Talk:Valencian Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An image used in this article, File:Altea85.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"…the low insulation rate and overall stable weather during the summer": what is an "insulation rate"?

"…the rate of activity reached 56.8% in 2002": what is a "rate of activity"?

Also, the economic statistics nearly all precede the current downturn; newer numbers (and perhaps some information tracing these numbers over time) would be good. - Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• regarding this section: Valencian_Community#Languages

The section bases all it's numbers on one study performed by a biased organisation (pro-Valencian), in which the respondants rated themselves and weren't tested.

I've lived in two "bilingual" cities, and I know that this sort of survey produces comical results. People ignore the questions and answer as if asked "Do you like your heritage?"

Does anyone have meaningful numbers? For example, how many children are in Valencian-speaking secondard schools compared to the number in Spanish-speaking schools? Gronky (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no "Valencian" language, it's just a variety of Catalan, just like "Texan" is a variety of American English. See Talk:Valencian#Language versus dialect and Valencian language controversy for more. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot can you clarify why you've marked this as disputed? The article doesn't say that it's a separate language, it says "The Valencian people speak a variety of Catalan called Valencian." You say (and I agree with you) "it's just a variety of Catalan." Where is the dispute there? You are saying you agree with what the article says, but marking it as disputed. I don't follow you. Valenciano (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm, you're right; I had several Catalan and Valencian articles open simultaneously, and it looks like I stuck the label in the wrong one. Thanks for fixing it. (Now I suppose I'll have to go try and find the article that seemed to have a statement claiming Valencian as something co-equal and separate from Catalan, if I can.) Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been working to expand this page for a few weeks now and I am appalled that the reference to "Valencian Country" has been deleted. There is a controversy about the name of the autonomous community, with the Catalan wikipedia using País Valencià (Valencian Country) and the Spanish one using Comunidad Valenciana (Valencian Community). I understand that the article is called "Valencian Community" because that is the official institutional name, but the alternative denomination is also officially recognized and has widespread usage, especially in the Valencian language. "Valencian Country" must, at least, be mentioned in the first sentence of the article, because many readers will search for "Valencian Country" and omitting this important denomination can cause confusion. And it is also important that edition in this respect is restricted once the community has achieved a consensus, otherwise there will be changes to the introduction every other week.

Just as a reminder, "Valencian Country" is the name used by the two psrties forming the coalition government at the moment in the Generalitat, it is the standard name in Catalan language, and it is used by academic institutions like the University of Valencia, the main trade unions and hundreds of civil associations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quico mm (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, despite being not official, "Valencian Country" is a common name for that Land.--Coentor (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Quico mm, Valencian Country must appear in the first sentence of the article — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 03:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Could you adress the problems instead of diverting them?

1. No secondary source in English state both are equal to in terms of officiality.
2. So far your "sources" only refer to names in Catalan not in English (nobody denies "País Valencià" is a common term in Catalan, but this does not mean it is an official term nor that means the "weigh" is the same in its English-language form).
3. Do you know the difference between official ("oficial") and informal ("informal"), right? It does not even reach "oficioso/oficiós" level? Where is the consensus? I only can see Jauma unilaterally and progresivelly changing the lead and the infobox since December 2015. Which problem do you have with "also informally known as Valencian Country"? Does it hurt the "will of the People" [sic]? Can JaumeR violate your imaginary "consensus" inserting audiovisual political propaganda but I can not fix the lead because I am supposedly "edit warring"?--Asqueladd (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia doesn't just use official names, we can use alternative and consensus names
2. there are sources in Spanish, Valencian and possibly also in English
3. Valencian Country is not an informal name, why would an informal name appear in the Statute of Autonomy? Masclet~enwiki (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Yeah I know, but I am suggesting to differentiate the nature of both terms.
2. bring them in (in english), and don't cherry pick them. I am not by any means prohibiting the mention of Valencian Country in the lead, by the way. I am denouncing the blatantly ridiculous wording and annotations (primary sources).
3. Valencian Country is an informal name as much as for example "Estado Español" is an informal name (and it is mentioned in the very same Spanish Constitution, ohhhh). Quoting a paragraph of the Spanish Constitution to claim "Spanish State" is not an informal name is ridiculous and a bad use of primary sources. Quoting a paragraph of the Statut to claim "País Valenciá" is in equal terms to "Comunitat Valenciana" is ridiculous and a bad use of primary sources.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree mate, it's not an informal name. By saying that you're insulting us. Moreover 4 Valencianist users agreed to use this term in the lede, so if you have a problem you should propose changes rather than imposing us your view Masclet~enwiki (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not make "Valencianists" [sic] feel better or worse. By the way, the translation of the official term and the use comparison in English language (see here) show a symmetrical wording of both names is not adequate..--Asqueladd (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

that doesn't matter, we agreed to use it. If you don't agree with it just make a new proposal at the talk page. Just bear in mind 4 of us have already accepted the term Valencian Country. Masclet~enwiki (talk)

1. I am proposing changes (see edit edit summaries and comments above). Fact is apparently a consensus of 4 "valencianists" [sic] want to disregard both the nature of the two terms and the English usage of them to impose their view in the lead.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your statement is not true, we are not violating any rules Masclet~enwiki (talk)

Let's see if we can agree on this:

1. Comunitat Valenciana is the sole official name of the region.
2. "País Valencià" is not official terminology in catalan nor "País Valenciano"/Comunidad Valenciana in Spanish. A punctual mention in the Statut is unconsequential.
3. Its translation "Valencian Country" (which exists in English) is not very used in english at all in comparison to "Valencian Community" (the translation of the official term), either (see see here).
4. It frequently goes by País Valencià in Catalan language usage, at the least in the same order of magnitude than Comunitat Valenciana.
5. The term exists also in Spanish but it is not particularly used.

