This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spain Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Galicia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Galicia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Galicia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GaliciaWikipedia:WikiProject GaliciaTemplate:WikiProject GaliciaGalicia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

This page was improperly moved. You should go through Wikipedia:Requested moves, and you certainly should not just copy and paste the article text, which destroys the edit history. - Montréalais 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"At this point the name Corunna entered English (with the Gallicized spelling Corrugna also appearing in the 18th century), although this name is now being forgotten, and tends to be replaced with the local names, which as noted above are La Coruña in Spanish and A Coruña in Galician." This strikes me as a POV. Please provide source for such a statment. If it were being replaced by anything it is not "La Coruña" or "A Coruña" but would be "Coruna". --Philip Baird Shearer 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right I will soon change everything to A Coruña, name in Galician an Spanish. La Coruña is not official, as it comes from Franco diratorship times. --Stoni^(talk) 11:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. "La Coruña" has been used in Spanish for centuries. The fact that the Galician spelling has been made the only official name in Spain in recent years does not mean that the Spanish name does not exist. Why have you deleted all references to the name in the article? Even if you think that "La Coruña" shouldn't be used nowadays, the article should mention the name, since it is still the most common one in English texts. Personally, I would prefer to use the English traditional name "Corunna" for the article. --AngelRiesgo 02:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A Coruña" is most certainly not the name that is used in English. The current location of this page is against wikipedia policy. It is either called "Corruna" or "La Coruña" in English. I have never seen "A Coruña" until just a moment ago. john k 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since 90's National Geographic Atlas (or Times, or What You Want) only states "A Coruña". It has been the official name both in Galician, Spanish and Chinese since 1983. And yes, in 1600 text you can find "Corunna", and surely in AD75 ones "Portus Artabrorum".212.51.52.4 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accordign the Chinese Wikipedia, the Chinese name of this city is 拉科魯尼亞 (LāKēlǔníyà). It resembles more La Cortuña than A Coruña. By the way, was not A Cruña (with no o) an alternate Galician spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.230.222 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "A Cruña" is a valid and alternate galician spelling for "A Coruña". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.28.228.112 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Linguistic issues: How on earth is the phrase 'brutal deturpation' (deturpation=to make foul) neutral POV?

