Talk:Menorca

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Menorca article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 12 months

Spain High‑importance

	Spain portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catalan-speaking countries High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries 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.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

Travel and Tourism Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 17, 2011, January 17, 2012, January 17, 2013, January 17, 2014, January 17, 2015, and January 17, 2016.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, Minorca → Menorca, Not moved, 19 May 2016, discussion
RM, Minorca → Menorca, Moved as proposed following relisting, 24 July 2017, discussion
RM, Menorca → Minorca, Close as disruptive, 3 August 2017, discussion

More correct English please

These comments were potentially offensive to the many British readers of this page. Even more offensive was the failure to use the English language correctly. I have deleted the comments for these reasons.

Menorca or Minorca

I read the following in the article.

"(Menorca both in Catalan and Spanish; from Latin Balearis Minor, later Minorica "minor island")"

Does anyone have documented evidence of the islands name in English? If you check an English atlas, generally it will be called Menorca. If you look for references on Google there are 16 million for Menorca and only 2.7 million results for Minorca.

This is an English language page. So, should the name of the Island not be the name it is known by in the English Language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.250.36 (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be careful when doing Google searches because it will give all instances of the term in all languages. I checked 3 different dictionaries (Random House [1], American Heritage [2], and Webster’s [3]), and they all have the spelling of the main entry as Minorca. MSN Encarta [4], the Columbia Encyclopedia [5], and Britannica [6] all have it under Minorca. I don't have it with me right now, but the Atlas I have at home gives both the native and English names for each place, and Minorca is given as the English name. You will see people using the native spellings even in English, but according to the official sources I checked, the English spelling is Minorca. Kman543210 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I go on holiday there A LOT and have to say that it is the most beautiful place in the entire world!!! User 08burgelaura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, I have undone an undiscussed move of the article to Menorca. I suggest getting consensus here before moving it again. --John (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is English-speaking Wikipedia. The name in English is Minorca. Jacob Newton (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect closure

Just noticed this, and this closure seems like a clear mistake to me. I would add arguments to support this, but as you've already closed it that doesn't seem appropriate now. However, I would encourage a challenge to this closure, and at that point, I would bring my arguments to bear, if notified. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with either close. The second RM was indeed disruptive and made a confusing mess out of something that should have been cleared up by just talking to the closer or going through. The nominator did not respond to several requests that they do that, which just compounded the confusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, completely ignoring the merits of the above move, a quick follow-up RM after a low-turnout original RM is perfectly common and in no way "disruptive." It happens all the time, especially when a contentious move is only noticed after links start getting updated. SnowFire (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how this has attracted much attention in part due to the follow-up RM, and just as per SnowFire's reasoning, the second RM was by no means disruptive. Indeed, the second RM spanned a much longer and detailed discussion than the one resulting in the page's move. You may like it or not, but by no means is this any more "disruptive" than having just 2 editors deciding on the article's fate and completely ignoring previous RMs and established consensus. Impru20 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire: yes, it is widely considered disruptive to start a new RM immediately after the last one closed, not only because it can look like gaming the system, but because it causes all manner of confusion in the processes. Just look at where it's gotten us: another RM, which rehashed the same things and was closed, and then finally a move review, where we'll be tied up for days if not weeks before the original move discussion is reopened and relisted. This is exactly the sort of situation move review was created to avoid. If the initiator of the second RM had just followed the procedure and asked the closer to simply reopen the discussion, they would have done it; they're clearly amenable to it. I informed Impru20 of this repeatedly, but they failed to act on it until other editors did what they should have done and pursued a move review.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re-opening and relisting the original discussion would have been the easiest thing to do. I don't see how opening a new RM is THAT different, though, so if you'd have been okay with re-open and re-list, I'm not sure why a new MR is so bad in your view. If you want to invoke precedent and history, the far larger turnout in earlier failed RMs surely bears some weight too.

As has been said before, the "gaming the system" argument is something that goes against the original move request, as it'd failed many times in the past. But whatever! Totally within IIO's rights to re-litigate the issue. Just as his MR was legit, so was Ipru's MR, and such stringent opposition on procedural grounds ignores the many other RMs that had failed in the past. Again, follow-up MRs after well-attended MRs can *sometimes* be disruption (but sometimes also a sign that a move turned out really strangely, so even that is not always bad). Follow-up MRs after sparely attended MRs are harmless. You seem to be acting like it's terrible, and it's not. (Maybe the MERITS of the case are terrible, who knows, people can disagree, but again, from a strict standpoint of procedure, it was nothing odd.) SnowFire (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire: Not to keep this going around and around, but speaking as someone with a lot of experience with RM, it is in fact widely considered disruptive to start another RM right after the last one closed. That feeling is obviously widespread, or else an admin wouldn't have closed it. It's not entirely fair, but it invites opposition based on frustration or the feeling that the nominator is trying to re-litigate a decision that just closed. As you say subsequent RMs are totally fine when an amount of time has passed, or something has changed, neither of which was the case here. There's not a set period of wait time, but 5 hours doesn't cut it. Just look at what the result has been here: instead of just asking the closer to re-open the discussion and let people get back to it immediately, it led to a day of the same people having to rehash the same things in a new RM, a close, then several days later a move review that still hasn't closed 5 days in (and that could be open for days or weeks). Now, is it "terrible"? No. Is it frustrating? Yes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is now moot, pursuant to the relisting and subsequent close of the relisted discussion. bd2412 T 16:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever opens the next one, please include a sidebar or something that lists all the previous discussions (if any are not present above). We don't need yet another closing then being contested on the grounds that it ignored previous consensus discussions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Largest city internal contradiction

The introduction states Mahon is the largest city, but the table below has it at second place. 46.140.3.59 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maó and Ciutadella switched places recently.--Jotamar (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical naming

Catalan speaker here. When I speak Catalan I say «Gaŀles», not Cymru, but I'll say Llanymddyfri and not any English version of the name. Why? Because we have a traditional name for Wales in Catalan, due to cultural relations thru the ages, but we do not have with the town of Llanymddyfri, so we do not have a name for it. England has, so in English they call it something like Llandovery, but of course we will use their own name, not a foreign one.

Here I do not understand why you do not recognise the historical relations English speakers have had with Minorca for ages and treat it as if it was a modern place with an invented name or a place no English speaker had visited before the 20th century. And, on the other hand, the city of Maó, instead of calling it with its name, Maó, it's called «Maón», which has no sense, as it is not the local name of the city. I really cannot fathom the logic used in this case in the English Wikipedia, if there is any.

--77.75.179.1 (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]