Do you disagree with some of the points above? Now based on those points I will procede later to propose the changes.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. I don't agree, it's a country/nationality (within Spain)
2. Yes it is
3. thats the most common translation
4. no you're wrong
5. it is used in Spanish as much as in Catalan (see Socialist Party of the Valencian Country) Masclet~enwiki (talk)

You are spuriously blocking talk. Are you aware of what usage means? --Asqueladd (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the parties in the Valencian government use Valencian Country and we have a consensus. Masclet~enwiki (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So what? Non sequitur. It's not like the later is crucial for formulating any changes I was thinking about (which were not going to explicitly feature terms of comparison). However, in order to determine which term is more common in a particular language people deal with the lexicographical corpus, not with preference in the naming of political parties of the region.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah it is, coz we, the Valencians, use País Valencia (Valencian Country) very frequently as you can see in our wiki and many sources. Does this explain why our government uses it?  ;) Masclet~enwiki (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. I will rephrase this one because the point apparently went over your head: "Comunitat Valenciana is the sole official name of the whatever floats your boat" (country, region, autonomous community, pink unicorn, nationality, nation, that was not the point)".
2. Bring secondary sources with a context that claim Comunidad Valenciana, País Valenciano or País Valencià are currently official names of the "whatever floats your boat thing".
3. I don't think so. PROOF).
4. Why do you disagree? do you think País Valencia is less used than Comunitat Valenciana in Catalan language , you did not care to read me at all, or your english comprehension is 'nil?).
5. No. But the point what not that one. PROOF

--Asqueladd (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will rephrase my words too:

1. Wikipedia doesn't exclude alternative names or common names
2. There is a consensus to display Valencian Country in the lede
3. i disagree because you're not right, there is a consensus and because you're trying to insult the Valencians by calling us a region (right at the beginning of our conversation) Masclet~enwiki (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. I am not excluding the mention of alternative names either. I am questioning "how" and "where".
2. I am not disputing the mention of "Valencian Country" in the lead (I am questioning "how").
3. Don't play the victim game.

--Asqueladd (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is playing games, but if you call us a region you're insulting and denying our identity. And you were not even questioning that at the beginning, so you just mixing things. And tbh I don't understand how you're trying to improve this page by your suggestions, or by deleting sources and consensus Masclet~enwiki (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to clarify if the current government accepts and promotes "Valencian Country", this article must display this name in the way it is now Masclet~enwiki (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You are annoyingly playing the victim card. I am suggesting not to use a unconsequential quote of the Statut to state some sort of officiality for a particular name: the only official name of the Valencian Community is Comunitat Valenciana, rather you like it or not (and its english translation is the "vastly" most common term in english usage (PROOF). I am suggesting not to use sources in Catalan to backup the way of presenting an English toponym. I suggest an also known by the informal Valencian Country, instead of the symmetrical current status of the lead. I also suggest a serious trimming of the info in the infobox.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not.. you shouldn't've downgraded us and you should accept the truth

How can Valencian Country be informal if it appears in our Statute of Autonomy and many institutions and polical parties use this name, e.g. the current ruling party (the Socialist Party of the Valencian Country). Masclet~enwiki (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's you the one downgrading yourself if you are taking toponymical discussion in en:Wikipedia personal. How can? Because it is! Bring a source claiming: "País Valencià is currently an official denomination for the autonomous community on par with Comunitat Valenciana".--Asqueladd (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't downgrade myself, yth would i do such daft thing? And yeah you are downgrading and insulting my land/nation/nationality/community, whatever - I'm just defending it

I don't know what you're trying to prove but you seem lost (about this subject and perhaps others) Masclet~enwiki (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And please, could you stop going on about the same thing and open your mind a bit. The article name is Valencian Community, not Valencian Country. (The same occurs with Castellon, Valencia and Alicante (instead of Castelló, València and Alacant)). Users agreed to use it in the lede in the same way as we do with other places in Spain. So leave it Masclet~enwiki (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not lost, but I actually felt alone discussing with you and with your "you are insulting us" yadda yadda yadda. What's so difficult to understand about how an entry 1st should structure the toponymical wording per english usage, 2nd should inform about the nature of the several toponyms, and cannot make "weasel" claims of "officiality" not in the (primary) sources. :(.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As Masclet said before he vanished the article doesn't suggest "Valencian Country" is the main name of this territory, but an alternative name. Its usage is very common all throughout Valencia, it's used by many institutions and political parties (read previous talk). Furthermore, the English name of the article is a calque of the official denomination "Comunitat Valenciana", just like the alternative name (Valencian Country) is a calque of País Valencià, do you propose to use the names in Valencian only, or you want to add a better note to clarify the usage of Valencian Country? The note could include a number of institutions with the denomination Valencian Country (País Valencià) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 02:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest to add the video (País Valencià, t'estime!) issued by Compromís (one of the parties in the Valencian government) to improve the explanation about the names controversy. It is very important for us to explain the official name Valencian Community is a neologism created in Madrid and not in Valencia. Masclet~enwiki (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Since when partisan primary sources not in English (youtube videos of political parties) are admisible in the lead of the article about a region in order to force english toponymical uses in the English Wikipedia?--Asqueladd (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oral sources can also be used Masclet~enwiki (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oral partisan primary sources as in "youtube political propaganda published by the youth wing? of a political party".--Asqueladd (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC) PS: What is the purpose of the section above (Blaverism = Alcoholism) about, by the way?--Asqueladd (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a video from one of the parties in our government so it's official (not propaganda). And I don't know the purpose of that section, as I didn't write it, however I do agree with its content Masclet~enwiki (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep using that word. Official. I do not think it means what you think it means.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I would tell JaumeR that is bad use of the talk page and that I've retired his libelous nonsense, but since you and him seem to easily reach consensus together, go tell him yourself.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You tell him yourself, i Don't think he's done a bad usage of the talk page. This article should speak more about corruption and bad practices (promoted by the previous "blaverist" governments) Masclet~enwiki (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you know why the Valencian Country is in debt and why Spain asked for a bailout to the EU? Do you know about all the corruption cases in Valencia? Do you know the saying la corrupción en València es como la paella, en ningún sitio la hacen mejor Masclet~enwiki (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. There, there. Now read:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

