Talk:Spain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Spain, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.

Spain is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] MAP

Holy cow (or should I say, ay dios mio!), people have some pretty strong views on the appropriate map of Spain to use! May I suggest that all of you that have input on this, use this discussion page to discuss it? I'm starting to get dizzy from all the changes back and forth, people reverting each other, etc. That's what the discussion section is for, really. I'm actually neutral on the issue, but since I am interested in this article and have edited it a few times, I notice how the map seems to change almost daily, with people admonishing others not to change it in the comments section. Let's hash it out here, get everyone's viewpoint on which is better and why, and see if there's consensus. Sound good? --Anietor 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is already being fought on the discussion pages of the UK, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (and maybe other countries too). Feel free to check the current discussin status on them. Luis rib 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a very extensive and detailed discussion on it going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries where the aim is to try to standardise the formats of geo-locator infobox maps for all countries, so after some considerable exposure to this discussion, I now realise we should all participate in that where we have views. MarkThomas 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU map

These pages show the location of the country within the EU in the infobox map: Austria, France, Germany, Portugal,Republic_of_Ireland, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, ThiEstonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,

the topic is still controversial in Sweden. United Kingdom

Is this topic still controversial in the Spain article? I know that the EU version does not show the Canary Islands... Thewikipedian 13:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

By the time the poll and survey on the WikiProject Countries talk page were closed, 25 European Union member states had adopted the David Liuzzo map with entire EU in a separate shade (like the map shown here for Spain), and Sweden had the identical Liuzzo map except that the EU was not highlighted but its talk page stated to await the outcome of the WikiProject. In fact there was no clear voting outcome regarding EU-highlighting or not, but seeing the 25 other EU countries' maps, now Sweden became the 26th. That leaves only Spain... I think it would be best to follow all other EU countries (and many European non-EU countries that use the Liuzzo map of Europe of course without indicating the EU): The poll and survey had shown that many contributors, regardless their personally preferred map style, put great weight on having a reasonable uniformity in location maps.
About the Canary Islands, though I realize that Spanish people may have rather strong feelings since there are still Spanish/Moroccan disputes about several areas, I think that is not to be Wikipedia's main concern; I wrote my personal view regarding the choice for a location map of Spain on the WikiProject page, see my short phrase, and the slightly longer comment of 2007-02-23 00:33-01:19 (UTC). Kind regards. — SomeHuman 23 Feb 2007 04:19 (UTC)

modified Liuzzo's map

• Please see further discussion on templates at WP:SPAIN EspanaViva 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the Liuzzo's map (at right), now shows the Canaries, the autonnomus cities and the Rock according to their size. I think a person who has drawn voluntarily such cuantity of maps it's logical that don't take into account this issues, but anyway the map without the Canaries was incorrect so I´ve replaced the old in all wps, too.
This second map should be uploaded replacing the first because the other don't any have sense--Serg!oo 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, use this map! Serg!oo has included those territories not shown before in Liuzzo's version, and that was the only reason for not using it! Sdnegel 3 April 2007

[edit] Population figure correction?

I think the population of Spanish cities contains some errors. The Spanish edition of wikipedia gives the following figures, which come from the Spanish Institute of Statistics. [This is the entry: Demografía de España: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograf%C3%ADa_de_Espa%C3%B1a]The entry has links to its sources.

It provides this list of cities(2006):

1. Madrid 3.128.600
2. Barcelona 1.605.602
3. Valencia 805.304
4. Sevilla 704.414
5. Zaragoza 649.181
6. Málaga 560.631

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.36.180.216 (talk • contribs).

Hi there, your mistake is to think that the figures in the article relate to the city population only, in fact referring to the metropolitan area. Regards, Asterion^talk 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

[edit] "Andalusian"

I am moving here the following piece of text because it doesn't seem relevant enough in this context: "Andalusian" is just one more dialect of the several existing of Spanish within Spain.

The Andalusian dialect (also called andaluz) of European Spanish is spoken in Andalusia. There are several phonetic differences from Castilian Spanish, some of which are reflected in Andalusian-influenced Latin American Spanish. This differences can be seen in the phonology as well as in the intonation and vocabulary.