86.133.21.97 10:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited as part of work on the NPOV backlog. Since the disputed text seems to have been edited out, and there has been no discussion suggesting further disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with {{NPOV}} and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partially reverted recent changes regarding name: included line 57: [1], rewrote this [2]. As an encyclopedia WP should use the official name, but include other forms in use/used. Steve Hart 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can definitively finish the matter of the name: the only legal name for the city is A Coruña, whatever the language you use within Spain, and I think it is fully aplicable the [policy and style guide] -the trouble is not on Galician side but in nationalist Spanish one which simply does not want to use the current official and legal name, with the most pintoresque argumentations. The most known name for the city in English was the Spanish one the whole 20th century at least. 212.51.52.7 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits. According to WP:NCON (which you linked to) the most common name should be used as the article name. It's my understanding that in this case this is also the legal name. However, WP:NCON does not mean other names should not be mentioned. On the contrary, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and shall represent all notable viewpoints and facts: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." See: WP:NPOV and WP:N. In this case, both the local "conflict" and the fact that readers might be interested to know what other names are used/have been used, qualify as notable. -- Steve Hart 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if you think so, but please note that one part only tend to use the legal and only name, and it's the other part (the minority but noisily one) which are against, and it's not the Galicians, I insist, nationalist themselves or not (including "spaniardist" ones) who are using the Francoist toponym, but Spanish nationalists ones who are using, against the law, La Coruña.212.51.52.8 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be tangible support for early use and current use of all versions, see [3] [4] [5]. Further, the Spanish form is still used publicly, alongside the legal one (e.g. the soccer club). Anyway, I've rewritten the paragraph to include both positions. As an encyclopedia WP should include both current use and historic use, and both political viewpoints. Hope this helps. -- Steve Hart 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I explain too bad, please excuse me and excuse my poor English. "Corunna" is really a Spanish word, and from Spanish it entered on English. You of course know the Spanish "letter" ñ is (or was, as you prefer) a double nn, it is not the case of the French La Corogne, for instance. An English term, like canyon (also from Spanish cañón) would be Corunya. By the way, it is unclear that roman Brigantium was A Coruña, but it is true that some historicians believe so. Corunna, as you can read in the links you supply me, is an out-of-date term, in public Libraries here I found a 1973 edition of Chamber's Encyclopaedia as the term is La Coruña, in Spanish of course. I mean, until 1983 in the English-speaking world it was known so, and Corunna is a very old term like many others out of use and not cited in Wikipedia, but of course it is true you can find "Corunna", and the older the text, more you read. And, the use of "La Coruña" or "A Coruña" is not neutral, of course it is in English, but not in its spanish context. I disagree with the term "Galician nationalists", it is true that many "Galician nationalists" take part in a kind of political battle, but not all, and not only "Galician nationalists" are in favour of "A Coruña". For instance, the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) or the Galician (regional) branch of PP, in a stronger rejection, are publicly against the use of "La Coruña" (and curiously as you know, not the PSOE ex-mayor, belonging to it by now, who was the main figure supporting "La Coruña"). The only strictly true is that "Spanish nationalists" are who supporting "La Coruña", and no other people. Many people not nationalist of any side, not even Galician (or Spanish) at all, supports "A Coruña" simply because it is the legal term since 1983 and they have no interest on boost Francoist flames. It is the legal name! How can be possible that "Galician nationalists" are defending the legality agains "Spanish nationalists"? I think this point is not well explained since is seems to be a confrontation between nationalists of two sides, and it is an artificial debate which clear intention to call attention. I live here and it is not a conflict at all (for instance, ALL local newspapers use A Coruña, and in Spanish), i.e., people do not talk about it, nor worry, I mean the name ("Galician" or "Spanish"), what really is a big problem, is the continuous defy of the law by the ex-mayor (only him) who in all cases has lost all trials: it was the Municipality the main (and only) supporter of "La Coruña". Note that this problem simply does not exist with Ourense/Orense or Ferrol/El Ferrol del Caudillo, which theoretically would be the same case. Excuse me once again by such a post like this.212.51.52.7 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you make some good points. I've made a couple of edits, both at the top and in the language section. Please have a look at and post back -- Steve Hart 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time (and work). From a non-NPOV, the subject is the ex-mayor had a great interest in diverting public opinion out of his familiar and personal bussiness which are not matter of interest here, and of course, many other people with certain ideology had also interest in support it. Please also note that ALL trials before the High Court of Galicia and High Court of Spain were unfavorable to him (they were paid with Municipality funds). I think it is no case for a major "natural" debate. About the English name, I think "old English" is a bit exaggerated, maybe I'm wrong but, for instance, Saragossa was the only English name for the city (of Zaragoza) until recent times, and it is no longer in use, including the Wikipedia itself, and Zaragoza is a city of greater importance than the town A Coruña is. The only major event in history where the name Corunna appears is Battle of Corunna, in fact "Battle of Elviña" (the place name where the battle was fought, nowadays a suburb of A Coruña). 212.51.52.7 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wanted the edit "very old" for the English ... :) Anyway, I've had a look at some British websites, and La C. seems to be mostly used in public life, while Corunna is often the name of (old) hotels, etc. As for the history in this, here's a couple of links you may of may not find interesting: From Monarchy to Civil War, An Eyewitness Account (scroll down 2/3rds for La C.), and Language, Democracy and Devolution in Catalonia (PDF, 350 Kb, on Madrid and regions). -- Steve Hart 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Anyone provide any English texts that use the term "A Coruña". I have always seen either "La Coruña" or "Corunna," usually the former, and certainly the former in sources post-1983 (if anything, I'd say that up through the 1960s, "Corunna" was probably used," so that "La Coruña" has largely come into use in the period when it has not been the official name. Anyway, sources for use of "A Coruña" in English are earnestly requested. john k 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very hard find a lot of them. Use of "La Coruña" in English I think is by far prior to 1983, but usually in older texts it can appear "La Coruña (Corunna)". I suppose the article (A/La) means an strange particle to English (like "La Habana" = "Havana", but "Las Palmas (de Gran Canaria)"). Problems are that web searchers usually does not resolve "A Coruña" from "Coruña" or "La Coruña", the "letter" ñ, and that perhaps the main origin of news about A Coruña is its soccer club which names itself with the former name La Coruña. Links using "A Coruña", National Geographic [6],Time Europe [7],for instance it seems to be 99% of cnn.com talks about of soccer club, calling it "Deportivo Coruna" (sic), you can read this very curious piece of news where there are "La Coruna", "A Coruna" [8], I'll try to find more examples later. And please also note that the one of three National Geographic information quoting "La Coruña" is related to the town Planetarium, a Municipal service (i.e., it's part of the Municipality).212.51.52.5 08:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that wikipedia in English say Seville and not Sevilla, the common English language denomination should be used: Corunna. Both Galician and Spanish name should be mentioned in brackets but the article has got to be named Corunna. This article was moved out of process. I will submit a query on WP:RQM to restore its English language title and protect it against further disruptive actions. Regards, Asterion^talk 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asterion was the voice of reason here. Sadly, this article is an example of Wikipedia stuck in the hands of people that won't listen to reason no matter what. This is an encyclopedia in English language, not an Spanish official text. Whatever the official name in Spain is, it is irrelevant. What matters here is how do English-speaking people call this city, and one thing is for sure: it is not Coruña, for the ñ letter is not even on their keyboards. The idea of standardized toponyms for all languages is an utopic idea far from being a fact - and a childish idea when you consider that there is not even a standardized alphabet, which would be an unavoidable requirement. Will you force Chinese Wikipedia people to name their article 'La Coruña', even though they don't recognize that alphabet? Wikipedia needs reasonable people making the decisions, not unreasonable people.Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'What vanquished on Corunna's strand?' from the 1503 poem 'The Thrissil and the Rois' by William Dunbar.Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: The city has a football club in Spain's top division, Deportivo de La Coruña (note that the club name still uses the Francoist spelling). In La Coruña we use to talk in Spanish. Adalbertofrenesi 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. There's no need for that sort of comment. I got rid of the POV text.Asterion^talk 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I have a book titled "Geografía Universal" edited by Ramón Sopena, S.A. in Barcelona in 1936 (4th edition) and in its page 304 there is a map of Spain where then name of this city is spelled La Coruña. Is this also a francoist imposition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.230.222 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact of the matter is that the name La Coruña is the Castillian Spanish name for the city. A Coruña is in the Galician language.