--Asqueladd (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

We could ignore the video for now (as you can see I deleted it before), however we can speak about facts like corruption and the creation of the neologism Valencian Community in Madrid (which wasn't created in a democrative way) Masclet~enwiki (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The articles of all the autonomous communities of Spain use the same type of map where it distinguishes itself to the region in red, the sea appears in blue and the rest of the country in yellow. Some independentists or nationalistic users insist on adding maps in the articles of Catalonia, Basque Country and Valencian Community as if these regions were countries of the European Union, to scale of the whole continent, of gray and green color, and there do not appear all the autonomous communities (as Canaries). It is absolutely intolerable and inadmissible. These regions must use the same type of map. Satesclop 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't be so harsh. It's true they are detrimental to inner coherence and are mildly POVish, but can't you appreciate the fact they are "feel-good" maps for some inhabitants from some of the autonomous communities? By the way, I think the standard color-scheme set for subnational entities is this one: Commons:Category:SVG locator maps of autonomous communities in Spain (location map scheme), not the spanish wikipedia one you inserted.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is evident that these users are independence and abuse Wikipedia's policies to do politics.Satesclop 02:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

They are not maps to make anybody feel good; they are maps that show the political status of these entities, as well as their location in Iberia and Europe — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@JaumeR:, please read WP:POV, which, quite ironically, you've been adressing on Help:IPA for Spanish. If we're using a particular way of displaying countries and parts of them (autonomous communities of Spain are, legally speaking, parts of Spain), we really should not confuse them. Whatever the size/colour consensus is, we should follow it and block users that edit war here instead of challenging the consensus in the appropriate place (whatever that is). Also, editing unlogged (though I'm not sure whether you did that on purpose) just to revert edits in an edit war is against rules. Just my two cents. Peter238 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Having checked all of the articles about Administrative divisions of Spain on English WP (see Template:Administrative divisions of Spain), it is clear that you are the POV pusher, as all of those articles (besides the articles about Catalonia [you're also edit warring and POV-pushing there] and the Valencian Community) use a different map style. I'm reverting here and on Catalonia, please challenge the consensus in the appropriate place instead of re-inserting the POV map, or you will be reported to administrators. Peter238 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And, my point is even more relevant given the fact that the articles about Spanish provinces (e.g. Province of Barcelona) use the same map style. Peter238 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

you Peter238 seem pretty biased on everything, besides that I still think you ain't got a clue about many things about Spain and Spanish. I also think you're variable and unpredictable like the wind or even a storm (as the other day you restored my map but today you're removing it)... btw have you seen the map of regions like Flanders and Wallonia? Have you checked the consensus on Basque Country and Catalonia (which are not provinces, but autonomous communities with a special status) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 11:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And also, why is the green map not neutral, and why Wallonia, Flanders, the Basque Country or Scotland can use it? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 11:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've also proposed to create similar types of maps for the rest of Spanish autonomous communities. One of the reasons to use it could be because most Spanish political parties support further integration with the EU.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaumeR (talk • contribs)

Ahhhh, before they were "different", now they are all the same to suit your agenda. Interesting... I like nonetheless your efforts towards formulating a consistent solution but I am puzzled by the "most Spanish political parties support further integration with the EU so..." I don't know about Flanders or Wallonia but dealing with the Basque Country I think it was about the purpose of distinguishing better the borders of the territory (zoom in, not zoom out), it's not I particularly like it and I think the "visibility" issues are still somewhat of a moot point (and I think there are better solutions such as the additional zoom caption featured in the infobox maps for the small US states (i.e Vermont). I find funny you refer the change of a map in terms of "us" (hehehe)--Asqueladd (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

They are different in many aspects which is fine by me (I support the Basque/Navarran economic agreement as well as the creation of a new agreement for my land, the Valencian Country); however that doesn't mean we should have all different maps as we're all in Spain.. (You can also read what I said in the Basque Country – Talk:Basque Country (autonomous community)#Infobox). And yeah I speak about us because I represent many Valencians (especially my family and friends) who are frustrated by the past policies and especially censorship — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a European federalist for my own reasons and atm I'm very Eurosceptic; however that's not the reality of most Spanish political parties who advocate for further integration with the EU, that's why I think the appearance of Europe in the main subdivisions is important and I think if Belgium (a multilingual country like Spain, and one of the hearts or main centres of EU) uses this type of map (for her regions or linguistic communities), why not us? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Answering your inquiries here and in Talk:Basque Country (autonomous community). I don't mean anything about the interpretation of colours. In a not exhaustive wiki examination, I would say the following template is the standard (as in "customary") template in terms of features and colours for subdivisions of sovereign countries in en:wikipedia (with only some of them deviating from the norm in the tones of red), as in:

• Italy (see: Sicily)
• United States of America (see Vermont)
• Czech Republic (see: Central Bohemian Region)
• China (see: Tibet Autonomous Region)
• Chile (see: Coquimbo Region)
• Brazil (see: Rio Grande do Sul)
• Canada (see: Quebec)
• Bolivia (see: Santa Cruz Department)
• Russia (see: Chechnya)
• Australia (see: South Australia)
• South Africa (see: Limpopo)
• Romania (see: Harghita County)
• Venezuela (see: Zulia)
• Turkey (see: Van Province)
• Nigeria (see Kano State, (*slightly different red )
• Algeria (see Adrar Province (*slightly different red)
• France (see: Brittany) (*slightly different red)

Up to my knowledge the Spanish autonomous communities fit the pattern above. By the way, you already have that basic scheme for the 17 spanish autonomous communities here: Commons:Category:SVG locator maps of autonomous communities in Spain (location map scheme). I also see there are exceptions that deviate further from the norm in terms of colors and features (but they are not consistent in relation to each other), which are also country-centered. I do not see why the Valencian Community should follow that criteria going "Satesclop" or "JaumeR". For example:

• México (see: Querétaro) (black instead of bourdeaux, I don't know why, Spanish wikipedia uses the standard one here: see es:Querétaro)
• Spain (see: Castile and León (using the es:wiki model light yellow instead of light grey and also featuring ugly shading in the coasts)
• Argentina (see Tucumán province (naming regions, green provinces)
• Poland (see: Lower Silesian Voivodeship) (uses a physical map)
• Germany (see: Lower Saxony, I don't know why, German wikipedia uses the standard one here: see de:Niedersachsen)

And last, I've only seen the "internationalization style" in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Vojvodina and warzones. .--Asqueladd (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your research Asqueladd and I'm ok with your proposal (for now). I'm going to restore the bourdeaux map and I'll keep the green in my account for when there's a war or something. We should also create a convention in order to avoid future conflicts. And I think we could use more colours like a new colour for sovereignty/autonomy and another for proper unitarian states, but perhaps it's better not to do this as this would create more divisions. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does México use black (I don't oppose to use this colour as I like it, but I'd like to know if there is a particular reason for this, if there is not and we fail to get a convention, I think I will restore el mapa verd (when I get more support) and I might create few more because spontaneous and random things are more fun than conventions, especially with a sense of fair play and equity) : ) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 02:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. @JaumeR:

• "you Peter238 seem pretty biased on everything" - just as you failed to provide actual evidence for that the last time (on Administrators' Noticeboard), so are you failing now.
• "besides that I still think you ain't got a clue about many things about Spain and Spanish" - like that's relevant. You may want to read WP:NPA.
• " I also think you're variable and unpredictable like the wind or even a storm (as the other day you restored my map but today you're removing it)" - that's blatant dishonesty. Not only was that revert not about that map (it was reverting vandalism/POV-pushing), it also didn't change it (it was the same as it was before). Peter238 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: good research, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well you seemed pushy (for tracking me/keep following my steps) and biased (because you equalised Castilian Spanish and (Standard) Peninsular/European Spanish; and that's not what our references say...) Besides that you and other users say negative excuses to everything and try to correct professional speakers like me (e.g. when you deleted some of my transcriptions) but then you fail to give a proper explanation and be consistent (logical) about the analysis of the Iberian languages, which is (still) very poor.. The last statement I didn't see you restored Valencian Country, so I apologise for that and well, IMO if you want to be sympathetic to everybody in Spain you should all try to adopt a more neutral position and take into consideration the terminology you use : ) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 19:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to be "symphatetic to everybody in Spain", being civil and consistent is enough for me. Apology accepted, I'll take the rest to your talk page (since you're clearly asking for it), because this is not the appropriate place to respond to your post. Peter238 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC) and

Up to you, but you're not always civil (and honest). And it was you who started talking about IPA, I just let myself carried away — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 07:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

When and where was I dishonest? Peter238 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I just told you on my talkpage which you been bullying in the past months because you're obsessed like most authoritarian guys — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And I've just debunked it. Peter238 (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: You've already been advised (search for "The Bushranger") not to cry wolf by calling someone who disagrees with you/debunks what you say a "bully" (especially if it's such a blatant lie, like in this case). I suggest you apply that advice. Peter238 (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My conception of certain things might be different because of Spain... And I also have my faults (so I apologise if I used the wrong words in English, as you now it's not my first language). As you should know, we are dominated by the vices that one learns under the rule of a nation like Spain, which has only distinguished itself in ferocity, ambition, vindictiveness, and greed... It is harder to release a nation from servitude than to enslave a free nation. This truth is proven by the annals of all times, which reveal that most free nations have been put under the yoke, but very few enslaved nations have recovered their liberty... As I can see you defend those values... Not me... — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 11:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Votes

As it's been done with the Basque Country, and since Peter238 supported a different map there than the standard map used for the Spanish "autonomies" he proposed here the other day I change what I said in the section above and now I propose to vote for a map for the Valencian Country — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Green map (with zoom, Europe and the world)

This map will be based on the previous map of the location of the Valencian Country within Europe and Iberia, and will be similar to the one used in England and Wallonia

The reason is the same one I said in other threads. Major Spanish parties (like PSOE) advocate for the creation of a federal Europe – DEMOCRATIZACIÓN DE LAS INSTITUCIONES EN UNA EUROPA FEDERAL – and Spain. Additionally, IMO if the Spanish constitution recognises several national realities within a Federal Spain, it's legitimate and valid to internationalise the map of our territory like it's done in other European countries.