Mountolive | Talk 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about the removal. Nonetheless the phonetic and lexicological differences between Andalusian Spanish and Castellano estándar are indeed much greater than those of any other dialect. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the american english a dialect of the british english ?? nooo

Is the andalusian spanish a dialect of the castilian spanish ?? neither, it is simple

[edit] GDP figures

There has been some back and forth editing in the country info box on Spain's GDP ranking. I think there is a dispute because some editors are using IMF figures, and others are using World Bank figures. I looked at about 20 other countries' articles, and when the rankings of the two organizations don't match (which is actually rare), IMF numbers are being used. So I think it would be appropriate for this article to do the same, for consistency. You can see the List of countries by GDP (PPP). So let's stick with the IMF numbers, unless we're going to change the rankings for all the other countries...and I shudder to think of the edit wars THAT would create! --Anietor 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because i thought it was vandalism (it wasn't). Feel free to revert me or leave it if you guys are ok w/ it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is some confussion with this. Just yesterday I updated the main article Economy of Spain with GDP Eurostat 2004 figures which just came out recently. Please feel free to check the absolute value there, if this is of any help (or maybe it makes it more confusing?...damn).Mountolive | Talk 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree w/ Mountolive here because of two reasons:

• Spain is part of Eurozone and it is better to source our data w/ European data than those of an international body, which is the IMF in this case.
• The Eurostat figures are more recent. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think those are good points. Eurostat may indeed have more accurate numbers for member nations. My concern is one of consistency with other countries' articles, though. The country info box doesn't list just raw numbers...it lists international rankings as well. Does Eurostat give rankings as well as the hard data? And would it give rankings for every country, or just European nations? I'm just thinking of the possible confusion of having more than one country's info box list it as having the same world ranking, because some numbers are based on Eurostat and others on IMF or World Bank data. Any thoughts? --Anietor 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better to discuss these points at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Using an alternative source shouldn't be a problem. However, don't change the rankings. Just add a note saying something like "rank is based on 2005 IMF data", which is what majority of other country articles use. --Polaron | Talk 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images cluttering

I see that User:E-romance is adding more images to the article. This is a good thing but it would be more better if we can keep a ratio of 1 to 1 (a picture per section). Otherwise we'd be ending up cluttering the article. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I removed one image. I don't dare to remove the one of Merida because is very good and illustrative. To me the article is now pretty much ok images wise. Mountolive | Talk 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU membership

The membership to the EU is yet neither mentioned in the introduction nor in the history section. Lear 21 20:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length

I am moving here the following paragraphs per lenght concern. These either belong better in some other articles where they are probably already contemplated (for example in ETA's article) or are even outdated.

Initially ETA had targeted primarily Spanish security forces, military personnel and Spanish Government officials. As the security forces and prominent politicians improved their own security, ETA increasingly focused its attacks on the tourist seasons (scaring tourists was seen as a way of putting pressure on the government, given the sector's importance to the national economy, although no tourists were injured) and local government officials in the Basque Country. The group carried out numerous bombings against Spanish Government facilities and economic targets, including a car bomb assassination attempt on then-opposition leader Aznar in 1995, in which his armoured car was destroyed but he was unhurt. There have also been a number of ETA attacks that seem to have been directed at the general populace, such as the bomb in the supermarket Hipercor in Barcelona (21 killed, 45 seriously wounded of whom 20 resulted disabled), Plaza de Callao in Madrid, and the recent (December 2006) car bomb attack on the multi-storey public car park at Barajas Airport, Madrid, which killed two people. The Spanish Government attributes over 800 deaths to ETA during its campaign of rebellion.

On 17 May 2005, all the parties in the Congress of Deputies, except the PP, passed the Central Government's motion giving approval to the beginning of peace talks with ETA, without making political concessions and with the requirement that it give up its weapons. PSOE, CiU, ERC, PNV, IU-ICV, CC and the mixed group —BNG, CHA, EA y NB— supported it with a total of 192 votes, while the 147 PP parliamentarians objected. ETA declared a "permanent cease-fire" that came into force on March 24, 2006. In the years leading up to the permanent cease-fire, the government had had more success in controlling ETA, due part to increased security cooperation with French authorities.

Mountolive | Talk 04:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also moving this one, because, at the end of many lines, actually it turns out to be that there are not remarkable differences (nor the United Kingdom process should be noted here either).

with varying levels of self-government. Differences within this system are due to the fact that the devolution process from the centre to the periphery was a process initially thought to be asymmetrical, granting a higher degree of self-government only to those autonomous governments ruled by nationalist parties (namely Catalonia and the Basque Country) who were much more vocal in the matter and seeking a more federalist kind of relationship with the rest of Spain. Conversely the rest of Autonomous Communities would have a lower self-government. This pattern of asymmetrical devolution has been described as a co-constitutionalism and the devolution process adopted by the United Kingdom since 1997 shares traits with it.

