Wikipedia

Talk:Valencian Community/Archive 7

< Talk:Valencian Community
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Enric Naval in topic Three things to review
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Third opinion request: Removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

Some users are anxious about the removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox. The Statute of Autonomy of Valencia says that the Valencian is to be chosen in official usage. Nonetheless, spanish remains a co-official language and is spoken by a very large number of inhabitants daily in this territory. Just to prevent catalanist users to remind us about the statute of autonomy, I warn them that around 50 links to articles with more than one official language can be pasted here to prove my point that if a language is official in a territory it is always present in the infobox of the article.

As this was already a cause of edit warring in the past and having observed that some CAT-Team users keep undoing edits on this matter, I kindly ask for third opinions of users passing by... Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just like I argued on Talk:Balearic Islands, Spanish is, obviously, an official language in the Valencian Community. Of course, the Spanish rendering of the official name is Comunidad Valenciana. But since the new Statute of Autonomy was approved, the official name in both Catalan and Spanish is "Comunitat Valenciana". You might find 60 or more links with the name in Spanish—most probably prior to the approval of the new Statue of Autonomy and/or unofficial documents—but the only official name, as attested by the Statue of Autonomy and the numerous laws published after it came into effect, is only Comunitat Valenciana, thus complying with WP:CITE and WP:Verifiability. This had already been debated, and a tacit consensus was reached. --the Dúnadan 21:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
no, no... You're not getting the point. Paste me in the talk page where does it say that spanish is correctly to be erased... Where does wikipedia say that the regional law of a spanish region is to prevail on wiki infoboxes.
OK. We've discussed this over and over, so here we go again...
First, it is customary to write the official name in the native language and the English version on the infobox, and only those two. If the official name happens to be in different languages, then all versions are written in there.
Secondly, it so happens that the official name in Spanish and in Valencian is Comunitat Valenciana. Here is the Spanish version of the Statue of Autonomy: [1]. Please note that the name is written always as Comunitat Valenciana, in Spanish. So, if you want to put the name in Spanish, well, you have to write as Comunitat Valenciana. If you want to put the name in Valencian, then you need to write it as Comunitat Valenciana. So, to put it more clearly, whether you want to write it in Spanish or in Valencian, it doesn't matter, the result is the same, b/c the name is rendered only as Comunitat Valenciana. --the Dúnadan 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
And meanwhile, Presidencia del Gobierno (Spanish Presidency of Government) does use Spanish language to name this territory in it's very own website... So, do we have to follow the regional government criteria? the national government criteria? or the wikipedia usage? Untill now is has been your own interpretation, right? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Just copying here some interesting remarks on the matter by user:jmgonzalez found elsewhere. I realize am copying someone's else views at my own peril. May God help me.

"Wikipedia seems to wave its hands on this issue. The closest I could find is this: "If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form."

Unfortunately, we dont have a well set "anglicized form" whatsoever other than simply "Valencia". Now, the question is whether we should ignore the most established spelling (Spanish) or not. But the aforementioned comment was, I know, on spelling rather than on proper name, so it is only an indication, but not 100% helpful.
Back to the wisdom of user:jmgonzalez:

Again, according to the Naming Conventions, the preferred name is "a name is widely accepted, or is the name most often used or understood by English speakers."

In this regard, there has been already a quite intense and anal discussion on the more common English name, to little avail (there is even a thorough fine wankery piece on the matter, a very wikipedian article as we know wikipedia lately). In any case, little progress seems to be coming that way, at least during this generation.
If you wanted to hear my opinion, it is quite obvious that a series of users are blocking the Spanish spelling based on less-than-perfect reasons, clinging happily to a legal artifact rather than to real life.
On the other side, I will not make a case out of this myself (good luck with this, guys!)... probably, for the sake of Pax Wikipediana, Maurice should remove the tag and save his force de frappe for more suitable occasions which may arise in the (I hope very distant) future. Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Answering Maurice: Not really, not my interpretation. You see, a "website", even if it is the president's website, is not normative when it comes to defining the names of the autonomous communities. The Spanish constitution of 1978, the legal document of the entire nation, reads, on the 147 article, that:

"Under the terms of this constitution, the Statutes will be the basic institutional norm of each autonomous community and the State will recognize and protect them as integral parts of its juridic order [structure]. The Statutes will have: (1) the denomination of the community that better corresponds to its historic identity [...]"

In other words, it is the prerogative of the autonomous community to choose the official denomination that best reflects its historical identity in the Statute of Autonomy, which in turn is recognized and protected by the Constitution as integral part of the law/judicial structure of the Spanish nation (or State, which is the word the constitution itself uses). So, the only official document that sets the official name of an autonomous community is the Statute of Autonomy. For example, in the US constitution the denomination of the country is "the United States". Even though roughly 15% of the population speaks Spanish, and even though the presidency's webpage contains the name in Spanish [2], that doesn't make the rendering "Estados Unidos", official. The only official name is "the United States", b/c the only normative legal document is the US Constitution, not the presidency's webpage.

Answering Mountolive: The links that you cite refer basically to naming conventions, that is the title of the article. In this case the title is in English: Valencian Community, thus complying with the naming convention. Now, when it comes to the infobox, it is customary to use the official version followed by the English translation (and, if the official version does not use the Latin alphabet, then a transliteration is added). Based on this, the official version in Spanish is Comunitat Valenciana. So if you want to put the official version in Spanish, and based on the new Statute of Autonomy, then go ahead: Comunitat Valenciana, which happens to be the same as in Valencian.