Support. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. Lliure albir (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Bourdeaux map (with zoom, Iberia)

Proposal to zoom the current bourdeaux map to highlight the Racó d'Ademús exclave. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll think about it.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) (not decided yet)

Support - a valid reason for a zoomed-in map. Peter238 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Red map (without zoom, Iberia) – Satesclop's map

Support. I think that this voting is ridiculous. All the regions of Spain should have the same loc map, as the regions of France, states of Germany or states of USA. It is absurd that a Spanish region has a map as if it was an European nation. Only it rests to this map nationalistic users. — Satesclop 02:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 04:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Support.--Dani jaem (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a word of warning, this vote might not be valid because Satesclop is breaking WP:CANVAS. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If he's not taking this seriously and is trying to manipulate the results I think his vote (and his friends') should be cancelled, not the whole voting. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 20:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the suspicious votes should be ignored, but not the whole voting. Peter238 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no manipulation. I do not know the rest of users. I observed that the independence users were organizing to vote in favour of incorrect and absurd maps, and I informed about this voting some users of Spain, without knowing about anything his ideology or feeling. Because the pretensions of the independence users cannot be fulfilled. Satesclop 03:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is manipulation because you told those users to vote for your option and that's not the right thing to do. Also would you like to discuss things rationally using the modern Spanish legal terms and not old fashioned terms prior to the Spanish Transition and the modern Spanish constitution. I'll remind here you started to call us regions knowing that the constitution recognises nationalities and regions, which IMO are two different things (i.e. in our jurisprudence) due to the usage of the conjunction "and"... — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 19:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

IMO there are bastantes pesados de mucho cuidado, therefore I suggest to protect this article for few months or permanently — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You are the dangerous vandal one. Please, do not insult. You should be blocked forever. Satesclop 02:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't insulted anybody, could you indicate me where i insulted you — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

It seems to me the anon keeps attacking us — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 05:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Himne de l'Exposició.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The inverse orographic lift effect is mentioned in the third bullet in the "Climate" section. What is this and what is the source? This effect is not mentioned in orographic lift. SarahNW (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just posted a new discussion in Talk:Valencia#General confusion in WP between the Valencian Community and the city of Valencia which is connected to this page. Jotamar (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I request to re-add the infobox footnote with the alternative name of the modern terminology for the Valencian Community, Valencian Country (País Valencià). Thank you. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 07:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Nuvolet. I am the user who made this edit, among others: . I registered just yesterday. I share your opinion that that information should be re-added to the article, specially considering that I don't believe that its removal was made in a rightful manner. Here is the story of how it got removed:

Act 1: on January 19th, a non-registered user started making controversial changes in this page (), as well as in the pages Valencian language (, ), Torrevieja () and Orihuela (). This user was reverted by many users, including yourself (), SugarTax (), Qoan (), Black Kite () and myself as a non-registered user (, ) until he ended up blocked for edit warring, nationalist editing and personal attacks against another user ().

Act 2: from what I guess was another device, this user kept trying to impose his changes, only to be reverted once and again by users like yourself (), Qoan (, ) and myself as a non-registered user (, , ). Finally, on January 22nd at 19:52 the article Valencian language got protected because of the edit war (), thereby preventing this user from editing again from a non-registered account.

Act 3: As soon as the aforementioned article got protected, an old account that was inactive since 2018, Vitoria85 (), suddenly re-appeared at 23:49 on January 22nd, and the first thing he did was to restore all the changes that the non-registered user preferred (, , ). He also kindly encouraged all the other users to "consensuate" those changes in case we did not agree.

Whatever happened in act 3 is rather obvious and I won't devote any more space to explaining it. But it is also clear that the stable version of the article is this one in which the changes of the blocked user had not taken place: .

I won't revert back to the stable version immediately, for I prefer to wait to hear whatever you all have to say. But bear in mind that the current version is not the stable one - quite the contrary, for it matches the version preferred by the blocked user who started the edit war. Glottonymia (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you, it should be changed to the previous stable version. We also should reach a consensus on whether to add or not the Valencian names in towns where it is not widely spoken (but it's official) like in Orihuela and Torrevieja. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 07:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

A reasonable amount of time has passed and nobody said anything else on the matter. I'll restore the stable content. Glottonymia (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"A reasonable amount of time" consensus usually takes months and you revert within a few days. No, that's not how things work. You should read WP:GUIDELINES first. Please notice that the sources you've put back had the better source needed tag since October 2025 and no one cared about that. Now that's a reasonable amount of time (3 months) to undo / revert them.

What you are doing is reinstating incorrect data that makes WP:SYNTH (please, read what Synth is before doing further edits) and comes from unofficial and biased sources which were added to this page by a vandal IP.

There was no stable version as the page has had several errors and mistakes just as the presence of WP:SYNTH. Vitoria85 (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The stable version is the one including the footnote. It is you that should reach a consensus, for recall that the only one advocating for your preferred version is the temporary user that got blocked for vandalism.

I am the same IP that added the references that you are calling "biased". I grant that these sources are primary (that is the reason why the tag was added), but they are anything but biased: they are webpages of public Valencian universities, including the statutes of the University of Valencia. Did you look at the sources? I am asking because you just did exactly the same: you added a primary sources (EUPV's website) in order to justify your preferred version. You should therefore stop calling me a "vandal", for none of my edits fit the Wikipedia definition of vandalism.