The sign with the city name on it as you enter says, La Coruña, although someone has spraypainted over the letter L. I know because I see it every day.

Certain members within the Galician National Party (BNG) insist that the name be A Coruña, as opposed to a large percentage of members within the Spanish Nationalist Party (PP) who insist that it is La Coruña. It is a politacal argument that has been going on for 25 years, when it is simply the name of a city in 2 different languages. Much the same as London vs Londres.

I really hope we are not going to start seeing petty Spanish political arguments thrashed out here.

All 3 names are valid as all have been used at variuos times in history. And obviously 2 are stll being squabbled over.

sincerely

Anonymous Anthropologist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.166.253.244 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All of this could be avoided if the spanish (and the galicians, in imitation) didn't insist in considering the article as part of the name. The spanish go as far as writing nowadays officially 'de/en/con/a/para A Coruña', which is unidiomatic, as they should use their own article; in galician, those are, of course, 'da/na/coa/à/prá Coruña', as all those prepositions contract with the article (though coa/prá are mostly colloquial, the others are mandatory).

In galician, anyway, the traditional name was 'Crunha' (with -nh-, like portuguese, for current -ñ-, as traditional usage didn't have a graphical standard), without an 'o'. I even suspect the 'o' is a literary development, to avoid a cluster felt as low class. The etymology may or may not be 'columna'; nowadays, I'm convinced it's pre-Roman.

As to what name should be used, it's quite simple. Either use a traditional english name, or the current official name - it's what wikipedia does EVERYWHERE. And currently the only official name is the galician one, as is only fair since we're talking about GALICIA. The usage of the spanish name here would actually be vexing since the spanish name isn't any different from the galician original, except in the most obvious phonological developments which separate spanish from galician/portuguese; as a result, using the spanish name in any other language than spanish sort of like gives a spanish identity to the city which erases the native galician. Which is far from being a considerate approach.

On a related note, to consider 'galician nationalism' on equal footing with 'spanish nationalism' is perverse - the former is about fighting for the survival of galician culture in its own territory, the latter is about imposing spanish culture in places where it isn't native. It's ridiculous that the desire that wikipedia uses the galician name for a galician city, of which is it the only official name, a name which moreover is nearly the same as the spanish one and poses no problem to searches, should be considered 'galician nationalism'.