However, as years passed, the Autonomous Communities which in the beginning were thought to have a lower profile have caught up in terms of self-government with the nationalist ruled Autonomous communities and the gap in terms of self-government is not that wide anymore.

And, finally, this one also, as the European Constitution which got approved is moribund now and there will have to be news in this regard.

On February 20, 2005, Spain became the first country to allow its people to vote on the European Union constitution that was signed in October 2004. The rules state that if any country rejects the constitution the constitution will be declared void. Despite low participation (42%), the final result was very strongly in affirmation of the constitution, making Spain the first country to approve the constitution via referendum (Hungary, Lithuania and Slovenia had approved it before Spain, but they did not hold referendums).

Mountolive | Talk 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further length edits

I have also done a substantial amount of condensing of material (some of which went into footnotes). The intent is to begin to prepare this article for Good article status. Because of the substantial amount of editing done, I have removed the length tag and the citation needed tags. If other editors feel that they are warranted, you are welcome to replace them, but please place a specific explanation here, so that fixes can be made. EspanaViva 02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I like it! The readable prose size is now down around 36 kb - in the range of optimum (the gross size is around 56 kb).

Next, there's more stuff that can come out. This overview article I summarize as "What are the 250 most important facts that people would want to know about Spain." If it's not in the Top 250, doesn't it really belong in a more specific article? (The number "250" was chosen for rhetorical effect, folks) - really, for this overview article, the intent is to ask editors to ask themselves: "Is this one of the most important things that readers will want to know about Spain?" (not "This is something important I want to tell people . . .").

Plus . . . most importantly, we now need to start adding specific citations for stuff that anyone wants to add back in. Provocateur, for example, your "horseshoe arch" addition is a lovely piece of info, but if you add a citation for that little tidbit, it will greatly increase the odds of it staying in! Seriously, to the extent that people have books, websites, reliable sources for the history, geography, politics, etc. facts that are currently in the article, please start adding those (footnoted) citations! EspanaViva 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I took that piece of information from the Visigothic Art article . Just wanted to hint that the Visigoths were not totally uncivilized barbarians! Anyway, I've seen such arches.

1 Do we need a mini-history in the intro before the mini history that follows?? Given that the article is long (though already greatly reduced) this seem redundant. 2 Only Granada was under Moorish rule for 8 centuries - most the south was under the Moors for a tad over 5 centuries and most of the north (excluding the Christian hold outs) ranged from a couple of decades to a bit over 350 years. To state that "much of the area" was under an Islamic caliphate for 700 years is easily misunderstood as meaning "most of Spain" was under Islamic rule for 700 years (or so) (or until 1492) - this is a very common misconception which does injustice to understanding the complexities of Spanish history and indeed its culture. We should not be promoting it, even if inadvertantly. Anyway, on the whole the article is starting to really shape up. Cheers Provocateur 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the article looks much better - tighter, not rambling. Now it has much easier to find refs for the material that's in there.

About the lead section, WP:LEAD says:

"The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:

• In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
• The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
• A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
• Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs."

You're certainly welcome to try to skinny down/corrct the lead's summary of history (I ran out of sandpaper trying it!), but I think we've got to have at least a few sentences, given the length of the history section in the main text of the article. Cheers to you too! EspanaViva 09:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy: include wine and tourism?

Just an idea... it's a big page already, but wine & tourism are huge in Spain. I'd be happy to put something v brief together if it's a popular idea. --mikaul 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - you're suggesting adding a few sentences/a paragraph here? I like the idea . . . you've got lots of nice citations to go with what you want to add? ;) EspanaViva 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure if it's a good idea, provided that we were reducing the article's length. Still, if you think is relevant, then add a reference to tapas as well. Mountolive | Talk 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. tourism belongs in economy indeed; wine, while still being a growing industry, is not relevant enough to get its own mention in that section. It should be elsewhere. Mountolive | Talk 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added a short para on tourism and took the liberty of mentioning the housing boom. Have a look and weed it out if you think it's too much
  • I've suggested a short Culture section above, which would be a much more appropriate place for tapas. Apart from the bar, that is.
    • Agree about wine. Just not big enough economically. However it is a big deal in global wine terms (3rd biggest producer) and one of the biggest consumers. Again, it might work well in a section on Culture. --mikaul 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Search Of . . . Citations for the Pre-History sub-section

As we move through this article sub-section by sub-section and upgrade it to GA (and hopefully FA) status, we are currently in search of citations/footnotes to support the following elements in the Pre-History sub-section:

• Date of arrival and direction of arrival of early modern humans in Spain
• Date of arrival and culture of Iberians
• Date of arrival and culture of Celts
• Date of arrival and culture of other early peoples
• Scholarly information about Tartessos (dates, location, culture)
• Date of arrival and culture about Phoenicians and Greek colonizers
• Date of arrival and events regarding Carthaginian
• Date of arrival and events regarding Carthaginian/Roman interactions

if you have websites, books, articles to add as a footnote, please do so! EspanaViva 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It was quite a fast search, but here's what I got:

• Date of arrival and direction of arrival of early modern humans in Spain: "Pero ahora se sabe que el verdadero antepasado común de los neandertales en Europa y del Homo sapiens en África, no era el Homo ergaster, sino que salió del continente africano durante el Pleistoceno Inferior, pobló Europa hace más de 780.000 años, vivió en Atapuerca y fue descubierto en 1994 en el nivel TD-6 de Gran Dolina. Este primer europeo recibe desde entonces el nombre de Homo antecessor, “el explorador”." Source: [[1]]

• Date of arrival and culture of Iberians: "A partir del siglo V a.C. comienza a desarrollarse la cultura íbera en el sector oriental peninsular". Source: [[2]]. And: "Estos contactos culturales y comerciales permiten el desarrollo del sustrato indígena dando origen a un periodo orientalizante (s. VIII-VI a.C.) que determinará la aparición de la cultura ibérica a finales del s. VI a.C.". Source: [[3]]. And: "Podemos hablar de una etnia heterogénea que formó un mismo pueblo de una forma progresiva: del 750 al 550 a.C. es un periodo pre-ibérico; del 550 a.C al S.V es el ibérico antiguo. El ibérico pleno alcanza del S.V hasta la entrada de los romanos." Source: [[4]]

• Date of arrival and culture of Celts: "En Heródoto, autor del siglo V antes de Cristo, se encuentran las referencias más antiguas sobre los celtas." Source: [[5]]

• Scholarly information about Tartessos (dates, location, culture): "Hace cerca de 3.000 años el suroeste de España fue habitado por una cultura cuya grandeza no fue igualada en mucho tiempo. Gracias a la explotación de minas de oro y plata y a su comercio con los fenicios, el pueblo tartésico alcanzó un grado de riqueza y desarrollo admirado por los historiadores griegos." Sources: [[6]], [[7]] and Location: [[8]]

Regards, Maurice27 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

¡Gracias, Maurice! ¿pero, tiene algunos en inglés? (have any in English?) EspanaViva 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried... But couldn't find anything. :( Maurice27 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major overhaul of Roman Empire and Germanic invasions sub-section

As part of the continuing overhaul of this article (to prepare it for Peer review, GA status, and hopefully FA status), I will shortly be posting a re-write of the Spain#Roman_Empire_and_Germanic_invasions subsection. All editorial comments (and especially reliable source and footnotes) are welcome! EspanaViva 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul of Spain#Muslim_Iberia sub-section

As part of the continuing effort to move Spain to GA status, I will shortly be posting a revised Spain#Muslim_Iberia subsection. The main editing is to condense and to move footnote material to footnotes. Please feel free to make any further editorial changes! EspanaViva 17:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Search of ... Citations for the Spain#Roman_Empire_and_Germanic_invasions sub-section

As we move through this article sub-section by sub-section and upgrade it to GA (and hopefully FA) status, we are currently in search of citations/footnotes to support the following elements in the Spain#Roman_Empire_and_Germanic_invasions sub-section:

• Events of the Second Punic War in Spain
• Events during Roman expansion and control in Spain
• Prominent Hispano-Romans
• Date of arrival and effect of Christianity
• Date of arrival and events regarding post-Roman cultures in Spain
• Date of arrival and events regarding Visigoths and Visigothic kingdoms

if you have reliable source websites, books, articles (in English preferably!) to add as a footnote, please do so! EspanaViva 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a number of references to the Library of Congress website, and Library of Iberian Resources Online. Please add additional citations if you have the information available. EspanaViva 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review requested for Madrid article

A Peer review has been requested for Madrid, the article about the capital city of Spain. Please feel free to edit the Madrid article to improve it and/or leave a comment at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Madrid. EspanaViva 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul of Spain#Fall_of_Muslim_rule_and_unification

As part of the continuing effort to move Spain to GA status, I will shortly be posting a revised Spain#Fall_of_Muslim_rule_and_unification subsection. Please feel free to make any further editorial changes! EspanaViva 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim influence