Please, don't revert again without a consensus. Glottonymia (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I have seen your entire IP range changes and your changes were often disruptive, many of the IPs you have used were recalled for being disruptive, 2 days later you did the same changes with a different IP with mobile edits (that's what happens when you are on mobile data) so please, don't force me to open an ANI against you and a WP:Sockpuppet investigation against you because I will do both if necessary, basically because you have admitted to be these IPs (which was clear) but looking at these IP ranges, they got reverted and warned by several users and then they came days later to re-undo the same edits. That's disruptive long term edit war.

As I was saying, soon after you added the "sources" in this wiki article, there was a better source needed tag for each of them since October 2025 and you didn't care about it. Your sources make WP:SYNTH (it's the 3rd time I'm telling you, I don't want to do it for a 4th time) I will also leave a friendly reminder on your talk page.

A consensus is not made by what you say and you edit later in a few days (just exactly when your account got 7 days and 10 edits = the required edits and time you got autoconfirmed to be able to edit this page) even so when it's a mess up with WP:SYNTH that makes no sense.

If you want to reach a consensus propose HERE your views, present the sources, and wait for several users to intervene. That's how WP:CONSENSUS is reached. Vitoria85 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting amounts to pretending to be two different people. Imagine,for instance, that a blocked user suddenly retrieved an inactive account and restored the changes preferred by the blocked user so as to avoid the block. That is a sockpuppet.

I never got reverted by anyone but you. That is not being disruptive.

You are the only one advocating for the changes of a blocked user. Therefore you are the one that needs consensus. Glottonymia (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It can also be used for the same user using several IPs to edit the same pages engaging in long term edit wars, I didn't say you pretend to be 2 users, but that's harder to lose track. Especially since Wikipedia's IP ranges to broad public is a recent add.

Now ignoring that (it's not any point here) just a few hours after you added your own version of the page, Jotamar already put the better sources needed tag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&diff=prev&oldid=1316147897

They do make WP:SYNTH (using different sources to reach a common point) and being from the University of Valencia doesn't make them perfect and even more these sources as they are opinions, not official posts by the University itself.

Look at the page's edit history over the past 5 years... no one included "Valencian Country" in the infobox or related.

I am being quite neutral and I have said already that it's mentioned in the lead and I didn't touch it. It's just that it makes no sense in the Infobox or as a footnote.

Also, the better sources needed tag was put in October 2025 regarding your sources, +3 months have passed, so it's proper, according to Wikipedia's Rules, to delete something that needs better sources and no one has improved them for over 3 months.

Moreso when they were inserted randomly making Synth. I hope you understand now. Vitoria85 (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with this, because as I can see in this talk page, you already proposed this in 2015 and it was denied. And it is already mentioned in the first article of this wikipage. Valencian_Community#Naming_controversy (which should and be checked soon with a RfC as there is no naming controversy since the 1980s, by the way.).

There is literally NO reason to put an unofficial name and even more a poorly translated one in a infobox, there is no official English translation of that unofficial name. We all know it's a political term and who uses it nowadays. It's mentioned in the historical section (where it belongs) but more than that?

I think it was very well explained to you 10-11 years ago. If you really want, as here we are only 3 users, you can go and propose your changes to RfC if you want to, but don't throw the name in after 10 years just as you did the last time when you put that name without any consensus, please. Thanks. Vitoria85 (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I've just noticed it also appears in the lead of the page. I won't delete that. There is no need to shoehorn it into the infobox as per the reasons mentioned above. It can be used historically given it was mentioned in the preamble (the preamble is what it came before the official estatut) so it can stay in the lead. --Vitoria85 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, it's a footnote in the infobox it's not at the top. We also don't need too much dramatization to add a legal name used in the Statute of Autonomy of the Valencian Community. It seems you don't understand what's a preamble, I'll explain it, it is an introductory, explanatory statement at the beginning of a document—such as a constitution, statute, or contract—that outlines its purpose, intent, and underlying philosophy. It acts as a preface, setting the stage for the main text, and can be used to interpret the reasons behind legal, political, or formal agreements, that's why its name fits perfectly as a footnote. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 13:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You had this exact same conversation 10-11 years ago and it was already told to you why that doesn't fit in the English Wikipedia.

• talk#Valencian Country / Valencian Community (2015 discussion)

It is mentioned in the preamble but it never became an official name. The Estatut d'Autonomia de la Comunitat Valenciana tells exactly the only official name is Comunitat Valenciana and nowadays only a few Valencian left wing parties and even fewer media uses it. It's not used in any official media (RTVE or À Punt and even in wide used media, there is no use in big newspapers or TV/radios except for TV3 (Catalonia) channel from the autonomous community of Catalonia.

"Valencian Country" is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the page and in the first article. Why is there any need to shoehorn it into the infobox as well? Either inside or as a foot note. Vitoria85 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not the main official name, that's why Valencian Community remains at the top. However, since it is included in the Preamble of the Statute of Autonomy it is worth mentioning and adding it as a footnote.

Tot i que la denominació oficial segons l'Estatut d'Autonomia de 1982 és Comunitat Valenciana, el terme País Valencià té una llarga tradició històrica i política, i és utilitzat per diverses institucions, organitzacions i entitats, principalment d'àmbit cultural, sindical i polític, així com reconegut en el preàmbul de l'Estatut.