By the way, nobody is "banning blocking" anything, I don't think that is a good choice of words. But of course, comments are always welcome. --the Dúnadan 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Answering Mountolive: I appreciate your opinion here. In the same way, I find that the tag is constructive as it will bring other opinions to this cul de sac. I'm no way satisfied with Dunadan's replies. It was his very own decision to remove a language which was present since the beginning. For this reason I really believe third opinions should be heard.
Answering Dunadan: I ask again. Do we have to follow the regional government criteria? the national government criteria? or the wikipedia usage? Pasting here statutes of Autonomy or the United States Constitution is, in my belief useless. To any of your sources using catalan, I can bring 10 using spanish. So, using references being useless, I want to read where does wikipedia says that this is a perfect example where a language should be erased from the infobox. If any wikipedia reference is brought, then, even if Dunadan finds it terrible, Spanish is to be readded as a co-offical language in this region. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)replies
From what I have noticed on Wikipedia, it's not just the "official name" in each of the languages, but just what it would be called in those other languages if they particular language has official status. I think the Spanish translation should remain, as that is what most Spanish speakers would say. I personally don't understand this systematic removal of anything Spanish in the Catalan-speaking regions of Spain. Kman543210 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
So, Dúnadan, does your last sentence mean that if I add "Comunidad Valenciana" on top of the infobox you will be able to live with it? you will not block it? If that is the case, then we are all good here.
Kman, I'm starting loving your way of putting things "I personally dont understand this systematic removal of anything Spanish in the Catalan-speaking regions of Spain" I couldnt have put it better....but, believe me, it is better in terms of your wikipedia faith if you dont understand it... Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
He he... I was just going to say I had it added to wikipedians quotes list... --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Mountolive, what I mean is that "blocking" or "banning" is not a wise choice of words. That will only produce animosity in our debate. What I am trying to say is that, while nobody "blocks" you (only and admin can do that), that doesn't mean that whatever you write will not be "deleted". I will not "block" you, but if what you write does not comply with the norms of Wikipedia and the Manual of Style, then yes, it will be deleted. I hope it makes sense now. Mauritius, you can quote this too ;-) --the Dúnadan 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify that I am in no way specifically accusing the Dúnadan of this "systematic removal of Spanish". It's just something I've noticed from many other editors since I've been on Wikipedia. I have several similar article interests with and the utmost respect for the Dúnadan; We just happen to disagree on this one point. Kman543210 (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
So, Dúnadan, you are saying that if someone adds "Comunidad Valenciana" on the top of the infobox, that would not comply with the norms of Wikipedia and the Manual of Style?
If so, no, it is not making that much sense. It's actually getting worse.
However, the "animosity" remark makes sense to me. Point for you. Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 00:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. What I am arguing is that, given that it is customary in all articles of countries/states/provinces/administrative divisions to have the official names and the English translation in the infobox, then adding Comunidad Valenciana does not comply with that, perhaps, tacit standard, since the Spanish official name is also Comunitat Valenciana.
Now, we can open a debate, probably somewhere else, so that the customary convention can be either codified and/or changed, so that all relevant versions and translations of a name, whether official or not, can be included in the infobox. That will probably mean that the Nahuatl version of the United Mexican States should also be included in Mexico; after all, Nahuatl and Maya, and 60 other languages, are "national languages" in Mexico.
--the Dúnadan 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I see, so now it is customary and it is "perhaps" a tacit standard. That is very different from not being compliant "with the norms of Wikipedia and the Manual of Style" as you wrote before.
You may have realized ealier in this discussion that I am not taking sides at this point, but the least you could do is watching your language, dude. If only because, if you do, you can add your own bit in reducing animosity in here... Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry; I have not offended or criticized anyone; I have tried to watch my language in as much as I can. If I offended you, I apologize; please refer me to that comment, and I will strike it out. Now, referring to the "customary" comment, I have used that qualifier since the beginning of the debate here and at Talk:Balearic Islands. Perhaps b/c we are writing in the middle of the text, you may no have read something that was written below but actually before this comment. Let's continue debating at the end of this section to avoid that confusion, shall we?
--the Dúnadan 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Did I say that you offended anyone? where? I didnt say that, Dúnadan. I saw your "customary" remarks from the beginning. Then I said if you'd be ok if I added "Comunidad Valenciana", if you would not block it.
You said that if it is against "the norms of Wikipedia and Manual of Style" is not considered blocking. But "custom" is custom, custom is not "norms" and I dont think anything on the Manual of Style refers to this particular situation. That is why I asked you to please watch your language, because I infer that, you being a self-styled follower of the rules, you would not like to be caught quoting them loosely, cherry-picking them, comparing countable with uncountable or bringing forced examples which, in the end, will not help anybody, not even yourself.
Good faith advises that, being Spanish the language of 100% of Valencians, it is not a crime to add the Spanish name on the top of the infobox. Good faith advises that "customs" (unlike "norms") can be fine tuned in cases like this one. But Dúnadan seems to be threatening to equate this with Mexican situations which, on the face of it, do not have anything in common with this Comunitat Valenciana thing. That is why, fearing the consequences it would bring, I will not have a case for adding Comunidad Valenciana too, even if it would be perfectly ok.....if people out there were reasonable at all.
I am done for now. It is getting disgraceful, picky and wikilawyer all over again. Just exactly the other way around wikipedia was thought to be. Thanks. Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the misunderstanding. In English, when someone says "watch your language" it usually means "do not curse", so that is what I understood from your comment, and that is why I apologized for "offending" someone. I guess it was a misunderstanding.
Yes, indeed, "customs" can be fine tuned and even changed if we all agree to it. That is why we are discussing if it is relevant to do it here or not. I do not understand what you mean by "threating"; at first I thought you meant "threatening", but that cannot be the case, it would be quite an inappropriate comment, so, I opted for interpreting it as "trying". Yes, I am trying to equate this case to another case, so that the logic of the argument can be tested across all scenarios. In this example, the Mexican case is the same: there are several "national" languages (the closest Mexico comes to call a language "official"), but only one official denomination. Since I worked a lot in Mexico-related articles, that was the first thing that came to my mind. I'll try to look for other similar examples of other countries if that helps.
--the Dúnadan 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see now that you changed "threating" for "threatening". No, I am not "threatening" anyone [perhaps another ill-choice of words?]. --the Dúnadan 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Dunadan, as soon as you paste here where does wikipedia says that this is a perfect example where a language should be erased from the infobox, I swear to God I will... If only to remind me I was wrong ;)
Meanwhile I would like to remind you that, Statutes of Autonomy, can be valencian, catalan, balear or andalusian may only be sed lex in their respective territories. So, they don't apply to rest of the country, the world or in this little case to the wikipedia usage of infoboxes... Ey!!! Cogito ergo sum!!! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Maurice, would you be so kind as to show me a rule in Wikipedia that clearly states that non-official versions (other than English) can be added to the infobox?—and also would you be so kind as to show me one example of an article here in the English Wikipedia of a country/state/province/administrative division in which a non-official version (other than English) is used in the infobox?

Also, I know you don't like it when I cite the rules of Wikipedia, but please forgive me if I ask you to read the three basic pillars of Wikipedia, most importantly WP:Verifiability. Whatever gets posted in Wikipedia must be verified with reputable sources. It is in that sense that primary sources are used in Wikipedia; in this case, the Statute of Autonomy is used as the source from which this article cites the official name. It is not a matter of whether Wikipedia abides by a territorial government and its laws, but about creating articles that cite this laws as primary sources. --the Dúnadan 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Anwering Kman, I appreciate your clarification and comment. Sometimes I feel like you do, but the other way around: that all Catalan references are erased from Catalan-related articles. I don't fully understand that. After all, Catalan is one of the Spanish languages, according to the constitution (lenguas españolas). Shouldn't Spaniards be proud of the linguistic diversity of the country? That is just a personal comment.

Now, we can open a debate at the Wikiproject:Catalan speaking countries to codify a standard to use in these cases. I participated in the naming conventions debate for the States of Mexico. Instead of debating at the thirty-one talk pages of Mexican states, we simply debated at Wikiproject:Mexico, and arrived at one resolution. In this case instead of repeating our arguments at Talk:Balearic Islands—and maybe to many other articles of the provinces, comarques and municipalities—we can discuss and debate only once. Either way is fine with me. --the Dúnadan 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So you admit there is no ruling in wikipedia to erase a co-official language from the infobox (you haven't brought to our attention any single one). Ok, we are done then! Spanish should be readded. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 10:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you really trying to reach a compromise or are you just trying to push your point of view? Can you point me of a single article that uses a non-official denomination in the infobox? In the meantime, my proposal is still in place, let's open a debate at Wikiproject:Catalan speaking countries. I will start the page and invite all parties to debate. Cheers! --the Dúnadan 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Debate and proposals

I've open a page to discuss a guideline to solve this matter. I've made three proposals, and we can discuss more proposals. Let's continue this discussion there. Please refer to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox. --the Dúnadan 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Catalan-speaking world

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Mountolive, if you don't agree with the inclussion of this template in this article is YOU who should to express your disappoint. I'm not obligated to justify every edit I do. Removing edits that you disappoint is simply a disruption to push your point of view, and here is no requirement on Wikipedia rules to avoid edits from others as a previous step to start a subject. So, please, express yourself here first, but don't disrupt. Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Montolive, the page is not controversial, it's an ad hoc reason invented from you and Maurice27. Controversial matter are really your point of view and your wikietiquette. You shouldn't revert without giving reasons, specially when new info is added. I will report to 3RR if you revert again. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Given that the official languages are valencian and spanish, I disagree deeply with replacing a table sourced by the valencian academy of language with a template for catalan-speaking zones. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the template should not be placed under the language section in this article, although I have different reasons than Enric Naval. I think the previous table was informative, and the template that was recently placed there seems to be way too clunky for just a subsection of an article. It's a good template to place in an article about the Catalan language, but I think it's too much for that section. Kman543210 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand Enric Naval's comment, could you please elaborate? Linguistically -politics aside- Valencian and Catalan are one and the same language, so a template of Catalan-speaking territories makes complete sense. (By the way, it was the Valencian Academy of Language itself who declared that Valencian and Catalan are two names for the same language). --the Dúnadan 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that a catalan template with no mention of valencian was replacing a valencian table, despite the official name of the language being valencian, which is just wrong IMHO. And not just any table, it was a table sourced from the Valencian Academy of Language itself :D I agree that the template makes sense, but not at the cost of the table, and the way of inserting it was... unfortunate, what about being in the middle of an edit war, mixed with other controversial edits, with no discussion on the talk page, and with an edit summary saying that the info is redundant [3] (hint: it's not redundant, the percentages on the table are not the same ones as the percentages on the text, and the text specifically asks to look at the info on the table). However, I had no problem with adding the template without killing the table. I saw the wise comment from Kman above, and, after collapsing the template so it was way smaller, I managed to cram it into the section without removing the table, and people seem happy with that solution. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that he basically disagrees with referring to Valencian as Catalan because of the official term that is used, but I agree with you Dúnadan that Valencian is just the name of the variety of Catalan spoken in Valencia (practically all non-politically motivated sources will indicate this as well). That's why I mentioned that my reasons for not agreeing with it's placement were different than Enric Naval's, but I wouldn't say that I have a strong objection to it; just that it seems like it overtakes the subsection of the article visually. I always think of those info boxes going at the top of an article when they're related to the main subject. Kman543210 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to revamp/recreate the template to a more dynamic format and smaller size? --the Dúnadan 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
How about making it collapsable [4]. Also, making it shorter wouldn't be a bad idea :P --Enric Naval (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Enric, making it collapsable was a good idea. Still, on second thought, I realize we have already a Catalan speaking regions template in this article, next to the autonomous communities template. This one fits much better and it is much more neutral than the Catalan-speaking world (sic) which includes lots of stuff totally unrelated to this article. That is why I am removing it, as the POV duplicate it is. Mountolive please, behave 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I hadn't noticed that other template. Well, I have no further opinion on this. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

