Talk:Àngel Guimerà

Name

Good morning. I wanted to point out a little detail with his name. He didn't never use alive the name "Àngel Guimerà i Jorge", and I'm not quite sure if "Guimerà" was once oficially used as his name. Àngel Gimerà i Jorge is just the modern catalanised form (that will be quite valid for the Catalan nationalist manuals), but not the real or historical name.

About sources, it depends about the time you get. Some examples: In this book from 1896 he has signed as «Ángel Gimerá», as he did again here (1890). He has also signed as «Angel Gimerá» (1892), as he did here (1892), here (1903), here (1905) and here (1906). Still, he has signed as «Ángel Gimera» (1890). It's only in the last years of his life when he signed some works as «Guimerà», as here (1917), here (1918), here (1921) or here (1921), but not as «Àngel Guimerà» or just «Àngel Guimerà i Jorge». But even so, Guimerá was the most used form of his name. Perhaps «Angel» was the most used written form of his name.

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». Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica recognized him as "Ángel Guimerá" (5).

Finally, I wanted to point out the fact that user Leptictidium is so close in ca:wiki to some users which ploted to find methods (or other close users) in order to keep the catalanised form of his name (as we can see here); but I assume they are doing the same in all wikipedias as they can. Manuchansu (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Manuchansu has been known to selectively pick references that match his pre-established point of view, and this is no exception. It is also worth reading the precedent of the same discussion on the German Wikipedia, as well as Manuchansu's editing behaviour after other users objected to renaming the article.--Leptictidium (mt) 16:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not, not exactly. Let me remind you that I have done the changes and was no trouble in 10 days (then you come violently and try to impose your point of view). I have given a clear explanation, sources and arguments, you didn't. Maybe because you have just come from ca:wiki as a part of ploted campaign to halt a determinated point of view. I have corrected mistakes in other wikis, yes, but so different to your action, I have given arguments, not just bad manners, threats, false accusations of vandalism. All your actions have followed that style. Manuchansu (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles clearly states: "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made" (emphasis mine). I have therefore reverted the move in accordance with Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. I am more than willing to discuss the name of the article, but the rules are quite clear that the long-standing name remains in place until a consensus to move is reached. I therefore propose that we (and anyone else who is interested) continue to debate the name of the article, and in the meantime we both leave the name as it was on 14 June. Agreed? --Leptictidium (mt) 13:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This (the version of the page before either you or I touched it) is the logical starting point for the discussion. Please stop resorting to Wikipedia:Fait accompli.--Leptictidium (mt) 14:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahá. Again you have given no arguments or sources, but you doesn't care it because you have only one interest: to delete any kind of information you dislike, even being sourced. You are now here, but next month ca:wiki will send another user to manipulate and make pressure, so it will be difficult to be always waiting. So no agree with your methods and your phoeny propossals. Related to the article, the next time you delete sourced information of the article, I will report you. That's not a Wikipedia:Fait accompli. I sourced information you have no trouble with it, so that's just vandalism to justify your point of view. If you try do any movement to just leave a Catalan nationalist vision of the article, I will add a template of Lack of neutrality. Manuchansu (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Friendly tip: before you start saying that removing sourced material constitutes vandalism, you should check your own edit history for this article. --Leptictidium (mt) 14:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with @Leptictidium:. By the way, it is not the first time he tries to impose his point of view placing ideology before reason or sources, and insult or threat before respect.--Andiport (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahá, by the way you were blocked in es:wiki because of your actions as an ideological SPA, but it doesn't matter. So, anyway, you totally agree, but could you give us sources? Manuchansu (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Gepardenforellenfischer has already refuted your cherrypicking troll sources in de:wiki. I'm not going to waste my time here because, somehow, I don't think you have any interest in Àngel Guimerà and his work. The reason why you are here is that his name does not sound as Spanish as you want and you think you have the moral authority to even change it.--Andiport (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Moral reasons? I have given sources, much more than you and other catalan nationalist users of ca:wiki have done. Simple as that. Manuchansu (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've requested that this page be locked. Y'all need to stop talking about one another and start talking about what's right, not who's right. Filing an Requested Move application as I've suggested can be done even with the page locked and might go a long way to settling this. One thing is absolutely clear: The way the name is spelled in the article should be the same as in the title. Settle the title first, then conform the article if necessary. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, TransporterMan, I'm the only one who had provided sources about the question, so it's difficult to understand how the ca:wiki users couldn't provided sources or refuting my arguments+sources. Your suggestion looks fine in a normal situation, but Catalan nationalist from ca:wiki will never let such a change, despite sources given. In that case, they would call for users and will create a new false consensus based on users who are rarely active here.

Anyway, the original objetive from ca:wiki was to revert the article as many as possible to the original form, and the objetive was finally achieved. So there is little to discuss for these guys. They finally got what they wanted; perhaps, in the future, someone else come to en:wiki to delete the rest of information, even the Spanish sources. Manuchansu (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I see that Leptictidium added sources, such as this one (an official page of the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports); another source which also seems reliable; another reliable source here. All of these were removed by Manuchansu in this edit. This edit war started when Manuchansu moved the page without proposing such change in the article’s discussion page (as he did in Commons and was finally reverted to the original name of the category, even though Manuchansu, not surprisingly, considers it a "false consensus"). I can understand that in the Spanish wiki the name is spelled in Spanish (Guimará) so as to protect the “purity” of the Spanish language. Nevertheless, this is en.wiki and the Catalan name, which the subject of the article also used and which is broadly referenced, should prevail (adding the Spanish spelling in the intro). Maragm (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)