Jump to content

Talk:1833 territorial division of Spain

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

1986 law on change of names?

[edit]

I can't identify the 1986 law that was characterized in the es-wiki article as "se aprueba la ley que permite el cambio de denominación de las provincias." I'm wondering if it might be a confusion: Real Decreto 2822/1998, de 23 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento General de Vehículos allows for the change of indication of province on license plates, but has nothing to do with changing the name of the province as such. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped the statement "In 1986 a law was approved allowing provinces to change their names" until such time as it can be cited for; as remarked, I doubt it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Cea Bermúdez

[edit]

Sources variously spell this name "Francisco Cea Bermúdez" and "Francisco Zea Bermúdez". In at least one case both are used in the same book. - Jmabel | Talk 08:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research violation?

[edit]

Someone explain to me why these maps don't violate WP:OR, please. They are the admitted creation of a Wikipedia/Wikimedia contributor. I simply don't get it. 98.71.218.248 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them. Sure, the article is not as pretty now. But it conforms to guidelines. 98.71.218.248 (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, if you had been around for long you would understand very well why IP accounts don't get much respect from regular editors. Newcomers should be humble, in Wikipedia and everywhere. --Jotamar (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do understand (and even agree with the fact) that IP editors get less respect. That doesn't change the fact that an IP editor has the right to cite policy and edit accordingly. And I acted with extreme civility, posting my question here and waiting almost three weeks for an answer that never came before actually deleting the maps. However, your attitude as expressed in your edit summary had the effect of mocking the editor rather than addressing the policy concerns I had expressed. In attacking the messenger and not the message, your own credibilty suffered.
As for the OR claim, I can't see the reason. If someone takes some data to make a new map, that's no OR; in fact all maps in Wikipedia are like that. And in a way 90% of Wikipedia contents are suspect of OR, so you shouldn't take that guideline too literally. A different thing would be that you had discovered some manipulative or non-neutral intention behind the maps. Please make me know if that is the case, but meanwhile I consider the maps OK, and as we haven't reached consensus, the obvious default action is to restore deleted contents. --Jotamar (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about 90% of all wiki material being OR is pretty close to true. What you say about such OR being a problem only in the event that it violates WP:NPOV most assuredly is not, and you are standing on unstable ground if you don't know it. Plenty of clearly neutral material has been deleted over the years, for violations of WP:OR, WP:RS, etc.
But anyway, rather than have the two of us just continue to spout off with our interpretations of policy, I went ahead and reread some guidelines and policies. I was disappointed that this specific issue is not addressed, because, as you say, it is a common occurence. But in reading WP:OI and, to a lesser degree of importance, WP:NOTOR, I came away with the impression that, while not endorsed, neither is your position on the maps proscribed. And, since the maps do enhance the article, I am content to let them be. I'm done mentally masturbating now; sorry you couldn't join me. 98.71.218.248 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are not coherent with the article

[edit]

In the maps, Aranjuez is part of Toledo Province, but in the article it is not said when it was transferred to Madrid. Similarly, in the map, Villena, Sax, Requena or Villarrobledo are in their present provinces, instead on the provinces they were in the year that is indicated in each map, although their changes are correctly reported in the article. 212.122.102.110 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asturias

[edit]

Until 1834 parts of the now province of Lugo where in the province of Asturies: The "Conceyu of Burón", formed by the current municipalities of A Fonsagrada Navia de Suarna, Ribeira de Piquín and Negueira de Muñiz. Also the current municipalities of Posada de Valdeón and Oseja de Sajambre in León and Tresviso in Cantabria, so any map previoous to 1834 not depicting them is wrong. --85.152.76.229 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2011(UTC)

Latest edits on the Basque districts

[edit]

The Basque districts are the districts inhabited by the Basques if it needs to be explained, attested in countless academic and non-academic books. Get over it and move on. Thanks for adding constructive edits. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC) That is your opinion.[reply]

There is not academic usage of the expresion "Basque districts" meaning the encompassment of Navarre and Basque Country; if you think different, please, give the due references, and stop trying to insert political biased statements.188.78.129.62 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is pointless, I urge you to stop editing for petty, unconstructive edits. Also, spare me your accusatory language and explanation lines (WP:GF). Add whatever information you have that refutes what is stated, preferably with a reference. The Basque districts is used for former historic periods and it is the most accurate, since they were not provinces, they had different status (kingdom, seigneury, province, counties, etc.). Iñaki LL (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to give references? Remember that Wikipedia is made out of knowledgement and not consists of biased opinions. The expression "Basque districts" is politically biased and slanted, and, moreover, it hasn´t academic usage (that's why you are unable to give references).188.78.134.205 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything constructive that may have been added in your comment above, but WP:JDLI, and conspicuous do-as-I-say attitude. Your history tells it all. I clearly stated my point, "Basque district" is perfectly accurate, more than provinces. However, if there is any information gap, you are welcome to add it. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you see? It's very simple. The expressión "Basque districts" is politically biased, and, in fact, you are trying to impose it without any reference that serves as a proof of its academic usage. The content in Wikipedia is made out of knowledgement, and not out of mere personal opinions. If you aren´t be able to support your opiniones with valid references, you lose the legitimacy to impose content.188.78.134.205 (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you did not add any references you are talking about continuously to justify your position. Your statement did not add any improvement but ambiguity and the forced inclusion of the your own personal version. (Navarre was a kingdom, and the Basque "provinces" were the ones where the Basques inhabited, referred to by the 1836 Spanish premier Mendizabal as "the enemy country", el país enemigo) Meanwhile, the statements included before your intervention are perfectly accurate, as I explained on my comment above, both "Basque" and "districts" are fine and correct. I will not take anything in the attitude shown by you above. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous status quo?

[edit]

The article doesn't explain what the pre-1833 status quo was, except in the Basque areas. This would be useful! john k (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read Spanish, es:Historia de la organización territorial de España should help you. --Jotamar (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1833 territorial division of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 09:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1833_territorial_division_of_Spain&oldid=1195739035"