Institucions i organitzacions que utilitzen o han utilitzat el nom "País Valencià" (Valencian Country):

• Preàmbul de l'Estatut d'Autonomia: El text legal recull "País Valencià" al preàmbul, on esmenta la tradició valenciana i la modernitat del terme.
• Consell del País Valencià: Fou l'òrgan preautonòmic que va governar el territori entre 1978 i 1982, abans de la constitució de la Generalitat.
• Acció Cultural del País Valencià (ACPV): Una de les entitats culturals més destacades, dedicada a la promoció de la llengua i cultura al territori, que manté el nom.
• Escola Valenciana - Federació d'Associacions per la Llengua: Entitat que treballa per la normalització del valencià, utilitzant sovint el terme en el seu context.
• Sindicats i organitzacions polítiques (àmbit esquerrà/nacionalista):
  • STEPV (Sindicat de Treballadors i Treballadores de l'Ensenyament del País Valencià): Utilitza explícitament el nom.
  • Intersindical Valenciana: Organització sindical majoritària en diversos sectors.
  • Partits polítics: Compromís, Esquerra Unida del País Valencià (EUPV) i altres formacions solen emprar-lo en la seua acció política.
  • Associacions cíviques i culturals: Diverses plataformes cíviques i associacions per a la normalització utilitzen el terme per a referir-se a l'àmbit geogràfic i cultural.
• Mitjans de comunicació i revistes: Diversos mitjans de comunicació i revistes especialitzades de caire cultural o polític empren el nom. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 02:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Nuvolet,

I don't see much of a point in continuing to add further reasons for somebody who won't even bother reading. Just take a look at what he said above: first he said the sources were biased, then I showed him they were from Valencian public universities, and he said they were mere opinions and not official statements by the universities. The latter claim is quite ridiculous considering that one of these references is the very statutes regulating the functioning of the University of Valencia (what can be more official than that!) and the other two are names of subjects, which need consensual approval from the teaching staff and from the Council of Universities.

I do agree that these sources are primary and therefore need improvement. But that does not mean that the current text should be replaced with whatever first pops into the mind of a random editor. He keeps complaining about our preferred version () because of the primary nature of the sources (the statutes of the University of Valencia, the subjects, the paper using the term, the PSPV website, etc.), and then he keeps replacing that text for a version with no references... except for (yes, you guessed right!) a primary source, namely the ERPV website (reference number 9 here: ). If the previous text was in need of improvement, imagine his.

Here is what I believe we should do. Clearly, the stable version is the one that was here before the edit war. Vitoria85 is the only one arguing for the version that the blocked editor was trying to force upon us. We should therefore just restore the stable version and let him argue here for his desired changes. I am open to modifying the explanatory text in case we fail to produce a better source - but, again, replacing it for a text that is even more poorly referenced is not a solution. I'll wait for whatever you have to say. Glottonymia (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

What "stable version"? The one you put with one of your anonymous accounts in 8th January 2026 which was immediately reverted ?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&diff=prev&oldid=1331821186

Or the one that Nuvolet shoehorned on 21st January 2026 without any consensus which started the edit war?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&diff=prev&oldid=1334050757

This is the stable version, the one that was here for YEARS:

27 December, 2025

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=1329737251

Wanna ask any Wikipedia Admin to have an opinion about which one is the stable one?

"I'll wait for whatever you have to say" well, if you put badly sourced, non-neutral, non-consensuated text which is part of an edit war, it will get reverted and also reported. As simple as that. It's how WP:GUIDELINES work. I'm offering you chances to post your POV. "País Valencià" is already mentioned in the lead and I didn't delete it. It's also in the first paragraph and I didn't delete it. But shoehorning it into the infobox when it was never there until a couple of weeks ago and taking into account that exactly Nuvolet had this exact same conversation 11 years ago?? Be realistic. Vitoria85 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi.

The first version you linked was not mine. It was some other non-registered user, and I do agree that both names (unfortunately, in my opinion, but that's a completely different issue) cannot be treated on a par in a encyclopedia.

I am glad, however, that you said that this was the stable version. When it comes to the text in the Naming Controversy section, there are three versions:

Version 1: the version with "the variant Valencian Country [...] is still the preferred one by left-wing parties, civil associations, Catalan written language and major academic institutions like the University of Valencia [...] blaverists have accepted the current denomination" was in force since at least April 2015 (), and it remained there unaltered until June 2015 (); all that was removed was the reference to the University of Valencia, which at some point was changed to "major public institutions" (in two steps: and ). Over ten years, then. A true example of resilience.

Version 2: this is the version you are advocating for. The "no relevant conflict" and "the vast majority of Valencians" bit was introduced on June 2025 by a "mysterious" IP () and it remained there until I modified it on October 10th (). Almost three months.

Version 3: even though I am inclined to treat it as just a variant of version 1, I'm fine with listing it list it separately. It corresponds to the above link which you called "stable", and it was in force since October 10th to January 22nd () A little over three months.

Numbers are cold, but they don't lie. Version 3 was in force for longer than version 2, and it was also more recent; it was not properly referenced, but version 2 is even worse in that respect, for it has no references whatsoever (except for the El Periódico reference which you just linked, which can be easily added to the other two versions, for all it says is that left-wing parties keep using that name). I am sorry, but version 2 is not the stable version. If anything, version 1 was.