30 Tag replaced with new tag

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Honestly, I don't see the way out of this situation, regardless of the "tag" inserted at any point in time... whether it is 3O or POV... The only way out is by debating concepts, making proposals, discussing about proposals and then making consensual decisions. That is what happened—or was supposed to happen—here. But the same user who wanted other opinions (and got the opinions of four different users), left the debate. So what is left? If it is not discussing and agreeing on consensual proposals, what else is there to do? --the Dúnadan 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Region of Valencia.

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I've made several changes because the previous consens is not yet valid as the context has been changed. These are:

  • Name of "Castilian" is used in the same way as "Spanish" in the article Spanish language. Both are fully sourced.
  • There are "double standard" about naming languages. From a English-speaker point of view, it should be Catalan and Spanish. From a Valencian point of view, it should be Valencian and Castilian. It's biased to mesh those standards depending of the POV.
  • The name of "Valencian Community" is not sourced usage in English. The name of "Region of Valencia", first, and "Land of Valencia", second, are strongly referenced from the Valencian Government. In any case "Valencian Community" references are less important than the references used for latter two.

--Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even deserve an answer. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the page should be moved to "Region of Valencia". "Valencian Community"—besides being the literal translation of the term—is used in English publications.[5]. Granted, encyclopedias show no consensus: Britannica shows it as "Valencia (autonomous area, Spain)" [6], and Encarta as "Valencia (region, Spain)" [7]. But like Asterion said below, such a bold move should be discussed first. --the Dúnadan 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think Benimerin (for a change!) could have some point in moving it to Region of Valencia. However, I agree in that it should really be discussed and a consistent, as wide as possible, consensus should be reached. We can not take such bold steps at this point without discussion. Mountolive spare me the suspense 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Dúnadan, a mi el nom de "Region of Valencia" personalment em produeix un rebuig tan fort com m'ho produeix el dictador Franco, perquè estan fent servir per a l'anglès una terminologia d'època franquista. Quan es va demanar l'autogovern valencià, ni tan sols els blavers volien veure ni en pintura el nom de "regió". Però és el que fa el Govern valencià, independentment de si és una bona traducció o no, nosaltres com a viquipedistes no podem reflexar la nostra opinió a l'article. De fet, quan el president valencià Paco Camps va anar de visita a l'estat nordamericà de Florida fa ara dos anys, hi va anar amb el títol de "President of the Regional Government of Valencia". Problablement ha fet una caguerà tan gran comparable quan Jeb Bush va dir que Espanya és una República en la seua visita a Madrid. I més encara, en la darrera competició de Fórmula 1 a la ciutat de València hi van repartir fullets de guia i hi apareixia, una altra vegada, "Region of Valencia". Sosta presidència d'Eduardo Zaplana, en canvi, en comptes de dir "Region" hi deia "Land", que podrà ser una traducció també poc correcta, però segurament va tenir més consideració per la història valenciana que l'actual Paco Camps.
Tu ja m'has llegit un cabàs de vegaes que jo acostume a dir "País Valencià", sobretot amb valencians, per a diferenciar-me dels valencians de la ciutat de València, i que fora del meu país, per exemple, a Catalunya, dic que soc de València, a seques. Però crec que a l'article en anglès això és el que hi ha, tot i que ferirà sensibilitats d'un munt de ciutadans valencians, però això no és el nostre problema. En qualsevol cas, les referències que tu dones deixa bén clar que en anglès el gentilici no fa el nom, això vol dir que ha de ser wathever of Valencia en comptes de Valencian whatever, i per la importància de les referències que tenim, hui dia està arrelant principalment el terme de "Region" i no el de "Community". --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Benimerin, the first two points in your post above have been discussed numerous times during the previous months, even years. And you have been part of that discussion, too. We can not be re-opening the same thing again and again just because you are 'engrescat' and in the mood...if we were to do it, then other users (including myself) also have their own concerns and proposed changes. But we cant be arguing again and again on those things we argued already and we reached a fragile consensus, at least not those very same users who already had those discussions. For good or bad, the article is as good as it gets, and that is proved by the fact we are all kinda frustrated with some parts of it.

As for the Region of Valencia, I am open to talk about it. I am even slightly supportive of that wording, however, for the sake of consensus and what I just said above, if there is no unanimous (or near unanimous) support to even discuss, then I would not move a comma, because I like to honour my compromises on the one side and I dont want to re-open Pandora's box on the other. Mountolive spare me the suspense 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can be reopened because one of the reasont not to use "Castilian" was the argument that it is supposedly not sourced and not "used" in English (it was an opinion of a wikipedist), but sources proofs it's not true. Sources recollected in Spanish language are showing that the term "Castilian" can be used for a specific context in Spain, in the same way that "Valencian" is used for another specific context. I don't care consensus if it's not correct, it's not a democracy, the facts are facts. Talking about Catalan/Spanish is correct, is a valid standard for English-speakers context. Talking about Valencian/Castilian is also correct, is also a valid standard for Valencia and Spain specific context. But meshing Catalan/Castilian, or Valencian/Spanish is making a "double standard", it's POV. Consensus with you or with maurice is not possible to reach because all you don't accept facts. Or you all both only accept facts if it supports your POV. Maurice shout repeteadly that statute mention Valencian.... well... it also mention Castilian, but you doesn't care this fact. Both you are biased on Chauvinism ideas. It's ok for you to have this ideology, I also have my own ideolgy, but both you are clearly influenced and turn topics about regional and minority languages as controversial, because it is controversial only for you and for your ideology. Nobody else discusses anymore this than you and Maurice, both you are the only users discussing repeteadly. Your problem is that both you are repeteadly thinking (wrongly) that if a person is a Catalan-speaker it means she's nationalist. It's not nice to discuss anything with you and with Maurice.--Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 10:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Benimerin, you are saying that the term "Region" is pervasive (or well-established, or rooted). Can you provide a list of reputable links that use the term (post 1982)? --the Dúnadan 23:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to show you the facts specifically for each exemple I've mentioned above to you. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 10:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of process page moves

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please take any page requests to WP:RM. Page move privileges have been cancelled for this article, in the meantime. Regards, Asteriontalk 20:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

