Talk:Valencian Community

Once again

Yet once again, user Martorell has come here to make changes only in the highly disputed and carefully agreed lines. We have been seeing this kind of behaviour every six to twelve months of this user coming here to destroy the existing consensus at ease (along the usual rant addressed to the users who do not share his point of view).

Rather than discussing what has been discussed for N times, let me add some policy guidelines (note that I havent added any bolding, but they are bolded already in the original policy)

1) first of all, even though this is about article name, it definitely fits here, so per WP:NAME and dedicated to Joanot aka Martorell aka Benimerin: Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

So, Martorell, yes: there are many other ways to help improving wikipedia that coming here every six-seven months to destroy a particular wording carefully chosen after many tries (including you, even if your option didnt get any consensus). Carefully chosen wording which is accepted by a majority of users. And, yes, Martorell, users are strongly discouraged from editting for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. On the face of your recurrent behavious, I guess you are ready to be reported and face the consequences. I just hope you dont come back one year after/when your block expires under another nick and do the same...oh no, that is what you were exactly thinking?

2) Then, per WP:Naming conflict "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is".

And the name is officialy and historicaly, Valencian, sorry if this reality does not sit well with you. Here's an example for those who haven't got it yet or, worse, dont want to get it yet Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Example

according to this same official policy, "ambiguity persists (...) when the 'official' name is not unambiguous".

The official name is anything but ambiguous: Valencian, crystal clear, clar i (oops) català.

As for "Castilian", I will come back to this later, but for the time being just remember that 1) still applies anyway .

MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 21:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply show me where is the "carefully agreed" lines here in the talk page. It's an invention from you and a pushing POV from you and Maurice with two different users in every time both you make polemic this subject. I claim that this consens is NOT real. If you SHOW me where's decided that with some links I will stop believing you and Maurice are simply trolls. I give you two weeks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 15:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Martorell, but it does not work like that, and I mean the somewhat cowboy-esque challenge "I give you two weeks". When we have a version which has remained stable over the weeks, months and, possibly, years, on the face of different editors with different points of view, that means there is an existing consensus, as far as I know, all those people you mention only cared about the infobox thing (which, actually, remains just the way they wanted). In other words, when it is only you challenging this consensus and basically wanting to rewrite each and every contentious point in this article, that means it has to be you to challenge the existing consensus, because it is only you who wants to rewrite all the contentious and then agreed points. I give you as many weeks as you want, but just please dont make a mess out of this...again. Well, I guess it is too late for that, you've messed the whole thing again, but I wanted that you know that you are ruining consensus in this page, just in case you hadnt noticed yourself yet. And, adding insult to injury, you did it during Christmas time. Shame.... MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 22:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple. You're repeating all times "consensus, consensus, consensus..." but you don't show where such consensus was agreed. It's very easy, show me this consensus you're talking. If you don't, so this consensus is not true. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not Martorell, and I'm not trying to change the title, just adjust the wording in accordance with English, which I assume must be good practice. And what you say is right, valencià is clear and in català. But in English, it's not clear at all. The practice of putting it in brackets (like this: Catalan (Valencian) ) is acceptable to me. But any solution which doesn't implicity and immediately explain that we are talking about Catalan is fudging the issue (deliberate obfuscation) And it is obfuscation because the authors involved don't seem to be denying that it is Catalan; they simply prefer not to say so. And this engenders confusion and doesn't help readers who are not experts (i.e. are not Cataln-speakers). I think it's a concrete objection to a concrete problem, and a valid one at that: to make the article more understandable for a novice. --Espencat (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Contested info moved to talk

• [País Valencià can be translated as . . . ] or "Land of Valencia".{{Fact|date=December 2007}}
• On the other hand, the historical term Kingdom of Valencia (Valencian: Regne de València, Spanish: Reino de Valencia) which, due to the left-wing connotations of País Valencià, became the favourite term of right-wing stances{{Fact|date=December 2007}}.