85.241.113.244 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only official and legal name for the city is A Coruña, as specified in the Galician Statute of Autonomy of 1981 and ratified in a number of occasions by the High Court of Galicia. This is an old and silly argument originally maintained by (mainly) the former local corporation, which attempted to use La Coruña officially; the new corporation eventually dropped the issue[20]. The case even went to court. Although, as mentioned, the High Court of justice has always insisted that the only correct version to be used officially is A Coruña, notwithstanding what particulars can say or use in daily speech. The Constitutional Court of Spain backed the decision of the Galician Court[21]

It has even been recommended to all Spanish public administration to observe the native name (that's why sometimes one may find A Coruña used even if the context is in Spanish). The same applies to the rest of Galician placenames, etc. Swamp Greetings (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the names in the infobox. A Coruña was as the Spanish name, and La Coruña as the Galician name. --Fryant 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncorrect data in the article, which I would like someone to correct:

1st. It is not true that A Coruña is the most important city in NW Spain or Galicia. Vigo has more inhabitants and is the industrial centre and main port (no A Coruña), and Santiago de Compostela is the political capital. A Coruña is the financial and economical centre of Galicia, where the leading banks and companies have their headquarters (Caixa Galicia, Banco Pastor, Zara, Martinsa-Fadesa). Its port is just the first regarding petrol and coal, no regarding fish, neither containers. The information given regarding population neither is true. A Coruña and Vigo develop their population more or less at the same pace.

2nd. Regarding the polemica on the name of the city. The Galician form is the unique name of the city both in Galician and Spanish, as even Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) supports. [22] and, especially, the TS sentence: [23]

Regarding the use of the names, in Galician A Coruña is the only name used, in Spanish both A Coruña and La Coruña are used (even Coruña, without article, is used, too). In the area of A Coruña and in Galicia, A Coruña is the most (almost the unique) form used, even among Spanish-speakers (A majority in Coruña speaks Spanish, although it is still the municipality with the larger number of Galician speakers, some 100,000 or 125,000), so the statement "The Spanish form is more used" is FALSE.

3rd, the subdivision of the city in "districts" has varied, now there are only two, but, as this is a non very used (neither very useful) subdivision, I do not remember their names.

4th and last: You can found evidence of the use of "The Groyne" in D.Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. (After they go out of the island, they come to Europe and arrive in Spain, where Robinson decides not to embark in The Groyne and go through the Pyrenees instead. [in my edition, Penguin 2001, p.227]). I've read that it was usual that sailors named foreign cities with names of parts of the body, but I have no citacions to back me.

Thankyou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.52.8 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody active on this page? I was just wondering if there was anybody thinking of improving it. The article seems to have been written by a non-native english speaker and has a terrible amount of typos and badly written sentences (no offense to the original writer). I've done my best to correct any mistakes but there are quite a few instances where its not actually clear what's wanted to be said, or the mistakes are so bad that whole paragraphs would have to be changed. The whole history section is also badly titled. There seems to be confusion over terminology. You can't title a section as 'Middle Ages' and then mostly talk about premiddle ages, as in, before at least 1200 AD. The 'Modern Age' section, a period of time which is from the 18th century up to now, is filled with dates in the middle ages. The whole article needs a gramatical tidy up and then probably an expansion and improvement in general. I'm guessing the original writer is Spanish, and English as a language is not their mother tongue. I don't want to be mean in what I've written above but to be honest if your going to write an article on the English Wiki you should atleast have gotten help from a native English speaker. The article needs a lot of work, so I was just wondering if there's anybody with more then a passing interest in La/A Coruña that would want to collaborate and improve the page. Ru (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responsible for the badly-titled History section, my apologies. I just titled it à la Spanish, forgetting about cultural contrast. Regarding badly used English, I am Galician, I have Galician language as my mother tongue, and I apologise again if I actually made any linguistic mistake in the History section. In fact, it was worse earlier, and I tried and corrected what I could. In relation with the linguistic issue, English is not my mother tongue, though I feel I am competent enough to write on the English Wiki, my opinion about this is that natives of a place/city/country should write and give the most info about what they know, and, should it appear any linguistic mistakes, there would always be plenty of native speakers to mend it, don't you think? However, my knowledge of A Coruña is limited, as I am not exactly from there, so, I am not the person you are looking for. However, I can tag as incorrect any false data, as I did above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.52.5 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, it helped clear up a few things. My father is Galician too, from La Coruna (Trasanquelos), although I was born in the UK, so maybe we can bridge the linguistic gap, as it were. I didn't want to offend you in any way, in fact I think that your English is excellent, better than my Spanish. I understand your point that getting a native to write about their own town and then asking for corrections from an English speaker is probably better than getting a foreigner to (possibly badly) write it. Would you be willing to put in the effort, with help from me? I know you said that your not from La Coruna, and therefore consider yourself not best for the job, but all it would take would be some research and then I'd try to make sure the article is grammatically correct. I know its not exactly an easy task, it would take time, but there are no time constraints... Rudy 02:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Im a Coruña local. The Hercules Tower was always a lighthouse, from 2 thousand (yes, thousand) years ago. It is true that in 1791 it got a remodelation getting his actual form. Except the bridges, it's the only roman build that conserves their original function.