It was first added b/o of the official name. The user who added the tag abandoned the debate, and the other users expressed their opinions. If the article is still unbalanced, shouldn't the user who insists on keeping a tag (any tag) explain his reasons thoroughly, or at least, participate in the debate he himself opened?--the Dúnadan 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Debate? what debate? You are fully closed to any chance of adding the spanish name. I tried to debate in the past but I decided since long not to debate anymore with people unwilling to. You can read my reasons yourself. they are in the "Third opinion request: Removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox" section in this very same talk-page. You have read them before so no need to open new sections every 2-3 days asking the same again and again. Want the tag out? Add the co-offical spanish spelling to the infobox! As imply as that. If you find ridiculous to have the tag on the article, I also find ridiculous to erase the spanish language from a spanish region. If you don't want to add it, I won't remove the tag.--MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Unwilling to add the Spanish version? I guess you didn't read options 2 or 3 of the debate, since they both added the name. So, this is how it works: you disagree on something and ask for a third opinion. Six users express their opinion, and a poll is opened, in which one option is to have the name in Spanish with a footnote that explains that it is not official (plenty of sources were added to support his claim). Despite receiving the opinion of the six users, you abandon the debate, and you threatened (may I use this word?) not to remove the tag, unless we do what you ask. Then, an external user removes the 3O tag. Then, you insert another tag. But, yet you refuse to debate. What is left to discuss? Nothing, because you don't want to discuss, you only want us to do what you want. --the Dúnadan 23:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably the problem stems from the fact that you proposed all three options and none of them was the one preferred by Maurice. That is: having the name in Spanish along the one in English and Valencian, no strings attached. That doesnt make a fair playground in the first place. Mountolive spare me the suspense 23:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish you had participated in that debate and read all our comments.Those three particular proposals were added under my name. Nothing prevented him from adding his own proposal. In fact, I told him, verbatim: "You can also present additional proposals as well. I am not saying that these are the only three proposals: we can discuss more" [8]. I guess it was a fair playground. He could have added as many proposals as he deemed reasonable. But he did not. When Benimerin Xtv added the guidline for infoboxes, the one he had previously demanded, he abandoned the debate.
My personal preference was to have no mention of the Spanish unofficial translation, but I opted for option 3, in what I saw as a compromise: the Spanish translation was included at the top of the infobox. It is plain to see that option 3 was the "middle ground" amongst two divergent positions (ergo, compromise). But, I honestly, I wouldn't mind, reopening the debate, along with the poll, and adding a 4th option to include Maurice's proposal. That doesn't mean I'll vote for it (the Spanish official denomination, per the Statute, is still Comunitat Valenciana), but other users may vote for his proposal.
--the Dúnadan 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the guideline brought by Xtv? No you didn't... You wouldn't be talking about it if you had. I invite you to read it and I challenge you to paste here where does that guideline state that a co-official language is to be erased from the infobox (which I remind everybody, was YOUR OWN PERSONAL DECISION). And now you are unable to defend your move. You shield yourself in theatrical and dramatic offers to debate... debate what? your personal decision, right? Hundreds and hundreds of futile discussions during weeks just to return to the point of realizing that you are unable to reach a solution which doesn't fit you? Well, merde alors!!!. 15 times must I have asked you to explain how the guideline supports your move. If you are not willing to take the challenge of pasting here how the wikipedia guideline supports your move and if you are unable to follow wikipedia rules, then why should I remove the tag? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 00:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Step by step:
  • The guideline read: "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item.
  • The official name of the "item" is Comunitat Valenciana, in both official languages. "Comunidad Valenciana" is an unofficial name in a co-official language.
  • You are asking for a "negative statement" in a guideline. Should I add a picture of a banana because there is no guideline that clearly states that "no pictures of bananas are to be added in the infobox?
  • Six users debated. You left the debate.
  • I offered a compromise; ergo, I was able to offer a solution.
  • You are more than welcome (and were offered) to present another proposal. Do you want to reopen the debate you left with four proposals, yours included, (or more, if Mountolive or other users want to add additional proposals), and accept whatever other users agree upon?
--the Dúnadan 00:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm NOT debating anymore! I've done it already for months and I'm tired of it. From now on, I will follow strictly what guidelines state, not a bit more, not a bit less. The guideline states:
  • "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item''.
The guideline does not mention a NATIVE full (official) name of the item... Being this the english wikipedia, it should be writen only in ENGLISH. That said, it is a "custom", I guess, to add the native languages names also. In Valencia both Valencian and Spanish are co-official. So, if you want to follow the guideline, only english should appear. If you want to follow customs of wikipedia, all three languages should appear. It doesn't say nowhere that depending on laws a language could be removed or that the only native language appearing (apart english) is the one user:Dúnadan decided.
So, as per WP:IBX, Only english naming should appear. As per wikipedia customs (each and every single article in wikipedia follows them), all three namings should appear. There are no other "options 1, 2 or 3" available.--MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 11:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to debate, then you should consider whether you actually want to be part of the Wikipidian community, and perhaps review WP:OWN. Moreover, did you actually, I mean, honestly, read option 3? Option 3 had the name in Spanish and Catalan, following your request. I don't know how many times I should repeat it, but it had the name in both co-official languages. The problem is not whether the name in Spanish is included or not (because option 3 included it, but you seem to blatantly ignore it). The problem is that you don't want the footnote that clarifies that there is only one official name. --the Dúnadan 15:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
See? You just don't care. I've shown you the facts proving that your move was not right according to the guideline but you'll rather accuse me of not debating instead than accepting you were wrong. I don't need to debate because there is a guideline which explains what to do, I don't need to. Again Dunadan, I repeat, your "option 3" is not valid as per the guideline, quit repeating the same things over and over and over again. I've readen them already... They are just not acceptable.
Oh, you should consider whether you actually want to be part of the Wikipidian community yourself. You're the one not following guidelines!
Dunadan, quit wanting to get your own POV accepted, it is a no-no!. As per per WP:IBX, Only english naming should appear. As per wikipedia customs, all three namings should appear. There are no other "options 1, 2 or 3" available. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 06:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Maurice, you are simply wrong. You are only shouting opinions without supporting it with facts. From here, by exemple, the last publication of the CVNews Magazine at July 2008th, a touristic magazine edited from the Valencian Government in Spanish and English at same time, we can find an article in the first page written by the Councilor of Tourism, Angélica Such. Note that she's a politician from Popular Party. In the text in Spanish we can read:

La Comunitat Valenciana, como ha presentado su emotiva e impactante campaña de publicidad turística, se vuelca para darlo todo al visitante que la elige para pasar unos días de asueto y descanso.

She's using always "Comunitat Valenciana" in Catalan always she's talking in Spanish. It's a fact, "Comunidad Valenciana" altough used, is not official. So, as it is not official, it mustn't be included in infobox. I will care your opinions if you give first facts supporting your opinions.
And, in the other side, for Dúnadan, the translation to English from the same page, we can read this:

As shown in its stunning and emotive new publicity campaign, the Region of Valencia goes into overdrive to ensure the enjoyment of visitors who choose to spend their holidays here.

And she's signing her article with a mention in English to the Generalitat Valenciana as: "Minister of Tourism, Valencian Regional Goverment". Surely, using "Minister", and using "Regional" are wrong, but it's used, it's a fact, and out of wikipedia there are no source saying that it is wrong, so it should be taken in count. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maurice, sorry but I see nowhere in WP:IBX that the official name have to be in English. So, if we follow strictly the guidelines of WP:IBX, only the official names should appear. This excludes English. In this case, only "Comunitat Valenciana" should appear. I understand that, since this is an English encyclopaedia, the translation in English should be included. But if you want to follow so strictly the rules, I have nothing against removing the English version.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Xtv. If we want to strictly follow WP:IBX,t hen only the official name, Comunitat Valenciana, should appear. However, in a spirit of consensus, one that has been proposed a long time ago, I offered option 3. Maurice doesn't want me to repeat things, but I just fail to see why it is he doesn't see it. So, I'll copy it here, for all to see:
Comunitat Valenciana
Comunidad Valenciana1
Valencian Community
   
...
...
...


1This is the translation of the official denomination into Spanish, an official language of the community. However, the Statute of Autonomy in Spanish declares that the official denomination in Spanish is also Comunitat Valenciana.


