Talk:Castile-La Mancha

Name of article
According to the Project:Article naming conventions, the most common English name should be used for the title of an article. Castile is used much more commonly in English, so I think that the article should be moved back to Castile-La Mancha -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:36, 18 April 2006 (EDT)


 * Agree. Castile is more familiar to English speakers than Castilla. I note that Castilla La Mancha is also the Spanish article title, so the alternative name is understandable. But when the main regional article that refers to this and other similarly named Spanish localities also uses Castile then I have to wonder why this should be the odd one out. So I am moving it back to Castile-La Mancha. - (WT-en) Huttite 03:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Campillo de Ranas
Campillo de Ranas was added to the Madrid article, and doesn't belong there. It was mentioned in an interesting July 2008 UK newspaper article, "How a gay Spanish mayor brought life back to his village". This is the best home I could find for it in a short search. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:23, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Consensus to make changes
Apparently when editing stubs contributors here should not be bold, but extremely cautious. Apparently I need consensus to remove "Almansa" from the list of "Cities" (I guess the main touristical destinations or populated cities in this region). Does someone disagree with that? Is someone reading this page or actively editing this entry? I need also the opinion of someone else to move the migas image to the "Eat" section. I also need consensus to add a Wikidata ID to "Campillo de Ranas" (town that should be removed too from this entry [there are dozens of historical ensembles in Castile-La Mancha more interesting to the tourist than that little town], but since this entry is so poor I can live with that one being mentioned in "Other destinations" for now). Strakhov (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue I see with the edit is changing the section title. Also do not understand why need to move Almansa to another section. Adding the other locations as red link should be no issue. Suggest making the edits in stages to see where the objections really are.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not care about the section's title. I'm not gonna waste much effort on adding new cities either (that could be my mistake, since after all they are not touristical landmarks, though relatively "big"). I'm just stating Almansa is not that interesting touristical-wise to be next to Toledo and Cuenca, and, to a lesser degree, the other 3 province capitals. It's relatively small and it has a castle (as hundreds of towns in the region), a nice church and a palace. Strakhov (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, the thing is not to take the word City too literally and not in the Europe definition of the word. On Wikivoyage it is used for any location. Bit influenced by US American use of city. Also although this site is primarily a tourist topic it does cover all travel topics so a large town is of interest, maybe as a business destination for example. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with the word "cities" and I understand it could cover smaller localities. Business destination could be OK for Puertollano. I don't see that fitting for Almansa. As far as I know no objections have been made but the lack of consensus, since in this entry I didn't even reach the 9-element-limit-on-lists. IMHO Sigüenza, Almadén, Almagro, Brihuega, Talavera de la Reina, Ocaña, some-town-with-windmills, or picking one from this list would come first before "Almansa" in a section of touristic "cities/towns" of Castile-La Mancha. Talavera de la Reina, Puertollano, Valdepeñas and Azuqueca de Henares come first through a "business" lens. I have nothing against Almansa, I'm just trying to improve this entry. Strakhov (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Castile-La Mancha, as a bottom-level region (directly above the cities, parks etc. themselves) doesn't have a 7 2 limit on the number of cities and other destinations. Quite the contrary, I think all destinations that have articles should be listed in the region article directly above it to avoid articles getting orphaned.
 * In regions higher up in the hierarchy the limit of the "9 most important" is in effect. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. OK, understood. But you said in Talk:Castile-Leon that red links should not be listed, generally, even in a bottom-level region, unless really important. I do not think Almansa is that important to be included as red link. Of course, it could have potentially its own entry, after all "Santa Lucía (Pola del Gordón)" has one. Strakhov (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)