Please do not restore this info to article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the edit which restored this material with the old fact tags still unresolved. Please first find a citation for this material and then return it to the article.--BirgitteSB 02:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was a speedy revert indeed.

Well, I wont check your contributions ticker, but I guess if I would, I'd find an impressive record of hundreds of edits a day just removing tagged content. That's a manner of contributing, I guess.

However, in this case, if you were familiar with the topic, you'd know that what you are removing here is basically recieved wisdom and that no one really objects to that. There are so many thousands of much bolder claims in wikipedia (and in this page) which indeed do need a citation, but you happened to fall in this one. Pity. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 03:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was pure chance that it was so speedy. I am rarely online on the weekends and I have never been the type to make hundreds of edits a day. So if you did look at my contribs you would be rather surprised at how different I am than you first assumed. However moving {{fact}} tags older than a year to talk pages is one of the occasional tasks I take on from the backlogs. Someone did object to these statements, after all they went to the effort of challenging them with {{fact}}. And challenged material that remains unsourced is removed per policy. If there are bolder claims in the article that you believe to be incorrect, please challenge them. I don't have any particular problem with this material per se, but rather with it remaining unsourced for so long after it was challenged. I would restore it myself, if you provided a source.--BirgitteSB 04:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This is currently the oldest tagged NPOV dispute. I have read through the article and it seems good to me. From the talk page I see their is a dispute as whether to describe the language as Valencian of Catalan. Also there is disscusion here about moving the page to a new title. Are these the only things under dispute and are either of them settled?--BirgitteSB 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that there is no consensus to make those two changes, so, yes, those disputes are sort of solved.

There is still the old dispute of whether the infobox should have also the name is Spanish "Comunidad Valenciana". --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There was also a dispute about the flag proportions, it was dealt with at Talk:Flag_of_Valencia#removal_again_of_Calvo_and_Gravalos_reference by digging up some obscure law on default flag proportions, can be counted as solved. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Including it seems most the comprehensive option. It appears that both Catalonia and the Balearic Islands give multiple languages in their infoboxes so it is feasible to do this. What are the reasons against including it?--BirgitteSB 03:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason was that the official name was "Valencian Community" in both Spanish and Valencian, which meant that there was no need to put a Spanish translation. However, the point appears to be very moot because the very own official website of the Valencian government uses "Comunidad Valenciana" in the pieces in Spanish and "Comunitat Valenciana" in the parts in Valencian. I'm just going to go and add it to the infobox :P People can complain if they want but they are going to have to give some very good reasons to oppose, given how the official government itself uses "Comunidad" in Spanish.... --Enric Naval (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since no one has disputed that the above now resolves the bias issues, I am removing the maintenance tag from the article.--BirgitteSB 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Jaume87 has decided to remove the spanish name from the infobox without consensus, I readded the tag. --Maurice27 _{About Me, Talk, Vandalize}. 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To avoid edit-warring a consensus was reached whereby the official name in Valencian and the unofficial translation in Spanish were to be displayed in the infobox. Given that this was an extremely controversial topic, I do agree that the removal of the Spanish name should be made by consensus.

I will just offer my two cents, and may the parties in dispute find a resolution. If other users are willing to reach a new consensus (no consensual version is permanent), it is my opinion that only the official name should be included, as the organic law of the autonomous community and all laws approved by the Parliament after the new Statute was put into effect, do not translate the name of the community if these are written in Spanish. This applies even to the webpage of the Generalitat [1], [2], [3], [4]. In fact, names of all government bodies in Valencia are not translated -in official documents- and the Generalitat is referred to as such (and not Generalidad), the President is "El President", the seat of government is "El Palau", and the ministries are "El Consell". Funny thing, however, the Valencian term "conselleria" is used for a single ministry, but the plural is hybrid: "consellerias" (where in Valencian it should be "conselleries") and note that the hybrid does not have an accent on the i, which would make "-lle-" the stressed syllable in Spanish, where in fact the stress should be on the -i- in both Valencian and Spanish. [5]

