. Easy to realize as Á and á are letters that doesn't exist in catalan, so there is no way neither Ángel nor Guimerá can be catalan words. The own writer, as soon as the language was fixed quited using the mispelled words of his name and started using the new spelling, as demonstrated with many references above, so its name was in a mispelled catalan, therefore as Commons:Naming categories, we must use the name in the same language as the author did (catalan) in the newest version available. --Panotxa (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Calma Strakhov, de acuerdo contigo no hace falta emplear por ninguna parte el hilo tan fino, la cuestión principal y en la que estoy totalmente de acuerdo son con las reglas de Commons expuestas muy claras por Tuvalkin.Por lo tanto doy por terminada mi participación. --MarisaLR (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No sé de qué "hilo tan fino" hablas. Las reglas de Commons aplicables aquí son "blabla consenso", "blabla no oposición", "blabla statu quo", "blabla... burocracia": bullshit. El "blabla" sobre "titular con el nombre "actual" en la lengua propia" (?) no es una regla de Commons en sí, es un punto de vista, razonable, todo lo que quieras, pero un punto de vista más. Un punto de vista que no comparten varias bibliotecas nacionales. No merece la pena perder más el tiempo, pero no distorsiones la realidad, por mucho que te gustaría que a este señor se le conociera ya nada más como Àngel Guimerà i Jorge, varias instituciones, entre ellas la BNE, no creen tan conveniente como tú adaptar con tanta gracilidad "nombres propios" de personas como si fueran términos comunes. Strakhov (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please check Commons:Naming categories, as it states that Modern personal names are generally not translated. --Panotxa (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No Panotxa, that's false. When Guimerá was born in the Canary Islands in 1845, he was born as Ángel Guimerá y Jorge, not as Àngel Guimerà i Jorge (he could not be born as Àngel Guimerà because that is a later XX Century Catalanization of his name). To affirm that Ángel Guimerá is a spanish translation of his name is simply a manipulation and a lie. Manuchansu (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

So you are conceding that Àngel Guimerà is the last used form for name of the author, even if is a later XX Century Catalanization of his name. As it was the form used by himself, that's all we need to confirm the policy Commons:Naming categories. Thanks. --Panotxa (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• In this particular case, I do agree with Tuvalkin. Moreover, this move should have been discussed previously. --Discasto _talk 15:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Recap

After two weeks of discussion, we have:

Users in favour of moving the category to "Ángel Guimerà"

1. Manuchansu
2. Rosymonterrey

Users in favour of keeping the category's longstanding name "Àngel Guimerà"

1. Enric
2. Leptictidium
3. Panotxa
4. Tuvalkin
5. Jmabel
6. ESM
7. MarisaLR
8. Yeza
9. --Maragm (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
10. Discasto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeza (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
11. Andiport — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiport (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Users for whom "both forms are okay here in Commons"

1. Strakhov

There is obviously no consensus for this controversial move, and the category should therefore be restored to its long-standing name.--Leptictidium (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

---

• Category restored to its former name. No consensus for the unilateral move. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)