The ethimology of "Coruña" is incorrect too. There are a lot of theories, none of them confirmed. The spanish wikipedia article is very good for that

I dont want to edit because my english is bad. Thank you a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.8.53 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the Lighthouse. It has always been a lighthouse, I am going to edit it. Also, someone really should clean all the name wars from the article, and put them all in one sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.163.172.180 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is right in that the official name for the city is "A Coruña" and the Spanish form "La Coruña" is also used, but it's also worth noting that the form "Coruña" (without any article) is very very common. I'd say that it's the most widespread choice for locals, at least when speaking in Spanish ("vivo en Coruña", "estoy en Coruña", etc.), and I think it's much more common than "La Coruña" --91.117.99.155 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is A Coruña because it's a Galician Town and must be in it language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.91.105 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "Coruña" (without any article) is a widespread way of naming the city, at least for locals and people from other parts of Galicia as well, but the article says nothing about it. --SugarKane (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the question is how it's referred to in English, rather than what locals call it, but I see no reason not to take note of this usage in the "Name" section. Really it would need a citation. I must say I haven't found any English examples on the Web, except in reference to the football club. AdeMiami (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No boy! In Spain all we say "La Coruña". Only "Coruña" (without the article) are a lot of poblations... Doesn`t matter. The important is the culture of the spanish people you joined... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.130.60 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to expand and develop the tourism section? There's a lot of information on numerous websites (e.g. http://www.wikitravel.org/en/La_Coruña, http://www.bestacorunabars.com/) but I doubt they would be considered suitable sources for Wikipedia. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.206.23 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of spending thousands of words arguing about the spelling of two words how about actually including some information about the city during the Spanish Civil War? It seems to be a peculiarly Galician approach to history, to write (with mostly pure conjecture) about ancient Celtic history while ignoring the province's immensely rich history from medieval times to the present day. This page is an absolute joke as it stands (Drake? Dampier? Armada? 1809? Mexican War? etc etc etc) but to write NOTHING about the civil war is beyond pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.172.36 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Montajecoruna.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to inform properly and with a NPOV, it cannot be oculted that the "name debate" is purely a political one, and only a part (a very minoritary one) supports the use of Spanish name, I don't understand why this article allows quoting statements which are completely false and with links either nothing to see with or untruth ones. The only form is the Galician one, and it is used overwherlmingly nowadays in all communications of all type, including commercial brochures, simple addresses, quotings in practically all the spanish press (and ALL the galician one, no matter language employed), with the notable exception of two very far-right-wing spanish newspapers; also, the article does not mention the incountable lawsuits done by the municipal council under Francisco Vázquez trying not to use the Galician form, all of them lost at each and every Court, including the Constitutional one, and the fact that the PP itself, a party which usually combates (locally) the Galician form was precisely the party which legalised it in a Galician toponym names. Not to state clearly all of this simply means to supply an incomplete and deturped vision of the matter, it means, a false one.

