Talk:Bay of Biscay

Gulf and not a bay

this is a gulf and not a bay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.240.125 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In shipping practice they also call the Bay of Biscay a 'French Bay'. Once I was looking for some info about French Bay somewhere in France, I couldnt find anything but some French Bays in Canada and Bahamas. I believe it would be of much help to add this name to the article. Also in view of a very short block of history think this is very strange that the fabulous Russian army invasion is almost a half of it. There should be better mentioning of the 14-18th centuries when Spain was the leading maritime force and shipbuilder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.111.240 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then may be it is time for you to register and share the vast knowledge about history with us... you don't even need to register, you know ;-). Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, there was a user that knew this little bit of history (the Red Army) and added it to the article. You can do the same, but you should never never remove valuable information from another user unless it is incorrect or nonsense. So please, improve the section with the (I agree) more important history of the Bay of Biscay during the 14th-18th centuries... some about the Spanish Armada maybe? go on! be bold! David (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest - that is real nonsense. I will not start arguing. Its a long story. You know politics often invent history - on any side. "Red Army" did not exist after the WW2 - it was not called so. It was just "Soviet Army". All in all I simply saw anoth fact of propaganda where I never expected to see it. Once again - no time to argue. I am in a shipping business - was just looking around to read about "French bay". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.66.154.250 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what's all this about "potential soviet dominance"? The influence of this body of water on the cold war, Soviet politics and Soviet war strategy is up for debate at best, and at worst just plain silly. At least needs a good source.

I'm another voice in agreement that the section on 'Soviet European dominance' is ridiculous and should be removed. I think its the result partially of errors in translation... but perhaps also in understanding! Either way it doesnt belong in such a short history section, especially when its largely fantasy. I'll remove it if there are no objections. Trefalcon (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian Army nonsense has been removed from the History section. Trefalcon (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see something on the geologic history of the Biscay aulocogen --BT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.150.198 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cantabrian Sea

To avoid any confusion I think it's important to explain that in Spain (and for spanish speakers) it is very unusual the name "Bay of Biscay" or "Golfo de Vizcaya", but "Cantabrian Sea" or "Mar Cantábrico". The first one is more used for a specific area near the spanish-french Basque Country and "Cantábrico" for the whole area as it's understood in english as "Bay of Biscay". --88.31.193.183 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish WP says,

El golfo de Vizcaya (en euskera: Bizkaiko golkoa, en francés: golfe de Gascogne) es un golfo del océano Atlántico Norte, que comprende, aproximadamente, desde el cabo Ortegal en Galicia (España) hasta la punta de Penmarc'h en Bretaña (Francia). Baña las costas de las comunidades autónomas españolas de Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria y el País Vasco, así como las regiones francesas de Aquitania, Poitou-Charentes, Países del Loira y Bretaña.

En España, se emplea la designación golfo de Vizcaya para referirse a la parte más oriental del mar Cantábrico, con la que se designa el mar litoral que baña la costa norte de España y la costa suroeste de Francia y que correspondería con lo que los romanos en el siglo I aC nombraron como Sinus Cantabrorum («bahía de los cántabros»).

and,

El mar Cantábrico es el mar litoral del océano Atlántico que baña la costa norte de España, forma parte sur del Golfo de Vizcaya . Se extiende desde la punta Estaca de Bares, en la provincia de La Coruña, hasta la desembocadura del río Adur inclusive , en las costas del departamento francés de las Landas, cerca de Bayona. En su parte más oriental, junto a las costas del País Vasco recibe el nombre de golfo de Vizcaya o también de golfo de Gascuña. Baña 800 kilómetros de costa compartida por las provincias de La Coruña y Lugo (Galicia); Asturias; Cantabria; Vizcaya y Guipúzcoa (País Vasco); y Labort, ya en Francia.

That is, in the article on the bay, they say that the bay is what we think of it in English, but that in Spain they use the name to refer to the eastern portion of the Cantabrian Sea. However, in the article on the sea, they say that it's the southern portion of the bay. The latter is what WP-fr says:

Le golfe de Gascogne est une partie de l'océan Atlantique nord qui borde deux pays européens :

* la France par l'ouest, où il s'étend de la Bretagne aux Pyrénées-Atlantiques

* l'Espagne par le nord (mer Cantabrique), où il longe les côtes du Pays basque jusqu'à la Galice

and

La mer Cantabrique (en espagnol, Mar Cantábrico) plus rarement "mer de Biscaye", est une mer littorale de l’océan Atlantique, située le long de la côte nord de l’Espagne, c’est-à-dire la corniche cantabrique (d’où son nom), au pied de la Cordillère Cantabrique et de l’extrémité occidentale des Pyrénées et qui forme la partie sud du golfe de Gascogne . Elle s'étend depuis l’embouchure de l'Adour (Landes/Pays basque) jusqu'à la Punta Estaca de Bares (Galice) le point le plus septentrionnal de la péninsule Ibérique . La « côte cantabrique » qui lui correspond a les mêmes limites.

