Talk:Gallaecia

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Galicia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Galicia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Galicia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GaliciaWikipedia:WikiProject GaliciaTemplate:WikiProject GaliciaGalicia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spain Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The text is "wrapped" around the small square Table of Context box in order to avoid ugly gaping holes of blank space. In this particular instance the ToC is at the right because at the left it breaks up the indented lines of quotation. Try alternatives yourself and see the effect . There is currently an editor going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda. --Wetman 21:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not obscure or personal, it was the overwhelming feeling of the VfD discussion for this template. The whitespace generated by a four item Table of Contents is is no way a problem for the layout of any article, let alone this one. There is a reason for the default TOC being as it is, if most people found it ugly it certainly wouldn't be the default. There is no way TOCright or TOCleft are justified for a four item TOC. Saying "every sensible adult" would support its use on these pages is certainly not the case, most sensible adults were and are against its use except as a last resort for long TOCs, and the majority of sensible adults continue using the default TOC in their articles. If you wish to go on abusing this template by using it where it is not remotely neccesary, you may be turning those who voted to keep it as a last resort off it altogether. Joe D (t) 21:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(This is discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#July_30 A good reason for avoiding creating too many "Guidelines" at Wikipedia is the usage doctrinaire simpletons will make of them. Look at the mess made of this entry without wrapping the TOC! ) --Wetman 22:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You think it looks a mess without a floating TOC? Well I guess we have to change the defalt layout if Wetman doesn't it, never mind the majority of Wikipedia users who have no problem whatsoever with the default TOC. This has nothing to do with dogmatically sticking to the rules, but the fact that the rules in this case make for a better Wikipedia: short floating TOCs do not make the page look better, and often make it look worse, as is the case here. And I'd hardly call your post at Wikiquette alerts a "discussion", it responds to none of the points in the OP, bit if you carry on, the ad hominens will look nice in an RfC. Joe D (t) 23:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(The above "Joe D" is User:Steinsky, needless to say. There is no such "rule" about formatting. A default TOC is merely that: it has no magical value. --Wetman 23:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Then call them "guidelines", either way, they reflect the discussions and votes of the Wikipedia community. Though I don't know why I'm bothering to state that again, since Wetman (author of the above message, incase you needed to be patronised some more) refuses to acknowledge that his idea of good formatting isn't shared by everyone on Wikipedia, and will continue to pretend this post never happened. I'm going to bed, g'night. Joe D (t) 00:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the History of Portugal template because I think there should only be one template. It crowds the page. The Galician one is more relevant I think. --Revolución (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone put it back? I agree with you 100%. It crowds the page too much, and it really doesn't add any information. --dannycas 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What?!?!!? --Pedro 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to unjumble the format and accomodate both infoboxes, I've eliminated the map that doesn't show Gallaecia, and kept just the almost-identical map that does show Gallaecia. --Wetman 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys... something should be done about the article Celtic Gallaecia! The Ogre 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys... a new article about Gallaecian language should be started by someone who knows something about it! The Ogre 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss the proposal. Jimp 09:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good history. It's more encyclopedic. --Wetman 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Roman Portugal stays put without being affected; however, a condensed version becomes a section of Prehistoric Iberia with a Main article, see... standard header-link. Yes? --Wetman 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Say it to the world, please! Cheers. The Ogre 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake: Strabo didn't call lusitanians to the people living in the north of river Douro. Gallaecia wasn't a part of Lusitania. Lusitania is one region, Gallaecia is other region.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gallaecia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006160601/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gallaecia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041209065332/http://www.ctv.es/USERS/ocalitro/ to http://www.ctv.es/USERS/ocalitro/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814185824/http://agal-gz.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1857%2F to http://agal-gz.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1857%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060215213829/http://www.eixoatlantico.com/documentos/rutas.pdf to http://www.eixoatlantico.com/documentos/rutas.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]