This problem is used as many others as a distraction and targeted to a very concrete public. It is very simple to confirm all what I am saying, so Wikipedia is being used to amplify a very minoritary and interested campaign. There is (and never was at such a large extent as anyone could think reading the article) no broad usage of La Coruña at all, except in a minority who uses it a a political consign, even in Spanish, the unformal common form is Coruña, with no article at all, and practically in a public level, the legal toponym is the only used. The article is creating misleading perception. 91.117.9.231 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, I don't think you have anything to complain about with this article. The Galician form is used throughout, its title is A Coruña—and this wasn't always so, it cost blood and sweat to get consensus about it. However, it's obvious that the Spanish form has to be mentioned, both in the lead and in some detail in the section devoted to the name. However, in view of your comments I've tagged a couple of assertions regarding the Spanish form as uncited, and if no-one resolves that in a reasonable time, feel free to remove that material. Also, if you would like to add a paragraph about the legal conflicts there have been over the name, why not write it? But please make sure you have references to reliable sources and that whatever you write is unbiased (or NPOV, as it's called round here).

If you would like to engage with Wikipedia regarding this or other matter, you would do well to register. This makes it much easier to communicate. AdeMiami (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Someone have just reverted my edit about Coruña being the political capital of the Kingdom of Galicia from the XVIth to the XIXth century. With the unfortunate assertion "nonsensical edit". Nice, I've been gratuitously insulted ("if don't know nothing about it, it don't exist, and that guy is a baboon"):

First: In XV century the Catholic monarchs established in A Coruña the 'Real Audiencia del Reino de Galicia' (google books), which would become the embryo of the later local administration of the Kingdom of Galicia, now as a royal dependency inside the Crown of Castille (which was composed of several kingdoms, as the Crown of Aragon).

Second: From the XVI century on, A Coruña became the place where the 'Junta/Juntas del Reino de Galicia' (google books again) met. The Junta was a representative body, composed by a plenipotentiary deputy representing each one of the first five, then seven provinces of the Kingdom: A Coruña, Santiago, Ourense, Tui, Lugo, Mondoñedo and Betanzos. From 1599 the Juntas were presided by the Governor, as representative of the king. This representative body, abolished in 1833, even declared the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Galicia in 1808, during the Napoleonic wars, when Madrid was lost to the French. --Froaringus (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see user OttomanJackson has moved this page, without any prior discussion. The title and lead of this article are the product of years of attempts to reach consensus, and I will propose that the page be moved back forthwith. AdeMiami (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That struck me as extremely odd too. Apparently 'diacritics should not be used in titles'? Why on Earth not? Why was this not discussed here rather than just leaving a broken link to what I assume is the user's own Talk page? --Oolong (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reversed the change. By looking at the user's history I deduce that they were trying to link to [[24]], for what it's worth. --Oolong (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the user's second move. Modern reference works seem to avoid the old name; Britannica and Columbia use "A Coruña", while American Heritage, Collins, Encarta, Random House, Webster's Collegiate and Webster's Geographical prefer "La Coruña". Oxford Dictionaries still uses "Corunna", however. Prolog (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The city is still commonly called Corunna. It is not archaic. The Groyne is the archaic form of the name. Corunna is the common English name, A Coruña is the Galician name, La Coruña is Spanish, Corunha is Portuguese, La Corogne is French. Therefore the title on English Wikipedia should be Corunna, Galician Wikipedia should be A Coruña, Spanish Wikipedia should be La Coruña, Portuguese Wikipedia should use Corunha, and French should use La Corogne. Oxford is also the most complete, up to date English dixtionary. OttomanJackson (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care how will be in english La Coruña, but I guess if you dont have the letter Ñ you dont have to use this form, But the reason because I m writting here is because the arguments they are using in pro A Coruña and not La Coruña they are lies, In spanish language allways has been and will be La Coruña, so La is our article, in galician and now officially is A Coruña so that is their article, so all the lies about Franco and political reasons are not true, La Coruña allways in spanish has been La Coruña to prove it I put a link of a map of La Coruña from 1903 when Franco had only 11 years, please stop lying!!! http://www.todocoleccion.net/mapa-corografico-coruna-galicia-original1903-benito-chias-gran-tamano~x24523867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.107.89 (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no lying going on here. The article makes it perfectly clear that the Spanish name is La Coruña. AdeMiami (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big lie! All the time here they are saying that was Franco who inveted that name and is a Francoist form and come from Franco times. It´s not true, Allways has been La Coruña!!