So, to answer Maurice's concerns:
  • Does it follow WP:IBX so that the full official name appears? Yes it does.
  • Does it follow "custom" so that the translated name also appears? Yes it does.
  • Does it follow Maurice's request to have the name in Spanish as well, being a co-official language of the community? Yes, it does.
  • Is it accurate and informative? Yes it is.
Why do you find it "unacceptable"?
Oh, by the way, I am not "accusing you of not wanting to debate". You yourself said, here, "I don't want to debate...".
To other users who rather keep quiet, I kindly ask them to participate into forming a consensual compromise.
--the Dúnadan 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this option. The official name in Spanish is "Comunitat Valenciana" (even though the common name in Spanish is Comunidad). Then, it has no sense to write an unofficial name. Let's write also in Spain: Kingdom of Spain, Reino de España, Spain and España, because nobody says "Reino de España" but simply "España" or "Spain". As I said, I accept critically option 2 (writing the translation to the common Spanish name, but not over the infobox).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, if it were to me, I would choose option 1, and at the most 2. However, I am arguing for option 3 as a compromise (and to show Maurice that one option did have the Spanish version as well). --the Dúnadan 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Dunadan, you are only doing what you always do... ignoring other editor's references in order to achieve your goal. Everybody can perfectly read what the guideline states for themselves, no matter how many times you deny it. It doesn't mention any NATIVE language. I won't lose any single minute arguing with you, any single one. My point is explained, the guideline is explained and your "option 3" is unacceptable.
As per per WP:IBX, Only english naming should appear. As per wikipedia customs, all three namings should appear. There are no other "options 1, 2 or 3" available. If you don't take one of those, the tag remains. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This is frustrating. Maybe I am very stupid. But can someone explain to me what Maurice is trying to say? Doesn't option three have the "official language" per WP:IBX (i.e. only the English name should appear? Yes, the name in English is right there. Doesn't option three have all three "namings" per customs? Yes, all three show up, in English, Spanish and Valencian. Then, what in the world is he talking about? Please help. --the Dúnadan 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
<joke on>No, three options not, it should be... erhm... six options! You know that they are double-standard minds... it should be..... 3x2... Spanish, Castilian, Catalan, Valencian, English-UK and English-US... so... Comunidad Valenciana, Comunidaz Valensiana, Comunitat Valenciana, País Valencià, Community of Valencia and Valencian Comunity... aren't these?.</joke off>. Well, he has said you very clearly: he doesn't want to discuss anything, he want this tag there by less-testosterone per collons. This article seem to be hijacked by only two users over at least 5 users (Casaforra, xtv, SMP, you and me). If you aren't tired enough yet, the only solution I see is to report this attitude to WP:WQA. But, I'm so tired of those chauvinish guys, and I prefer to use my energy in other things. I would say to Mountolive and Maurice27, in spite of the policy established by WP:OWN, I give to both you this article as a present of mine. Be happy with this. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that it's not only {{unbalanced}} but {{confusing}} (Valencian?), {{unreferenced}} (the name of "Valencian Community"), {{Primarysources}} (they are deleting existing sources, such Tourism Department), {{Expert}} (they have no idea about Valencia), {{Totally-disputed}} (it's hijacked per collons), {{POV}} (chauvinism POV), and {{Recentism}} (in History section). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Joanot, I think you are unfair with Mountolive.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I unfair? I'm not sure at all, xtv. Perhaps you should read what another more Catalan-speaker and Valencian user is thinking about the situation on articles related to Valencian topics in Wikipedia in English. There's no Spaninard users, theres no more users making this into controversial than both them. You would understand the reasons of my attitude. It's not only me, but also from another user that was very active here before the moment of the hijacking by Mountolive and Maurice27 via watching to push chauvinist POV of theirs. -Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maurice, you are only doing what you always do... ignoring other editor's references in order to achieve your goal. Everybody can perfectly read what the guideline states for themselves, no matter how many times you deny it. It doesn't mention ENGLISH language. I won't lose any single minute arguing with you, any single one. My point is explained, the guideline is explained and your option is unacceptable.

As per per WP:IBX, Only official namings should appear. As per wikipedia customs, English naming should appear.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 06:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I added two more options at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_Countries/Official_denomination_in_the_infobox --PmmolletTalk 09:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Three things to review

Latest comment: 13 years ago68 comments7 people in discussion

Discussions

Discussion One: Moving to Valencia (autonomous community)

See survey

Since there's a lot of months (more than 2 years, I think) with no external reference that supports the usage of "Valencian Community" rendered in English, I think that this article should be moved to the one of the first names that has been used here in English Wikipedia, it means, to "Valencia (autonomous community)". At least, there is a external referencie that endorses this name, the Britannica Encyclopaedia, that refers it as simply Valencia; when it must be distinguished from the city of Valencia or the province of Valencia, this source often uses "region of Valencia" or "autonomous community of Valencia" ('region' and 'autonomous community' words with no caps). In the same article it explains that " Comunitat Valenciana is translated as [...] most commonly, simply "Valencia""--Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I support this move. My parents and friends are English speakers, and never have they said "Valencian Community" I would say use in Spanish or Catalan is as irrelevant as the use in French or Chinese. If there is any established English version, it has clear priority. I would say Valencia and Region of Valencia are habitual, and people have already brought evidence this is the case. Land of Valencia is what the Generalitat uses, and it sound okay, but why not just follow the English encyclopedias and call it Valencia, autonomous community? --Espencat (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to support this, until I noticed that google books gives 408 hits [9] and scholar google gives frigging 1540 [10]
Compare to searching "valencia "autonomous community"", 578 in google books [11] and 1500 on scholar [12]. That includes a lot of false positives that mention some other communities and then also mention valencia somewhere else (as in mentioning the city of valencia or the university of valencia).
Please notice that a) Britannica sucks b) their entry for "Kingdom of Valencia" is also called "Valencia" [13]. Are we going to rename our Kingdom of Valencia to Valencia (medieval kingdom, Spain) because Britannica uses that naming convention? I say, fuck 'em, we have our own naming conventions. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Please, don't joke us. Encyclopædia Britannica is one of the most important encyclopedias in English, so the source is important. The correct article is here, and along the text inside it's also rendered simple as "Valencia". Google is not considered a reliable source. Instead of this, you can provide a source of any publication in English where it's rendered as "Valencian Community" instead of simply "Valencia". Yes, we have our naming convention, sure. But it's based on external references, not by personal opinions of ours. Thanks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 14:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't joking. On wikipedia we don't follow blindly Britannica's naming conventions, we use our naming convention on common names. Also, I find it a double standard that you want to follow Britannica's convention for Valencian Community but not for Kingdom of Valencia.
As for reliable sources using "valencian community":
  • Books, papers and proceedings:
  • Council of Europe
  • The Telegraph [18]
  • BBC [19] (btw, same page as provided by Joanot below, I find it silly to say that "Valencian Community" with capital "C" does not refer to the region's name)
  • Papers published on english-language journals
  • Other:
There you are. P.D.: I also found a good bunch of sources calling it "Valencia region" or "Valencian region", but more as a geographical term than as a reference to the current political entity. "Region of Valencia" is used sometimes as "the autonomous Region of Valencia", but also used in the geographical term, for example, a reference to the region on arab times, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Reference from BBC about "Valencian Community"

I've seen that here has given a source from BBC as an exemple of usage of "Valencian Community" but it's not enough clear that it's referencing to the autonomous community, but to the "Catalan-speaking" community, as there's using also the name of "Region of Valencia" also (or, again, simply Valencia). Anyway, the reference from Britannica Enciclopaedia is much more important than this simple reference from BBC. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 05:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed by these sources, especially BBC, and the list of administrative divisions for the CIA, even though this and this are examples of people who are from our habitually reside in Valencia, and seem to be translating (often they even put it in brackets, as if to say, "well, this is my translation, not the official one, whatever it is..."). I think the Britannica is as good a source as these, but given the many fairly varied and reasonable uses Enric has found, I think there is reasonable doubt. Unless someone comes up with three good sources for Valencia, plain and simple (just joking)...--Espencat (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion Two: Name of Catalan language

See survey

On a seperate note it's interesting to note the intervention of politics in the infotable. Why is "Valencian" counterposed to Spanish? Does anyone believe "Valencian" is the common name for Catalan in English? I'm afraid politics aside, this word is highly scientific, relates to a dialect, and is likely to be interpreted as a Valencian (person), whereas Catalan is a common word in English, clearly understood and recognised by most people as a language, and it's the scientifically accepted name of the language, both within Spain and without. I might say we should use Castilian for Spanish, more scientifically accurate of course, but Spanish is the more common name and in keeping with common sense, we are using the most easy-to-understand name. Can anyone give me a reason to fault English usage and say Valencian instead of Catalan (aside from hurting people's feelings)? --Espencat (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The valencian statute of autonomy called the language "valencian" (considered a dialect of catalan) and not catalan. Had they meant catalan they would have written "catalan". They meant the specific variety called "valencian". --Enric Naval (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Same as "Castilian" can be noted as information, as the Valencian statute (and Spanish Constitution) called the language "Castilian" (considered the variant of Spanish in Spain as well inside Valencia) and not "Spanish"... It's an respectable opinion, but this doesn't become a fact. I'm agree to explain very briefly that. But along the article It should be used "Catalan" because it's the common name in English to refer this language as a whole. If you wish, you can see how this language is being called at Valencian universities (as well as at English-speaker universities...). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PD: And also remember twenty unappeable sentences signed from Supreme Court of Justice in Spain that declares "Valencian" mentioned in Statute is the same as "Catalan" [26][27].

