User talk:Banderas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image:Asturias-flag.png listed for deletion

[edit] Picture

Sure, here it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SDH_3948.JPG ChunkySoup 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:LandmarkConferenceLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:LandmarkConferenceLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Valencia

Hi there Banderas,

We are talking in Talk:Flag of Valencia with Zscout370 (a fellow contributor of you at FOTW) about the decree "116/1994 de 21 de junio, del gobierno valenciano, por el que se regulan los símbolos, tratamientos y honores de las entidades locales de la Comunidad Valenciana". In those months, I've searched everywhere to find a translation in english of it. It is the closest closest thing the valencian community has done to describe the ratio of its flags. Ignacio Gavira described you as the president of the SEV (spanish vexillological society)... Is there any chance that you have in your archives pictures from the Senyera coronada fully deployed in an official building? I have found one in the spanish senate and another from the Council of Alcoy, but the other part is not willing to accept them as a proof of the official use of the 2:3 flag.

I've also read in the protocole for flags in the Presidencia del gobierno that it is very strict in government buildings, but it does not explain in other civil buildings such as monuments. Are those flags in civil and public monuments also under the strict code of the protocole for flags? May we state that if a flag with 2:3 ratio is hoisted on government building such as the Palau de la Generalitat or the council of Alcoy, these are the Official ratios for the flag, even if not described exactly at any law? Would you be so kind to answer to these questions in Talk:Flag of Valencia. Thanks a lot! --Maurice27 09:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hola Banderas, como ya le comentaba al usuario Zscout370, Maurice27 está obviando el hecho de que el decreto que menciona no se trata sobre la señera valenciana, sino sobre las banderas de los municipios valencianos (no en vano, el título explicita que "... se regulan los símbolos, tratamientos y honores de las entidades locales de la Comunidad Valenciana"). El decreto concreto sobre la señera valenciana es otro diferente, y está incluido como nota a pie núm. #2 en Flag of Valencia (el título menciona que "... se regulan los símbolos de la Comunidad Valencia y su uso.").

Por otra parte, el decreto sobre los municipios valencianos establece que "preferentemente" sea 2:3, pero no como norma única (Artículo 12.3: "2. La bandera será preferentemente cuadrilonga de proporciones 2:3 ..."), por lo que se pueden utilizar diferentes proporciones si así lo acuerda el Ayuntamiento. Por otra parte, el uso de las proporciones 1:2 se deben a motivos históricos que se remontan a la época del Centenar de la Ploma, una orden de caballeros militares fundada por Pedro el Ceremonioso cuya única función era salvaguardar, proteger y portar la señera valenciana. Explico sobre ello en Talk:Valencian Community. Saludos. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 06:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NAVA mailing list

I saw your email there, thanks for the heads up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Asturias

Hi, you appear to be in Edit war editing the flag of article Asturias, please see the page regarding this discussion: Talk:Asturias#What.27s_up_with_the_flag.3F--Figarema |^Talk 11:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:UsaSouthAthleticConferenceLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:UsaSouthAthleticConferenceLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campion High School

Hi! Campion High School in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin no longer exists as a Jesuit high School and has not been since 1975. Therefore, I am going to revert your edit which is very inaccurate. Thank you- RFD (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Is there a category for Jesuit high schools that are do longer in existence? Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a similar problem involving the John F. Kennedy High School in St. Nazianz, Wisconsin. That high school was operated by the Salvatorian order but the high school closed also. Would there be a more generic category about the closing of secondary Roman Catholic high schools. I will take the Society of Jesus category off of the Campion High School and leave it at that for the time being. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somió (Barrios)

Hi. The official laws (which, as you've seen referenced in the article, are: BOPA Nº 229 - Martes, 3 de octubre de 2006 & DECRETO 105/2006, de 20 de septiembre, por el que se determinan los topónimos oficiales del concejo de Gijón) do not talk of 10 neighbourhoods, but of the following 27 divisions:

Please note that the only current applicable law is "DECRETO 105/2006, de 20 de septiembre, por el que se determinan los topónimos oficiales del concejo de Gijón" which clearly states:

Artículo 2.—Denominaciones oficiales. Los topónimos así determinados tienen la consideración de denominaciones oficiales, sustituyendo a las anteriormente vigentes, si las hubiere.