Long story short:

• In 02.06.2016 IP editor 87.219.200.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introduced a large series of changes in the article not providing a meaningful summary (he/she wrote: 'More accurate').
• In 07.06.2016 IP editor 92.187.44.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) partly undid the above changes, introducing others.
• In 08.06.2016 I, Froaringus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was patrolling for recent changes, and saw these. Since I considered that the lead section and infobox of the article were worst than before I reverted the article to an older edition, with the summary 'Back to an older, IMO more neutral, edition'. My bad: I was unaware that the changes introduced by the first editor run _all along_ the article, not just along the lead section and the infobox.
• In 11.06.2016 IP editor 87.219.203.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my last edition with a summary which adds political taunts (in English) to insult/harassment (in Galician). I reverted that edition with the summary 'rv. vandalism by IP editor'.
• In 13.06.2016 editor T.p.m.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (whose nick is read in Spanish as an acronym of an insult: “Tu p**a madre”) reverted the article to his/her older edition with a constructive summary. The same day I introduced changes which I thought were bridging the gap, but with this summary: 'Taunting and insulting other editors is the worst kind of vandalism. Also, using several different accounts in the same debate, not letting others know, is tricky (sockpuppeting)'.
• The same day, editor T.p.m.11 reverted my last edition with a summary which has little relation with what I though was going on. As a result, I decided to throroughly examine all the latter editions, and then it was when I discovered that his/her first editions were much larger than I thought they were, and that as a result my reversion was also much larger than I thought it was.

I understand that we all can get upset when our contributions are reverted, but we all should presume good faith of other editors and PROVIDE MEANINGFUL SUMMARIES OF ONE'S EDITIONS. Also, not insulting and not taunting others, and not using offensive ad hoc nicknames, would result in a much healthier relation.--Froaringus (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong,Froaringus t.p.m. means: "Trusted Platform Module". It's a cryptografic security microchip. It's useful for encoding things, storing encoded keys,and so on. You can look for information on the internet. I had not account in wikipedia, I never thought about it, that is the reason for differents IP's address. My internet connection is a dynamic IP connection, it changes from time to time. I've not differents accounts. So finally, I decided to register in wikipedia, only this, it isn't the story that you wroted. That is a tall story. Please, don't make up stories.

I don't know what is the problem to publish the two forms that exist in Galicia in order to naming the places.In Galicia you can use both galician and spanish while in the rest of Spain,you usually use the spanish form but if you want to choose another one, there's no problem.This is neither good nor bad,it's that way. By the way, the correct in galician it's "A Cruña", "A Coruña" was a political invention, they were who puts that odd thing as official name and remove the spanish one.This only happen in Spain and it's a long history. What is the problem of Froaringus?, he can't sees the spanish form next to galician name and he deletes only the spanish form. Why does he do that? it's easy answer,he tells it us in this link: Talk:Galician_people, at bottom of the page,point number 7: "Look, I'm Galician, that's my national identity; I'm proud of our Celtic past,...". Yes, his national identity is galician, so he is galician nationalist and therefore he only deletes the spanish names. They have allergy to everything related to Spain and spanish.

There are many galician nationalists myths but I tell you nothing, it's very long and I'm tired of listening all of these tall stories. They're few people, althoug they are very noisy. They usually use these myths and stories to prove that they are differents to the rest of spanish people and they want to impose their worldview, of course, to the rest of spanish people.For example, how to name a place; only in galician, even though also that place had spanish name, otherwise you are "deturpando el nombre" (distorting the name). There are many examples. Each one chooses what he wants to use when he talks about it, there's no problem. I forgot it,there's no risk of edit warring for my part. --T.p.m.11 (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist has a full page article on La Coruña.
Dec. 17, 2016. "Behind the magic of Zara". p. 60.
Please rename this page to La Coruña.
English speakers are not Galicians. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"La Coruña" is not an official toponym under the Galician law of linguistical normalization. Also, Castilianized toponyms are widely disliked in the region, because, it's simply, they feel like a slap on the face to our culture. 95.18.76.21 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the French did not just "leave" Corruna at the end of 1809. The guerrilla war was just beginning. Wellington was in Lisbon. What really happened? 71.178.191.144 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Collage de fotos coruna.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Poseidonblu: Could you explain this. Removing the only sourced content in the section, may come across, for all purposes, as an incredibly unconstructive move.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]