Oh I think it's fairly obvious that they did mean Western Catalan. In fact they meant all the dialects of the native language spoken in Valencia. So that would include (as the AVL does) Alacantí and Tortosí as well as Valencià standard. But you know thats not what I meant, I simply meant that they are not using this word in the scientific way but in the colloquial way, as a synonym of Catalan as spoken in Valencia. --User:Espencat84.126.15.37 (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You both know perfectly that they used "valencian" because they rejected that valencian was the same as catalan. Now you want to rewrite history by wikilawyering with events that happened later. You are just being WP:POINTy in order to push the POV that valencian=catalan. Stop this silliness inmediately. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
uhg, and the BBC source above lists the territories where catalan is official or semi-official, and it does not list Valencia. Instead, it says "Valencian, regarded by some as a variant of the Catalan language, is spoken in the region of Valencia. Other groups in the Valencian Community, however, consider it to be a distinct language." --Enric Naval (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, BBC notes that here are groups (notice that mentions in plural) that have an opinion about Valencian is not Catalan. And what? It's an opinion, not a fact, not a source, not an authority. If BBC considered Valencian as different from Catalan, they could make a page apart, but they don't. What groups? Valencian Universities? Surelly not, see the Valencian University you want, as you see all are named as "català". Valencian linguistic athority? Surelly not, AVL stated that "català" and "valencià" are the same language, that's Catalan. Legally because of Valencian Statute? Surelly not, Supreme Court of Justice of Spain stated that "idioma valencià" from Statute refers to Catalan language, in an unappeable sentence. So, finally it's very ridiculous to want BBC statements more important than AVL, than Justice, than University.
I don't understand what do you mean about "perfectly". What is more perfectly here than giving sources?. Can you give some kind of source that supports your personal opinion that Valencian Catalan-speakers (as well as myself) are rejecting that?. You haven't given ANY source and ANY external reference about your POV. Yes, Valencians used to call their language as "valencià" instead of "català" (as well as myself, again), as the rest of Spaniards used to call their language as "castellano" instead of "español" (as well as myself, third time again). But different name doesn't implies different thing, unless you give some fact, some source, some external reference about this. Have you give anything of that? No. Have you give some fact of usage of word "Valencian" in English to refer the language speaken historically in Valencia? No, and BBC don't use word "Valencian" to refer any kind of language. Are there external references (much much much more important than BBC) that are declaring valencian = catalan? Yes, a very very lot of references. So this point is pretty clear.
And the other point that we're really discussing. How is called this language commonly in English? Catalan (and not Valencian), in the same way as we say Spanish (and not Castilian). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 13:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Outsider's note: I would object to treating those official statutes as decisive for our naming practice. Politicians have every right to decide what they want to call the language. They have no right to decide how others (the English-speaking world) is going to call it. And they have even less right to decide what the language actually is. That's for the academic community of linguists to decide. If indeed (as I understand, but I might be wrong) there is academic consensus that Valencian is in fact Catalan, then we should call it thus. Just as we should be calling the official language of Moldova Romanian. Catalan ("Valencian")", strikes me as a sensible solution. We report that it is A, we report that it is locally called B. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, FutPerf. The linguist agreement is that valencian is a dialect of catalan, but that its name is valencian. See:
  • The statement by the Valencian Academy of Language says that "The AVL considers that the most adequate term to designate the own language on the Valencian Community is that of valencian (...) it's fully valid the denomination of valencian language, without this use implicating that it's a language different from that shared with the other territories already indicated". All its normative documents call the language "valencian".
Since Jeanot complained about examples of usage in english, see:
  • U.S. Department of Education - National Center for Education Statistics Reading literacy in an international perspective. Valencian and catalan are treated separate through all the paper. "Table 2. Valencian: Close to Castilian; Sometimes considered a dialect of Catalonian" and "Valencian is spoken in Valencia (...) The Valencian language is considered by most linguists and a small segment of the population as a dialect of the Catalonian language."
Seeing this, I think that "Valencian (dialect of Catalan)" would be a better compromise, as it reflects better what linguists and english sources use.
Joanot is welcome to give examples of linguistic sources and scholar english sources using "catalan" for valencian language without explicitely pointing out first that they going to call the "valencian language" as "catalan" due to being a dialect of it (like this source points out, for example). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm okay with "Catalan ("Valencian")" as in fact it's just another form of the well-established ""Valencian" (as catalan is known...)" but it isnt' the real point. The point is that we need to accept what English-speaking academics, and normal people too, say. Of course in the article on Catalan and Valencian, there are copious sources about local opinion, statutes and local usage preferences, but do we need to repeat this in every article? No. Do we therefore use Valencian, as it is explained in the article? Why - it's not common English usage and we are still not talking about a dialect, but a language. And it is the whole language - and not just a dialect of it, as the Supreme Court of Spain ruled recently for the -I think - third time. I am referring to the ruling which stated that catalan is oficial in the Region of Valencia and that therefore the Catalan-speaking certificate issued in Catalonia and the Balearics is valid in Valencia. In any case, if you want a solution similar to "American English", we can use "Valencian Catalan" to avoid using brackets and circumlocutions. --Espencat (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Enric, without any intention to criticise, so please don't take it as a personal criticism!, I looked at the last document (this) you gave us, and valencian only appears referring tot the language three times, and twice it's a translation in the title of a report. Catalan, referring to the language, appears so many times I lost count. it seems to me that this proves the opposite of what you say. --Espencat (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick google: In English, the first page of seaches for "Catalan in Valencia" comes up with:

  • [28] All the way through, only Catalan.
  • [29] All the way through, only Catalan.
  • [http: //www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Valencia-(province) ] Here it uses Valencian Catalan. interesting.
  • [30] Only Catalan, though it comes via two Valencian academics.
  • [31] Only Catalan, tohugh it is the UOC so its of Catalan origin.

I note that they all make explicit reference to valencia and none of them use any circumlocutions such as "as the language is called in Valencia". Yes it's shocking, the English put their foot right in it ("es claven la pota") and call it what it is. of course I'm sure you'll find someone who's willing to write about Valencian, but I bet they're using it as an adjective (i.e. American language = Llengua americana = English, that is it's asynonym when they have overused the usual word, which in our case would be "Catalan") --Espencat (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good one:

  • [32] Seems to be written by Blaveros though...a little to heavy on the RACV... But curiously, if you sift through, on the same site you find: A big map of the Catalan-speaking countries! What a strange juxtaposition. It's interesting to note that, whilst they use Catalan, Spanish etc for the other links pages on this site, for "Valencian" they use "Valencian Language". On the other hand, the text is written by someone from Valencia city and it's full of glaring mistakes in English like "the Valencian". I don't regard him as a great English-speaking source. Back at the Catalan page I just mentioned they only use "Valencian" as a noun when referringt to the dialect: "[Catalan is]...based on the Barcelona dialect with some admixtures from Valencian.." --Espencat (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • According to the CIA, whose article on Spain is widely known as defective, there is no "Valencian", just Catalan.
  • According to Ethnologue it's Catalan-Valencian-Balear, although throughout the article they use "Valencian" only as an adjective and never on its own (as a noun).
  • According to Encarta, it's just Catalan, and it explicitly says it's spoken in Valencia. --Espencat (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Errr, all those are random unreliable sources except UOC, in particular [http: //www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Valencia-(province) this one] is from Nationmaster, a mirror of wikipedia.
this, as I already pointed out, is an example of how they care of pointing out that they are grouping valencian language with catalan because it's a dialect of catalan. They don't call it "catalan", they call it "valencian language" and they say that they are referring to both as "catalan". In this discussion on the talk page, editors reject merging it with Spanish language and decide to keep the article for the peculiarities of this specific dialect on those regions of Spain. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The UOC is, of course, published from Catalonia, so it's going to say "catalan", of course, unless it wants to lose all its subventions from the catalan government :P
I'm happy that you didn't find anything wrong with all the reliable sources I provided, and that you only had a problem with one example I gave. The Encarta says "In Valencia, where Catalan is also referred to as Valencià,". In Ethnologue, "valencià" appears on the list of dialects. That the CIA Factbook doesn't list the valencian is very interesting, as it's oficial regionally just like the others. I think that they got their data from this study in catalan normalization, which says "Except for some minor variations prevailing in the Valencian region, Catalan is a highly standardized, full-fledged Romance language with a structural" --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are right, I did say it was from the UOC. In the same way I have included a Blavero source. I am showing the way various academics use English, including Valencian and Catalan academics. And of course I have no intention of criticising your sources but I feel the weight of usage is coming down quite heavily for Catalan. Further, I don't think you catch my drift. I'm not arguing that Valencian cannot be used, I am saying it's an adjective. Therfore, Valencian language is synonymous with Catalan. And in these sources it seems to be the case that they are using it only as a synonoym in conjunction with Catalan, although I will look again. I don't mean to say that we shouldn't explain what Valencian is and what i can mean, simply that in the Infobox, as in so many places, it's excessive. Either we follow what the academics and the encyclopedias say, or we don't. BTW, when you msearch for "Valencian" in Encarta, you get this. --Espencat (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the other source, the NCES ed document, it uses "Valencian" as a noun fairly often, alongside "Catalonian" (sic). However, I feel it's really quite off-track as it frequently not only reports, but supports linguistic separatism, and includes things like "Officially, Valencian is considered a different language", which may have been the case back in 1996, but in veiw of the AVL and the Supreme court findings... hmm hate to criticise this source but all it's claims seem wholy unfounded, and it's still not much indication of a generalised usage. this said, you are absolutely in your right to go ahead and blitz my random sources, which i admit were random, they were the first ones I could find and therefore not as well-placed as yours. --Espencat (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As regards the Universities, the document uses Valencian as an adjective:Valencian language (Catalan Studies). The AVL document is in Catalan and so doesn't enter into it (talking about English usage). --Espencat (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC) PS: I'm curious that the US Ed Document you gave, the one I just criticised, doesn't have a single "Catalan" in thew whole document. It just uses "Catalonian", which in my experience is an adjective reserved for "from Catalonia" (com si Catalunyà) and not usually used for the language. Strange. --Espencat (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll just reply below, Enric, so as to not confuse you or me. That's right, they both resort to using quotation marks/italics and using a foregin word, in preference to using "Valencian"'. They don't do this when they mention Catalan, as its an English word. And they use it only to refer to a dialect, not the language. This was my original assertion, that Valencian would only be used as an adjective or as a scientific word to describe a dialect of Catalan (and always preceded by an article mentioning Catalan in the title!). I think I've explained myself.--Espencat (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hum, the US Education dept. says "the Catalan or Valencian language", "valencian" is not an adjective here, unless you consider "catalan" to be also an adjective. I added the quotes myself, none of the original sources use neither quotes nor italics.
Here you have a reliable source from 2001[33] that specifically explains the Tribunal sentences and how to interpret them, and says "In fact the lengua propia[in italics on the original) of the Valencia Community is considered by all the prominent linguists to be a variation of catalan, or at least belonging to the same linguist group". On the same page it uses Valencian without quotes, except in one paragraph where it also uses quotes on Catalan. Later on, it lists valencian as one of Spain's languages[34] --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So what you are arguing is that Valencian is not the same language as Catalan? because that is what this writer says a the end, in his list. For me, this totally disqualifies him, aside from the fact I don't know who he is, apart from Italian. Moving onto the other source, of course it is an adjective, as is Catalan. Sorry if I sound patronising - no intention here - but if you put a word in front of a noun, it's an adjective. If it were a noun, it would form a compound noun with a hyphon, like this "Valencian-language". So yes, they are both synonyms and they mean "Catalan". However, if you just want to say Valencian is not part of the Catalan language, fine. Another thing is that standar usage in English says the same. --Espencat (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The author is Fernand de Varennes. According to the UOC he is a world expert in language rights and minorities, he also made working papers for at least two UN Sub-Committee (where he deals with languages on the context of the rights of minorities) [35],[36], and also made a speech at the 2004 Universal Forum of Cultures in Barcelona on "Linguistic rights as a foundation for peace"[37] (first link under "Documentos relacionados"). He also is "2004 Linguapax Laureate"[38], which is a prize given by the UN that "is a recognition of the devotion of linguists, researchers, professors or members of civil society for their promotion of linguistic diversity and multilingual education."[39]. I think this qualifies him as a reliable source for minority languages stuff wikipedia (and notice that he reporting the opinion of most linguists, not his own opinion). --Enric Naval (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the Varennes source is from 1996, and the AVL was formed in 1998 and made its statement in 2006. The "most linguists" statement is outdated. I'm going to use it for other statements. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Three: Name of Spanish language

See survey

In the english wikipedia, could you please use the most common name in english language? (that would "spanish" and not "castilian", btw) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? This usage in English is perfectly referenced as you can find sources recollected here in English Wikipedia in the articles about Spanish and about the Names given to the Spanish language. I have no problem to use "Spanish" to refer to the "castellano" but... In the same way, "Catalan" should be used to refer the "valencià", because it isn't the most common name in english language to refer the language as a whole (same as Spanish). Don't use double standards. In the other hand, I think it's important information to say that Valencians say it differently, say those things often as "Castillian/Valencian" instead of "Spanish/Catalan". --Joanot Martorell ✉ 05:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PD: There are sources recollected also from the article about Castillian Spanish.
About valencian, I answered above. About Spanish name, "castilian" is of course well referenced but "spanish" is more common, see this (US is listed there) and this. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with you to say it commonly "Spanish", it's obvious. But I'm mean another subject, I only noticed that Valencians call it commonly (and historically, legally, etc.) as "Castilian". It's only a note. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said here I believe we would be serving common sense to use Spanish and Catalan in preference to the uncommon "Castilian" and the extremely unusual "Valencian". --User:Espencat 84.126.15.37 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In english, "spanish" is the most common name for the language, independently of whether it's referring to inside of outside Spain, as the sections I pointed to above clearly indicate. Read them and stop avoiding the real issue. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is respectable, but you haven't provided any source of what you're saying. Encyclopedia Britannica says, about term "Castilian":
"Spanish is also known (particularly in Latin America, but increasingly in Spain itself) as Castilian', after the dialect from which modern standard Spanish developed"
And don't forget also the five references used in Castilian Spanish article:
  • Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Random House Inc.. 2006.
  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. 2006.
  • Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc.. 1998.
  • "Encarta World English Dictionary". Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. (2007). Retrieved on 2008-08-05. See: "the official standard form of the Spanish language as spoken in Spain".
  • WordNet 3.0. Princeton University. "dictionary.com". Retrieved on 2008-04-21. See: "form of Spanish regarded as standard: the standard form of Spanish, based on the dialect spoken in Castile, Spain".
Right?. So a mention about that is justified, specially in a bilingual region as Valencia. Greets. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 14:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The first 4 references are to source this sentence "In English Castilian Spanish usually refers to the variety of Spanish spoken in north and central Spain or as the language standard for radio and TV speakers". Valencia is neither north nor central Spain. Also, the Britannica talks about how it's called in Latin America, not how it's called on english-speaking regions. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Martorell, could you explain what concrete advantage calling it Castilian will bring? If it adds a shade of meaning, perhaps we would do better to explain this in the languages section rather than leaving it orphan in the Infobox. I rather think the Infobox should provide straight-forward information which could be gone into in more detail in the main body of the text. Therefore either we start with Spainsh and go on to talk about local namings - which sounds like an interesting idea - or we start with the old game of adding a known word to an unknown one: Castilian Spanish (and if they don't know what castilian is there's the link tot the article). --Espencat (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that "castilian" is more frequent on english than "spanish" then he is welcome to go to Talk:Spanish language and ask that the name is moved to the most frequent name on english, but be prepared to bring good sources. It was already discussed here, here and here

See also my comment on the question 3.A of the survey below on the differences between Castilian Spanish and Peninsular Spanish and how english refer to both as "Spanish". --Enric Naval (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So your opinion is pointing that question as "NO", but not collapsing (obfuscating) that. Several sources were provided here, so it's enough. I'm not saying that "Castilian" is more frequent or not than "Spanish" word in English. I'm not telling that. My purpose is about to mention that Spanish here in Valencia is called "Castilian", in the same way as Valencian to Catalan. Of course, along the article, it's called Spanish. Please, don't remove the survey. Thanks. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to point that out or to make a translation from "spanish" to "castilian". The language is named "spanish" in english. Period.
Also, if you really want to point that out, then add a short note on a proper place like the "languages" section instead of trying to modify the infobox and the lead [40]. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about surveys

Note: The deadline of these surveys end in January 10th 2009, at 6:00h. AM UTC

Please, answer the questions only as YES or NOT, signing your participation.