It is now your turn to convince the editors that version 2 is somehow better than 3 or 1. Glottonymia (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

That's why exactly is staying in the lead and in the first paragraph (naming controversy) you have just proved out that minor left-wing sindicates and minority left-wing parties use it, just for that, it can stay in the lead and in the first paragraph (there is no "naming controversy since 1982 whatsoever, even PSPV is always saying Comunitat Valenciana) but it has literally 0 reasons to be in the Infobox or as a footnote.

You did exactly the same thing 11 years ago and you didn't reach any point with much more veteran users. Why are you trying to do it again? It's obvious you put that on 21st January 2026 without any consensus and it broke the old stable version of the page (excluding Glottonymia's edit with an IP on 8th January 2026) so once again, it's mentioned in the lead and in other major places, I didn't delete it (and who did as anonymous got reverted) but why trying to put it in the Infobox when it's not an official term anymore?

Exactly, you say it, it was official until 1982. It has another official name since 1982 and it's what most of the media, syndicates, parties, newspapers, websites etc... use. That name might be somewhat common in Catalonia, that's why is there in the Catalan Wikipedia. This is the English one. It makes no sense. You had this exact convo 11 years ago... Vitoria85 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't really understand your problem with the "footnote" in the infobox, Vitoria85. As I said it is not at the top (like Valencian Community), it's at the very bottom like Euskal Herria in the Basque Country (autonomous community). You already know there are important entities that use the name, Valencian Country (País Valencià), including the Statute of Autonomy, so you should stop arguing like we want to replace Valencian Community by Valencian Country, while we clearly don't, we believe it should be a simple footnote. Thanks. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 07:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Glottonymia, we should go back to the stable version and discuss further changes here. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 07:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thing is that... the actual version is the stable version. Check it by yourself in the edit history.

This is the last edit of the stable version, the one that was here for YEARS:

27 December, 2025

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=1329737251

The one put by a anonymous account (Glottonymia without any registered account, as he recognised it) in 8th January 2026 which was later reverted is NOT a stable version:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&diff=prev&oldid=1331821186

The one that you, Nuvolet, shoehorned on 21st January 2026 without any consensus which started the edit war is neither any stable version:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&diff=prev&oldid=1334050757

This IS the stable version, as mentioned earlier... the one that was here for YEARS:

27 December, 2025

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=1329737251

Wanna ask any Wikipedia Admin to have an opinion about which one is the stable one?

• And I'm taking this 27 December one as an example, I can literally put 100 more examples. You 2 guys want to add an edit that caused reversals and edit wars, that is not stable by any means.

You don't have to believe me, just look at random edits in the history of the page excluding anonymous accounts/IPs.

The rest of the versions are either without a consensus or directly by edit wars (just like the one you want to put it and call "stable") which would continue the edit warring and thus considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Vitoria85 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I have also changed the EUPV primary source as you have required to a specifical source, from the progressist Catalan newspaper El Periódico (Barcelona)

https://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20161008/origen-nombre-pais-valencia-comunitat-valenciana-5453688

"Solo parte de la izquierda siguió haciendo bandera de la fórmula País Valencià." Vitoria85 (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Glottonymia (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Glottonymia: You can't just simply put "agreed and done" and then insert again your own POV edit when there is an ongoing conversation and only one user is pushing your POV (there is no consensus) that's not a consensus, therefore your edits have and will be reverted and a notice will be issued on your talk page.

Next time an admin will take notice about the ongoing discussion, since you definetly don't know what WP:CONSENSUS is or what WP:STABLE is either. Or you probably know, but you want to play with us, which won't work here on the Wikipedia. Moreso when you edited this page the exact same moment your account become autoconfirmed and this page was protected only to autoconfirmed users.

You are also very close to touching Wikipedia:Single-purpose account so this is my last friendly reminder / warning about how things are done as by WP:GUIDELINES before taking any serious actions. Vitoria85 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, @Glottonymia: please explain how "Valencian Country" is used in "major institutions" and only accepted by "blaverists"? The source clearly says it's barely used nowadays and it's mostly by a minority of left-wing parties, just as @Nuvolet: stated above. Also, there are only a few smaller institutions that use it, Nuvolet listed them, which is what says there.

Also, why do you need to depreciate Valencian as a simple variety of catalan when the own page of the language says it's a Romance language also known as catalan in other areas and linguistically the language is called catalan/valencian? It's obvious they are not separate languages but both can be varieties of both (and the official name of the co-oficial language is Valencian according to the Estatut Valencià d'Autonomia) and the sources back this up as well.

I would also like to know why are you keep deleting the phrase regarding that there is no conflict regarding the name nowadays, where is the conflict? Put a reliable source showing a massive amount of people / social movement that wants to change the name Valencian Community. Where is that?

We can find 100.000 sources about lots of people wanting the independence of Catalonia, but about changing the official name of the Valencian Autonomous Community? That's why your edit makes no sense, it's false, and it's poorly sourced just as recalled by other user in October 2025 with the better source needed / non neutral sources and some things like this are completely unsourced (as you keep deleting the phrase that says nowadays there is NO major controversy about the naming). Where is the source that gives you the right to delete that?

Nuvolet supports to put again the name in the footnote of the Infobox. Not to put all of these changes, as many of them are wrong and unsourced. Vitoria85 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think putting "Valencian Country" in the footnote of the infobox is fair and not excessive, it's better than putting it at the top like the anon contributor did as it would suggest is equalised to Valencian Community, and we know it is not, that's why I moved it.

Well, we can try to translate the institutions that use and used Valencian Country and mention them, it's also important to mention the Council of the Valencian Country and the modernity of its usage, as the preamble suggests. Thanks. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)