I don't have a Spanish atlas, but my Larousse Diccionario manual ilustrado (2000) says,

Vizcaya, Golfo de, parte más profunda del mar Cantábrico, entre Francia y España. Recibe th. [termia] el n[ombre] de Golfo de Gascuña.

and,

Gascuña — Golfo del Atlántico entre Francia y España (mar Cantábrico). Recibe también el nombre de golfo de Vizcaya.

and,

Cantábrico (mar), parte del Atlántico, al N[orte] de España y al S[ur]O[este] de Francia.

I assume "más profunda" in the 1st def means deepest inland (easternmost), not greatest depth to the bottom.

A 1918 English encyclopedia, here, appears to say the terms are synonymous ("Biscay, Bay of, [...] called the Cantabrian Sea"). The OED has an 1851 quotation with "the shore of the Cantabrian Sea" and 1746 "the rough Cantabrian coast", but it's not possible to know what they mean by that. The latest EB mentions it in the two articles on Asturias ("The Cantabrian Sea lies to the north") and A Coruña ("Bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and the Cantabrian Sea to the north"), but not in the article on the Bay of Biscay itself. There would therefore appear to be no reason to distinguish the bay from the sea in English, and it's not even clear what the distinction is in Spanish. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the article. Not only are they synonymous, but Cantabrian Sea (Mar Cantábrico) is by far the more common in Spain. Bay of Biskay (Golfo de Vizcaya) could be more common time ago, but not know. Atlas, books, the news, everybody say Cantabrian Sea. I think the name is after Biscay as well, since around the XVIII century the Basques thought the ancient Cantabrian people had lived there, while today we know that they lived in the current Cantabria. Around that time Spaniards started to call the gulf after Cantabrians. Anyway, this is a theory of mine. The point here is that Cantabrian Sea is commonly used in Spain, while Bay of Biskay is fairly (extremely in many regions) rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.241.167 (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the prevalence of Cantabrian Sea (Mar Cantábrico) in Spanish. On the note about Bay of Biscay, Biscay is an old name to call a territory where Basque was spoken, so I would be cautious to call it after the province of Biscay and double check, more so if we bear in mind that Basque was spoken in a much larger territory north into the Landes centuries ago. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

March 2013

As other users had pointed, the article should be renamed "Cantabric Sea", as the Gulf of Biscay is only a part of the Cantabric Sea, so its ridiculous to name a whole by one of its parts. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is English-language Wikipedia, not Spanish, Basque or French Wikipedia. The WP:COMMONNAME for the entire gulf in English is overwhelmingly Bay of Biscay, and the terms Cantabrian/Cantabric Sea are almost entirely unknown. The article's name is fine. Bazonka (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Bay of Biscay → Cantabric Sea – Cantabric Sea is a more accurate and commonly used name, as it defines the whole sea on the northern coast of Spain (from Galicia to Basque Country, passing through Asturias & Cantabria). In the other hand, Bay of Biscay had been a more historical term, and only covers the Basque Country coast HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - See my comment in the thread above. "Cantabric Sea is a more accurate and commonly used name"... err, no. Not in English. This is English-language Wikipedia! "Bay of Biscay" is (rightly or wrongly) by far the commonest name for the entire gulf in English, and the terms Cantabrian/Cantabric Sea are almost entirely unknown. Bazonka (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bazonka. "Bay of Biscay" would be the WP:UCN common name in WP:UE English. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - Never seen the usage Cantabric Sea in any English-language source in my entire life until now. 100 out of 100 english-language maps use Bay of Biscay. Such a move is definitely not compliant with WP:COMMONNAME and is entirely nonsensical.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - No doubt Bay of Biscay is the most widely used in English and it encompasses the whole Atlantic arch from Galicia to Brittany. Iñaki LL (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I dont see the redirection of Cantabric Sea to Bay of Biscay, as it has no sense. If Bay of Biscay covers from Punta de Estaca de Bares to Brest, the Cantabric Sea covers from Punta de Estaca de Bares to Bayonne, so they are not the same, as the Cantabric Sea covers only Spanish coast (with the exception of Bayonne) of the Bay of Biscay. A different article on the Cantabric Sea (or section in the Bay of Biscay article) should be done. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I would have thought that could be covered by a paragraph in the article (or even just a sentence). Skinsmoke (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: On checking the article, it's already in the introduction. That's as much as it needs. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment": Both Cantabric Sea and Cantabrian Sea already redirect here. Bazonka (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is no more reason to adopt an English translation of the Spanish name ("Cantabric Sea"), than there is to adopt an English translation of the French name ("Gulf of Gascony"). Neither are common in English, where the name overwhelmingly used is "Bay of Biscay". Skinsmoke (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I repeat, on redirecting "Cantabrian Sea" to "Bay of Biscay", we are giving an article of the whole instead of an article on the part wich the user is looking for. I think that Cantabrian Sea should have its own article, or at least a differenced section instead of a mere line on the article. But, as I said, Cantabric Sea aint equivalent to Bay of Biscay, as its only a part of the whole.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so rather than trying to rename the article from a name that covers the whole gulf to a name that only relates to part of it, then why not be bold and change the Cantabrian Sea article from a redirect into a stub? Bazonka (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Which should definitely be at Cantabrian Sea, not Cantabric. Well said. Red Slash 01:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish wikipedia distinguishes both. I don´t know what the relevance is to it at other than a Spanish regional-cultural level, since English language and usage doesn´t seem to make distinctions. According to the Spanish tradition it means approx. the offshore area of the ocean from Galicia to the French Basque Country, and may be defined as a smaller sea within the Bay of Biscay. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bazonka I agree with you.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origin of name

