Talk:Catalonia

See also: Talk:Catalonia/Archive

Regions

I am very confused. We have four regions listed and then four provinces, all with the direct parent of Catalonia. Are they all in fact sub-regions? And one of the regions is the Pyrenees which is is not an article at all but a page of Wikilinks. Can anyone clarify?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:44, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

Yes we need to change the regions, as the current structure doesn't work. I'd say the regions should not be the provinces, as they at least need to incorporate the Costa Brava and Costa Daurada. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:52, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

This is a mess and a complete misunderstanding of a whole lot of things. If memory serves, people are stating that Regions need to be defined by touristic regions as opposed to administrative ones. That's fine, but having Girona Province forward to Costa Brava is just flat-out wrong as well as listing Girona the town as the capital of this "region". Costa Brava is in the Girona Province, not the other way around. I can understand not wanting to granulate everything down to counties as Regions and attractions can span several, but you simply can't do this or your geography is going to end up in a state like the Barcelona page. There are only four provinces in Catalonia. Seriously, it can't be that big of a deal to break down Regions in to these? This decision to follow what traditional guidebooks do is really a dead-end as they do it due to a limitation of space. We aren't encumbered by this problem here and can properly organize things to flesh out piles and piles of content that simply isn't possible in a book. I have no idea who eco84 is, but it appears he doesn't live in Catalunya and shouldn't be making these calls. I'm tempted to undo every single one of his changes as they're factually inaccurate. Lastly, what the is that map on this page? The "spheres of Catalunya"? --(WT-en) primecoordinator 14:53, 20 August 2010 (PST)

That map shows the tourist regions of Catalonia and I think they are pretty good. You're right that the Costa Brava region is a bit too large, so adapt it as you find necessary. I think using the Provinces is a bad idea as many travellers have no idea what they mean. Even me as a Dutchy knows the Costa Brava, but I wouldn't have a clue about Girona Province. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:56, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Does anyone on this site realize that there are tourists from Spain who do actually know these things? While you and the rest of the Netherlands may know "Costa Brava" as a term, American and Canadian tourists don't. And that map is pointless. Costa Brava is a tiny, tiny chunk of the seven counties included in it. What of the rest of that? That's why you need to break it down by provinces first. This is like if you went from the United to San Francisco Bay Area and skipped the step of including California as a container between the two. I'm not saying that Regions are invalid, but they serve no purpose and are geographically retarded if not enclosed in something smaller than an entire autonomous province. --(WT-en) primecoordinator 19:01, 20 August 2010 (PST)

I think the map is definitely not retarded, just the name "Costa Brava" is wrong for the area described. We better call that area Girona Region or something like that. For the rest, it's a fine map that follows the 1995 Regional Plan of Catalonia or the so-called "vegerias" [1]. They are culturally significant, much more than the political provinces, which are just lines without any cultural, historical or geographical ties. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:18, 23 August 2010 (EDT)

I am a native Catalan but I don't understand the map. We have 4 regions called "províncies" (Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, Tarragona). In 2006 the Catalan Government stated, in the new Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, to restore the so called "vegueries" as the official division, but this has not been applied. They are seven and it is the map you have in here. But those regions don't coincide with the touristic areas. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 88.19.203.122 (talk • contribs)

So as a native Catalan, which regions would you propose? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:35, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

I have now added the provinces as regions, and created a map. I hope that is okay. Barcelona (province) and Girona (province) already have more than 9 cities, so those provinces will need further divisions. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:07, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Part of the problem is that "región" (region) described a different geographical concept under Franco, and this confuses people sometimes. When I talk to people, I use the word "zona" (zone) when in English "region" would be appropriate, which seems to get the message across. --Ejcaputo (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Travel warning?

With the violence over the independence referendum, should we have a travel warning for Catalonia? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why would this really effect visitors? This is very specific protest, unless you go out of your way to look for it you are not going to get in to trouble. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say let's wait a little and see how things develop. Perhaps there should have been a warning prior to the referendum, but now, I think we should see what happens for a little while. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Things are still very much in flux. Cooler heads might yet prevail and if I read the statements by the Catalan head of government right, he's not adding more oil to the fire, but much depends on whether any sort of negotiations take place or the whole thing is "resolved" through power and ultimately force. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would wait until there's a declaration of independence or suspension of autonomous government that leads to major shutdowns of the Barcelona airport or the train system. --Dialh (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick answer - no Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Protests in the streets after several separatist politicians have been taken prisoner by the Spanish authorities, according to international news sources. Situation appears to be highly unstable, so added warning box at the top of the page. Perhaps someone living in Barcelona could comment on the situation? ArticCynda (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm from Barcelona and I think the box on top was a little bit too much. There have been no violence neither unrest other than some demonstrations. I removed the box and added a new paragraph inside 'Stay safe' section. --Aljullu (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing some local insights in the situation, Aljullu, I think the mention in the 'Stay safe' section is adequate since the matter seems to be settling down rather than escalating. ArticCynda (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Cities

