Talk:Spain

Spain received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spain article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 28 days

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Spain B‑class Top‑importance

	Spain portal 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe B‑class

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Countries B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Template:WP1.0

Architecture section

The current architecture section. Is it a good section? No. It lacks sources. That's the first problem to begin with, we shouldn't be wrong about that. Regarding the illustration part, it makes sense to favour a vernacular architecture, but given the absolute and utter lack of sources of the section, the illustration of the section is a moot question, and thus I am not particularly comfortable discussing about how the section should be illustrated. I'll try, anyways: currently, there is an illustration depicting the Hanging Houses of Cuenca, a striking case (protected as World Heritage Site, I think, too) of vernacular architecture. I suppose that's the reason some editor selected that image and put it there. IMO, there are better images depicting that specific architecture (rather than a city skyline), for example: file:Casas Colgadas de Cuenca.jpg. Why should a skyline of Toledo (with little to no focus on architectural elements of the vernacular architecture and with the only clearly distinguishable element being a particularly ominous case of "faux historicism" such as the "pointy" outline of the alcázar) make for a better illustration of the architecture section? Again, while I am not particularly comfortable discussing this given the current paltry quality of the concerned section, I don't think the Toledo one is an improvement, tbh.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And can't it be this image? It's the same (Casas Colgadas in Cuenca), but it looks better (without distracting elements). Wikiedro (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC) See:[reply]

1: Actually.
2: Proposal.

I do not care about either of these. I've actually proposed one focusing on the architectural elements. file:Casas Colgadas de Cuenca.jpg with better visualisation of roof tiles and balconies (which also happens to be one usually appearing in postcards, so it's not lacking either in "wow factor"... and most important, depicting the specific housing known as "casas colgadas" par excellence). If you think File:Cuenca - 49284039501.jpg is better than File:Casas Colgadas (29615370975).jpg, I don't care. Replace it. I just think that, both of them are rather illustrative of the urban landscape of a given city rather than any particular architecture, as the (lack of) zoom does not allow to appreciate details of the individual buildings and neither of them is the most representative illustration for the so-called casas colgadas.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer file:Casas Colgadas de Cuenca.jpg, it is probably the most iconic image of Cuenca. Having said that, proposal 2 is not bad either; it is an improvement on the current image, which is way too dark.--XanaG (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see, the main image featured in the caption's link (Hanging Houses of Cuenca) is probably even a better and more iconic option: File:Casacolgantecuenca.jpg.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Zambrano

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((Maria Zambrano)) to ((María Zambrano)) 2601:541:4580:8500:5454:26D8:72C6:F3CB (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Morneo06 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first paragraph states, “The African exclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera…”, but this should read “ The African semi-exclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera” as these three territories all have territorial water borders and therefore are not true exclaves. Tpciv511 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. Tintinkien (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If these territory are "semi-exclaves", you should be able to cite a source which describes them as such. Also, the difference between "exclave" and "semi-exclave" is not significant for most purposes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

User:Venezia Friulano: Where it is mentioned that Spain borders Gibraltar, "British Overseas Territory" should be returned for at least a couple of reasons.

Regardless of what Spain claims, the territory has de facto been under British control for more than three centuries and is administered as a British Overseas Territory.
Reading the sentence in the context of Gibraltar belonging to Spain is fallacious. If Gibraltar is part of Spain, then Spain doesn't border Gibraltar at all, right? Largoplazo (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read it well.

I am not saying that Gibraltar is part of Spain. I said that Gibraltar's official status according to the UN is non-self-governing territory. "British overseas territory" is a biased language that portrays the UK view only.

It is better not to add anything and leave it neutral. Venezia Friulano (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that Gibraltar is an officially disputed territory and that it is in the "process of decolonization" according to the UN, and that Wikipedia must use neutral language, it is unnecessary to add anything: We do not refer to France as the "French Republic", or to Portugal as the "Portuguese Republic" or to Andorra as the "Principality of Andorra". Venezia Friulano (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. There is no need for it. Anyone who doesn't know what Gibraltar is can click the link. Largoplazo (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germ warfare?

From the article's section on the Spanish Empire:

"Large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle against the Spaniards during the conquest,[76] while others died from various other causes. Some scholars consider the initial period of the Spanish conquest— from Columbus's first landing in the Bahamas until the middle of the sixteenth century—as marking the most egregious case of genocide in the history of mankind.[77] The death toll may have reached some 70 million indigenous people (out of 80 million) in this period, as diseases such as smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus, brought to the Americas by the conquest, decimated the pre-Columbian population."

Some scholars? Most scholars consider the population figures and death rates mentioned above as at the extreme high end of estimates and as highly speculative. Furthermore, the expression ""the most egregious case of genocide"" implies that the great wave of deaths from the contagious diseases was a deliberate act, centuries before scientists had discovered the cause of contagious infections!!! Also, there is the claim that "large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle"-- compared to what? The endless battles between the Aztecs and their neighbours? The Incas and their neighbours? The Inca civil war? Indigenous American wars as a whole? The mongol conquest of Eurasia? And the citation for that should not be another encyclopedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.208.85 (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]