(Rough translation: "Article 2.- Official names. The toponyms so established are considered the official names, replacing all the previously valid names if they exist.")

Additionaly, the Council of Gijón / Xixón states:

Estos nomes son agora oficiales a tolos efectos, d'usu obligáu per parte de les instituciones (Ayuntamientos, organismos del Principáu, etc.) en cualesquier comunicación fecha en castellanu o n'asturianu.[1]

(Rough translation: "This names are now effectively official, and of obligatory use by the institutions (City Halls, Principality's bodies, etc.) in every communication (message) made in castillian or in asturian.

Thus, the only official toponyms and territorial divisions of the Somió district are the ones stated on the aforementioned law. No other previous division or naming is official anymore, and no other institution than the Principality of Asturias can enact the official administrative divisions and toponomy of this territory.

Plus, the Wikipedia Naming conventions for places state:

Countries of Europe: (...) In case of name changes, the current widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used.

Besides, since this is an encyclopedia, I think its just a matter of common sense: We must use the official administrative divisions and toponyms for an encyclopedic article about official administrative divisions and toponyms.

Thanks. -- · Ravenloft · ^talk 19:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for speaking english, I do it just in case any english wikipedia user follows our conversation.)

First of all, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines? In this cases, editors should provide a reliable source for any material the want to change into the encyclopedia.

In this particular case, the only official reliable source is the Principality of Asturias through the laws published in the Boletín General del Principado de Asturias (B.O.P.A.) [2]. The Principality of Asturias is the only responsible institution for territorial administrative divisions in Asturias. Evidently, no other institution, neighbour association or civil parrish assembly can enact the official divisions of the Principality of Asturias. If you have the B.O.P.A. (official document) with a different Barrio division for the parrish of Somió -which repeals the aforementioned- please provide it.

You say your map of the Unidad de Integración Corporativa del Ayuntamiento de Gijón has 10 barrios. Ok. I doesn't really matter, but anyway, there are two possible explanations: A) The map was made before the publication of the law in the BOPA 3rd October 2006. B) The map is wrong. It happens. Last week EMTUSA (a municipal company) had to remake hundreds of bus stops signs because some civil servant used a repealed BOPA with repealed toponyms.

But, as you've seen, I don't have any problem at all with having a mention to the 10 toponimic divisions you're kin to in the article. Anyway, I insist the official names must stay: We must use the official administrative divisions and toponyms for an encyclopedic article about official administrative divisions and toponyms. Provide a newer B.O.P.A. with your suggested Barrio division for the parrish of Somió before making any change.

We should keep this talk on the article page. Thanks-- · Ravenloft · ^talk 20:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"DECRETO 105/2006, de 20 de septiembre, por el que se determinan los topónimos oficiales del concejo de Gijón" states the list of toponyms. A "topónimo" is not a subdivision, it´s just a name of a place. I accept the change in names of the 10 barrios to the new toponyms, but nowhere in that law it´s stated that there are new subdivisions. Perdona, pero confundir los nuevos topónimos con nuevas divisiones no es razonable.--Banderas 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but the change of the names of the barrios which conform a parrish also implies the change of the administrative division of the parrish itself. Simple math: Same territory + lots of new toponyms = Less territory for each toponym. Anyway, until we find some reliable legal source on the matter, I propose to mention both things in the article. As a temporary measure, we could mention the 10 names you propose as traditional barrios, and the other 17 names the law mentions as places (as you know, the administrative division below "barrio" is "llugar"). Ok? -- · Ravenloft · ^talk 20:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good consensus to me. Ok then. (Btw: fixed Candenal issue) See you -- · Ravenloft · ^talk 17:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Sailboat Specifications

Please see the templates talk page for size related questions. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)