About the options in Survey ONE, please, give your support to ONLY ONE option.

--Joanot Martorell ✉ 15:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Errr...Joanot, who told you that you have binding authority to establish votings which by-pass wikipedia policies and, not happy with that, fixing deadlines etc? Did you see yourself like a neutral editor or an administrator taking care of this page? Because you are not either, are you?
You can organize as many polls as you want, establish very strict deadlines, limiting the answers to YES or NO, etc. All very impressive. But you just can't by-pass the wikipedia policies nor the consensus we had reached here over the months just because you would like to rewrite the article in each and every contentious points (about the rest, you never cared in the slightest). All like if many different editors wouldnt have worked on that (including you) and like if all the work and agreements were, all of a sudden, worthless just because you think so. It doesnt work like that, Mr.
There are two very clear policy guidelines below in the "| Once Again" tread which you havent bothered to reply, didnt you notice them? or maybe is it so much more fun to organize a poll and email everybody and their grandmother from ca:wiki which you think will support your point of view rather than stickign to boring policy rules?. Or maybe you noticed these two policies but, since you are a smart guy, you looked the other way and made like if they werent there because they are definite and crystal clear, even if you dont like them (at least I agree with you in that polls are definitely much more entertaining than wikipedia policies, but life is life and there are some rules to abide, even if you dont like them)
In any case, whether you like them or not, policies are binding, and, fortunately they are clear enough in this case.
As for polls, do you know this other policy? WP:DEMOCRACY? let me quote it for you just in case, because it seems made for you:

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not be treated as binding.

So now we have three policies against your wishes to rewrite this article the way you would like it. Three policies against nothing but a lot noise and a massive attack to the existing consensus which generally works well for everybody, except for you. Let's see how this ends and then we will meet you again next Christmas, I presume. Can't wait. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Mountolive has expressed it very well. This survey is just an attempt to bypass stablished consensus by voting. I stroke out my votes from this attempt at democracy. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
AMEN Mountolive! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 08:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it's neither belong to the POV pushed from you and Maurice. If this version remained stable it's because most of users who edited there were tired of the trolling attitude of yours and Maurice, pushing your biaised POV. Every time here were two users wanting to make it more understandable and fairly, with no political bias, but always you and Maurice banning them. First were Casaforra and Xtv, after of that, it was Dúnadan and me, and in other moments it was with other users such Toniher, Pmmollet or SMP. The version remained "forcedly stable" because you and Maurice turned this artificially polemic. But it's only polemic for you and Maurice.
Where's the consensus you're claiming? Don't worry. It's not a votation, it's to show that the consensus you're claiming is simply false (or alternativelly true), so I make a survey with the opinions of the users who have participated in the discussions until now. While you are claiming a consensus that you aren't showing from anywhere by the moment, this survey may show wich is the real consensus. Are you fearing because this survey may show us that you're trolling?. Greetings. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC) PD: I'm not calling anyone from ca:wiki, it would be Spam and it would be unfair. You think I'm a troll because you are, but you're mistaken.

Warning about User Martorell's votestacking

Folowing your unilateral decision to create a survey as an attempt to bypass stablished consensus in this talk-page, you executed an inappropriate canvassing asking for the votes (as proven by your contributions on December, 26) of all potential editors supposed to support your POV (all of them, but one, being members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries), ignoring and/or failing to inform all the other editors related to the article who do not or may not share your POV in a clear example of votestacking.

May you be informed that votestacking is considered an unacceptable English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. Therefore, you are requested to stop posting further notices of this type. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The message made by me was very neutral and polite, the audience is related to the article and only in en:wiki, the posting was very limited and transparent (user pages). And the supossition is only your own POV as they have not expressed their opinion yet. In the same sense, you have not expressed your own opinion in the survey, so... pushing against what?. So, definitelly, there's no canvassing. Ah, don't forget this is not a voting, this is a survey. Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC) PD: Is it somewhat a "preventive warning" like Bush bombs?. Sigh...
Joanot, Next time post short notes to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries Wikipedia:_talk:WikiProject_Spain, so all type of editors are reached in a neutral way, or that you use a clear criteria and you explain it, for example: "I'm leaving you this message because you edited article X". --Enric Naval (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Surveys

See discussion about the surveys

Note: The deadline of these surveys end in January 10th 2009, at 6:00h. AM UTC

Please, answer the questions only as YES or NOT, signing your participation.

About the options in Survey ONE, please, give your support to ONLY ONE option.

--Joanot Martorell ✉ 15:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey ONE: About moving the page title

See discussion

Option 1.A: Remain the name of "Valencian Community"
  1. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Here your support
Option 1.B: Move to "Valencia (autonomous community)"
  1. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Here your support
Option 1.C: Move to "Region of Valencia"
  1. Here your support
Question 1.D

When there's no doubt that it's talking about the autonomous community of Valencia, should it be referred simply as "Valencia"?

  1. YES --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. YES in the text of the article, of course, where this is already done at several places --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. YES/NOT Here your opinion

Survey TWO: About the name of Catalan language

See discussion

Question 2.A

Should it refer the language as "Catalan" along the article instead of "Valencian"?

  1. YES --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. YES NOT, but only on the infobox, using a clear formula like "Valencian (dialect of Catalan)". The Valencian language article already has all the details of its relationship with catalan. Insisting that catalan is mentioned everywhere where valencian is mentioned will just make for lengthy texts and for extending edit wars to all articles mentioning it anywhere on the text. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    The purpose is to refer it simply as "Catalan" in all the instances from the article, and only once time to explain briefly the matter around "Valencian" if question 2.B is accepted. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, ok, I got it the other way around --Enric Naval (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. YES/NOT Here your opinion
Question 2.B

Should it mention how it is called locally the Catalan/Valencian language in Valencia?

  1. YES --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. YES, to distinguish the dialect from the general language. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. YES/NOT Here your opinion
Question 2.C

Note: Only if you answered YES at 2.B.

Should the name called locally of Catalan/Valencian to be rendered as "valencià"?

  1. YES --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. NO, most english sources use "valencian" --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. YES/NOT Here your opinion

Should the name called locally of Catalan/Valencian to be rendered in English as "Valencian"?

  1. NO --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. YES per my comment on 2.C --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. YES/NO Here your opinion

Survey THREE: About the name of Spanish language

See discussion

Question 3.A

Should it mention once how it is called locally the Spanish language in Valencia?

  1. YES --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. NO Castilian Spanish is a different dialect than the one spoken at Valencia, even if we spanish use that name. The english refer to the language on the whole peninsule as "Spanish", concretely "Peninsular Spanish" or "European Spanish" to distinguish it from Latin American Spanish. (I suppose that nobody wants to use "Peninsular Spanish" :P ) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. YES/NO Here your opinion
Question 3.B

Note: Only if you answered YES at 3.A.

Should the name called locally of Spanish to be rendered as "castellano"?

  1. YES --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. YES/NOT Here your opinion

Should the name called locally of Spanish to be rendered in English as "Castilian"?

  1. YES --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. YES/NOT Here your opinion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valencian_Community/Archive_7&oldid=1089183525"