Following the same logic, it is my opinion that the term "País Valencià" should not be included in the infobox. It could be included in the opening paragraph or any other appropriate section, but not being the official name of the community, the infobox is not the place for it. -- dúnadan : let's talk 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Genaralitat's page still uses "comunidad valenciana" in many places[6]. The official tourism page translates the name in its title "Portal Oficial de Turismo de la Comunidad Valenciana - Turisme de la Comunitat Valenciana", etc.

"País Valencià" is a name used by nationalists to define the idea of an unified country. It is not the name of the community. The preamble to the estatute says that it's a modern conception, it doesn't say that it's the name of the community. It not mentioned in the first title, where the name of the community is discussed. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My point, as always was, is that wikipedia guidelines do not state anywhere that ONLY official names should appear. I will guide you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), where you will NOT find any backing for that position; meanwhile, if you look at the Geographical infoboxes section you may read that: "[...]Alternate or native names can appear[...]".

So basically, this means that erasing the spanish language DOES NOT follow wikipedia guidelines; geografical infoboxes are NOT ONLY for official names and "Alternate or native names can appear".

Even more, erasing the spanish language from the infobox would make these 2 articles the ONLY ones in wikipedia where the name in one of the official languages does not appear.

So, to sum up: -We agree that a consensus to keep the spanish translation was reached in the past. Jaume87 did not accept it and/or failed to re-open the case to discuss it. -Wikipedia guideline allows alternate names to appear. -Spanish language being co-official in this region is enough reason to consider it a valid "alternate name".

I ask myself... What bad can the name in spanish do??? Is anybody erasing the catalan translation of the name? Then, what is the problem to add the name in another co-official language of the territory? --Maurice27 _{About Me, Talk, Vandalize}. 17:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to Maurice27's proposal for using the unofficial Spanish exonym Comunidad Valenciana in the infobox, however we should keep the footnotes in order to make clear to readers the only official name is in Valencian. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 21:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Jaume readded the spanish translation of the name to the infobox, I removed the neutrality tag.--Maurice27 _{About Me, Talk, Vandalize}. 06:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The map

Some users have tried to change the map without giving any explanation in this page. There is a completely analogous discussion (so far unresolved) at Talk:Catalonia. Anybody willing to reach a consensus about that is invited to join. In the meantime I'll restore the previous long standing map. --Carles Noguera (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the reason because of the Catalonia, Valencian Community and Balearic Islands articles need to use the same, different NUTS map while the rest of Spanish regions use the standard, country-centered version, the one which is used by all the country subdivisions articles. Again, I hope we reach a consensus - the sooner the better.

Also, I have to remind you there's no consensus for a map in many of the articles you use that as a reason for undoing changes without further discussion, so I urge you to follow Wikipedia's policies.

As a last note, I think we should discuss the entire matter in the Catalonia article's discussion, so we can avoid an unnecesary string of repeated, space-consuming edits. Icallbs (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we are already discussing the issue there, and I've made already some moves (and you too) to build a common ground consensus. Its outcomes will solve the problem in this article too. As for the policy thing, I'll be happy to read any elaboration of your insights in my talk page if you wish. By now, and just as a side note, let me tell that there is some difference between a long standing solution (amounting to some kind of implicit consensus) and an alternative proposal that immediately finds opposition (a situation that calls for a new discussion and consensus-building). Cheers, --Carles Noguera (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the map used before because those put by Icallbs is lacking on European geographical context. I've read the discussion on Catalonia, and it's contending that articles about other Spanish autonomous communities are using the same scheme. But it is not a logical but arbitrary reason, as the whole scheme proposed by Illcalb (rightly, dumped directly from es-wiki) lacks on geographical information. It's not an improvement, really. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 03:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Altea85.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Altea85.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)