This article states that the bay "is named in English after the province of Biscay, in the Spanish Basque Country." There is no reference for this statement, and it has been tagged with a citation needed template since May 2010. On 28 October 2012, an IP removed the cn template with the comment, "citation needed that the "bay of biscay" is named after the adjacent province called "biscay"... seriously?". I reverted this, stating "Everything should have a citation".
Earlier today, user:Florian Blaschke reverted my October edit, calling it "obvious trolling". This is not only untrue, but also an unacceptable personal attack.
I then reverted, commenting, ""Obvious trolling"? What's not obvious is whether the bay is named after the province or vice versa. Everything needs a reference", and Florian then reverted again, commenting, "It IS obvious, see Biscay#Etymology and stop being WP:POINTy"
Whilst is is likely that the bay is named after the province, it is not obvious. Biscay#Etymology implies that the province is named after a land feature, but it does not necessarily follow that the bay is named after the province. Probably it is, but not definitely. I have tried to find a source, but I cannot find one that gives the etymology with any certainty - for example: "It may be named after the Basque province of Biscay."[1]
Just because something is likely, it does not mean that it is true. Even if it is true, it could still be doubted or questioned without a reliable source. Everything in Wikipedia should be referenced, even when seemingly obvious - see WP:NOTBLUE and WP:POPE. Bazonka (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're curiously focussed on that little factoid. Not everything in the article has a ref, and even if you have slapped tags on other stuff now too, you could tag (almost) every single sentence. "Citation needed" is all too easily abused that way (a reductio to absurdum, effectively), which is why it is disruptive and WP:POINTy. But the best solution is to simply remove the offending sentence altogether. In fact, that's exactly what I'm gonna do now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template for confirmation that drive-by tagging and excessive, gratuitous use of this tag is frowned up on Wikipedia, and Template:Dubious#Incorrect uses for confirmation that using this tag when one does not seriously question (much less dispute) a statement is perceived as inappropriate to say the least.

Being intentionally obtuse is against the spirit of co-operation on Wikipedia. That's why I called out. In fact, your abrupt starting to scatter citation needed tags all about the article only reinforces my questioning of your good faith, as it comes across as trollish/pointy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I think I should step in here. You may do one way (delete it) or the other (maintained with citation needed). Sticking to the content of the statement, what is clear is that there is evidence enough to support that the name of the Bay may not come from the present-day province, despite dismissive comments seen here stating otherwise. As of the 16th century the Spain's Basque speaking parts out of Navarre (a kingdom) were called Biscay (Basque speakers altogether Biscayans, sometimes even those coming from the Labourd in France), just check maps of the period. Whoever added the sentence "named after the province Biscay" should defend his point and add a reference. In default of that, I won't object to deleting the sentence. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Florian, I am offended that you continue to refer to me as a troll. This is a WP:PA and is unacceptable. Perhaps I was a little overzealous with the cn's, but every sentence that I tagged does need a citation. My motivation was not intentionally pointy - I was merely highlighting areas that needed improvement. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bay of Biscay. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150825214445/http://www.fishbase.us/summary/Grammatostomias-flagellibarba.html to http://www.fishbase.us/summary/Grammatostomias-flagellibarba.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bay of Biscay. 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/20150720203133/https://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150448/ to http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150448/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/brhgc3aemagcsoos0kocgcggc/RIWC-SI10-pp221-254.pdf

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bay of Biscay. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-c/califrnn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150825214445/http://www.fishbase.us/summary/Grammatostomias-flagellibarba.html to http://www.fishbase.us/summary/Grammatostomias-flagellibarba.html

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

multilingual names for constant light rain

In § Climate, paragraph 2, I see

...light though very constant rain to its shores (known as orballo, sirimiri, morrina, orbayu, orpin or calabobos). Sometimes powerful windstorms form if the pressure falls rapidly (Galernas)...

It would be helpful if these translation-equivalents, including Galernas, were each associated with the language they are in, like the Bay's names in various languages in the lede, though not necessarily in the same style.

--Thnidu (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)