There were ten cities in the list, so I removed Mataró, because the article has no banner and is an outline. To be fair, Reus and Lloret de Mar are also outlines, but both are more well-known travel destinations. If anyone has different reasoning, feel free to share it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I think we should have a disclaimer box that we do not take sides on the issue of Catalan independence. This is in line with our articles, such as for Xinjiang and Tibet, in which we state that there are active independence movements, and we don't take sides in the disputes, even though those areas are recognised as part of China under international law. The dog2 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that Catalonia should be treated the same way as Xinjiang; as I understand it the political situation is similar with respect to sovereignty. But I would suggest that rather than adding the box here, it might be better to remove the boxes from Xinjiang and Tibet. Template:Disclaimerbox says it is to be used sparingly, and I think the situations with these three regions (and the Basque Country) are straightforward enough that the box may not be needed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A disclaimer is needed where there is a dispute over control — Taiwan/China, Transnistria/Moldova, Kashmir, Crimea. I do not think that anyone (other than fantasists) disputes that Catalonia and the Basque Country are a part of Spain, only whether they should be. We are not taking sides by stating the current situation. I would agree that the boxes for Tibet and Xinjiang should be removed as I'm sure that their independence movements would agree that China controls these regions (and that, after all, is what they say is the problem to be resolved). Ground Zero (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't you think those are a bit different? Tibet was annexed by China within living memory; Xinjiang is the centre of an ongoing cultural, if not actual, genocide. Although I don't know that I'd agree with the inclusion of a disclaimer box in the latter, since there's no question of Xinjiang extirpating itself from China any time soon. Catalonia has been part of Spain for centuries and the most recent referendum that resulted in a majority for independence was illegal and thus boycotted by much of the anti-independence electorate (therefore, it's not known how a free, legal vote would have gone and how the population breaks down).

Do you want to also add a disclaimer box for other parts of the world, such as Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there are movements to change the constitutional status quo, but no actual dispute over who the current sovereign state is? I think we should only be using these boxes where there is actually a legal grey area, such as in territories that have been annexed by a neighbour (e.g. Crimea), or where a country has declared independence but is only partially-recognised (e.g. Kosovo) or completely unrecognised (e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Thundering. The fact that there is an independence/separatist movement should be noted in "Understand", but no disclaimer is needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Tibet also has a more complicated history. It was annexed by China in the 1720 under the Qing Dynasty, but became de facto independent after the Qing Dynasty fell in 1912, as the new Republic of China government did not have the means to enforce their rule. But the ROC government never accepted their claim to independence, and most of the international community officially recognised it as part of China even though the ROC never had control over it. But anyway, we're not here to get involved in political disputes, so let's stick to the facts on the ground. At the moment, no country officially recognises Tibet and Xinjiang as independent countries (yes, I know most Westerners support their independence movements, but that's a separate issue), every country officially recognises them as part of China, and China also has effective control despite the fact that they have active independence movements, so in that sense, they are analogous to the status of Catalonia and the Basque Country. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent here. If we are to keep the disclaimer boxes for Xinjiang and Tibet, then Catalonia and the Basque Country should also have disclaimer boxes. If we don't think Catalonia and the Basque Country need disclaimer boxes, then Xinjiang and Tibet should not get them. The dog2 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Right on your main point, but your sample of Westerners is very odd if you think most of them have any views on Tibet ("I think I heard it was high up in the mountains and, like, that lama guy came from there?") or have even heard of Xinjiang. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan Kekek on typical Westerners' views of Tibet and Xinjiang.

So far it seems everyone is good with removing the disclaimer boxes from all of these articles. If no one objects, I think that will resolve the issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as the policy is applied consistently, I have no preference either way. The dog2 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of "typical Westerners" (boooo! hiss!), can we try to conclude the VfD nomination on Western world in the next day or two? :-)

Back to this, I'll remove the disclaimer boxes on Tibet and Xinjiang in two shakes of a lamb's tail.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• I regret coming late to this discussion, firstly. As a matter of fact, I visit Barcelona very often and have many friends there, almost all Brazilian expats. I vividly recall hearing from them, last time (Dec 2018), things like "wow man, them Catalonians whine too much, they already have huge practical autonomy, huge state money, La Liga's best team, and still, they keep whining". With all due respect for the meanings of 1711 and 1936 in recorded history, this sounds somewhat very similar to separatist right-wing bullshit about São Paulo (state) and Rio Grande do Sul wanting to secede from Brazil (very common in some E-bubbles for instance), which would obviously have no place in our travel guide. I guess this is worth mentioning at this point. Ibaman (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There are actually political movements that argue that the annexations by the United States of Hawai'i and Texas were illegal, but their independence is not recognized by and other country, and does not, in fact, exist. Ground Zero (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There's also an Alaskan Independence Party, which has gotten significant votes in some elections and even elected a governor in 1990. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)