A long time ago a put in some sentences to highlight the contribution Mualims made to reviving Greek learning. Now there are attempts to make out that they also introduced it. In fact it came with the Romans and never completely died out - the Catholic church made sure of that - even if its level had fallen - with the fall of the empire - so please everybody with either pro or anti Muslim/Jewish biases, stop trying to claim all the credit one way or the other. Also we must avoid implying that the country was mainly under Muslim rule until 1492 -that is a major distortion of what is a complex history Provocateur 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to correct what you believe are inaccuracies. My major concern is only a brief accurate summary of events. EspanaViva 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention, of course, my other primary concern is that material in this article be referenced. Even in the sub-sections that have received attention thus far, there remain statements which are "unsourced." While those statements remain for now (to allow others to provide source information), eventually they will need to be addressed as "unsourced" statements. EspanaViva 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with these edits [9], [10]. They give more context indeed. Thanks for the references EspañaViva. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul of Spain#Rise_as_a_world_power:_From_the_Renaissance_to_the_19th_century subsection

As part of the continuing effort to move Spain to GA status, I will shortly be posting an overhaul of the Spain#Rise_as_a_world_power:_From_the_Renaissance_to_the_19th_century sub-section. Please feel free to make any further editorial changes/corrections! EspanaViva 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Search Of . . . References for Muslim Iberia and Fall of Muslim rule and unification subsections

As we continue to move through this article sub-section by sub-section and upgrade it to GA (and hopefully FA) status, we are currently in search of citations/footnotes to support the Spain#Muslim_Iberia and Spain#Fall_of_Muslim_rule_and_unification sub-sections.

I have added a number of references to the Library of Congress website, and Library of Iberian Resources Online. If you have reliable source websites, books, articles (in English preferably!) to add as a footnote(s), please do so! EspanaViva 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References will be expected for every paragraph and for every (important) factual statement

I don't know if any of the people working on this article have been through a Good article or Featured article process before, but as a general rule, references will be expected for every paragraph, and for every important fact. As they say here, "Paris is in France," what may seem very obvious and well-known to the average Spaniard may not be well-known at all outside of Spain. Spain's continental wars for example are very little-known outside Spain and Europe. So, you may not feel the need to add references, but once they are added, please do not delete them!

(Also, for the other people working on this article, I'm going to have to be stepping away from Wikipedia for the next ten days or so because of RL work, and my ability to work on this article is going to be very limited for a while. I do expect to add a few things here and there, but I'll be returning at a regular scale in about 10 days.) EspanaViva 16:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I am partially bringing from Portugal article this suggestion

==Facts and figures==

• Official and Common date format: DD/MM/YYYY (ex. 06/09/2006), dates are written out as DD de MM de YYYY (ex. 18 de Agosto de 2005)
• Decimal separator is a comma: 123,45
• Thousands are separated by a point (dot?) 10.000.

Morover, that article makes the See Also in a smaller kind of letter, which also seems a better option to me than the way it is now here, all in a different article. Mountolive | Talk 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands

Why do all the maps on this article show Gibraltar as a part of Spain and why does the map showing the Spanish speaking world show the Falklands as speaking Spanish? Gibraltar is in no way a part of Spain and no one on the Falklands Islands speaks Spanish they all speak English. I wrote on here before asking why Gibraltar was shown as a part of Spain and someone said Gibraltar was too small to be displayed yet I see the small colonies belonging to Spain on the north coast of Morocco are displayed in every map and yet they are only the same size as Gibraltar. Can someone please change the maps so that Gibraltar is clearly displayed as not being a part of Spain and also change the map of the Spanish speaking world to show the Falklands as not Spanish speaking.

I agree! The Ogre 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish speaking world map now changed. The Falkland islands do not appear as spanish speaking anymore. About Gibraltar, That map comes from the wikimedia commons. It has been already tried to change, but the size of Gibraltar and the resolution of the map does not allow to do anything. On the other hand, you are welcome to upload another map about the location of Spain. --Maurice27 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acentos?

Why are accent marks written in some words that shouldn't have them? Aragon appears systematically with an accent mark, something correct in Spanish or Aragonese but not in English. Accent marks should only be written in those place names directly taken from Spanish which have no traditional form in English. --Purplefire 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I personally dislike this sort of anglacism but can't logically argue against them in this context - agreed (but decline to edit them out :)) mikaul 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Section

Thank you to all who contributed to the mini history section. It grew like topsy and then was refined and greatly reduced in size - No more reductions in size, however, as it will lose details that make it interesting to the general reader - Thanks to all. Cheers Provocateur 06:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)