![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dirtyhalfblood 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT! Dirtyhalfblood 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I feel that this piece does not have alot of information on this beatiful city I call home.It also has "some" wrong information, for instance the curent major is Richard Lucero and the fiestas are in mid July not in the the fall. If theres gonna be a page on Espanola then it should have the correct information. >=[ User:Dirtyhalfblood
I forgot to log in, but I live in "Spaña", and I know people spell it with an eñe, so I put two in. JerryFriedman
This article makes very poor claims to the "cause" of poverty, crime, and racism, as well as the "dependence" of the habitants of Espanola. There is no absolute truth to these claims nor vertification of such citing. There is also an absence of the effects and responsibility of the Santa Fe "artist" and Los Alamos scientist that contributes to a negative peception of Espanola. The effect is that of disparity and gentrification.
How can an article on Espanola not mention lowriders?
Being from the area, I can well believe that there is serious political corruption in Espanola. However, this needs to be documented from a verifiable source. 128.165.87.144 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A statement such as this definitely requires a verifiable source, otherwise it should be removed. Rodan44 07:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
the name sounds similar to the Spanish word for Spanish español Atomic1fire 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not the official spelling of the city name-- mrg3105 ( comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody have any better images? Someone who takes pictures like these out of a moving car is a dork. ~ WikiDon ( talk) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the scope of Metro in the Infobox Settlement to be the Española Micropolitan Statistical Area. This seems more useful than lumping Española in with the much larger Santa Fe via the Santa Fe-Española combined statistical area as was done before. Leave comments here if you disagree. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand why people want to include the tilde in the name, as the city's website uses the tilde. However, it is plainly not the more common English spelling: espanola "new mexico" returns more than five times as many results as española "new mexico". If you check http://factfinder.census.gov, you'll see that it was listed as "Espanola" in the 2000 census, and no change is recorded by the Census Bureau. Moreover, the Geographic Names Information System, the official data repository of the United States Geological Survey (can't get more official than that) lists it as the City of Espanola, as well as the populated place of Espanola. Nyttend ( talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's the text:
Espanola is also considered one of the heroin capitals of the United States. The rate of substance abuse here is three times the state average and fifteen times the national average.[8]
Source [8] is this NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4804031
The text at that link is an article about community responses to drug use many years ago in nearby Chimayo, and does not support the claim that Espanola is "one of the heroin capitals" of the country, nor does it mention either of the numbers ("three times" and "fifteen times").
Either the two sentences above should be removed or the citation should be changed to support the claims it is adjacent to.
Mikedelong ( talk) 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the IP; the picture does not really illustrate anything about the city. It illustrates that, yes, Senator Obama visited the town, but it doesn't even do that well. It's not like we need the picture to prove it happened. I don't really see what it adds to the article. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
in the Agriculture section.
This means what? "natives" are who? And who exactly are these "people" in question? Anglos? Mexican Nationals? Folks from Chimayo? And the next paragraph is even more of an editorial on victimhood than the previous one. All unsourced. However, since I am an inclusionist and not a deletionist I am reluctant to just whack it out without discussing it first. Carptrash ( talk) 03:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
includes the phrase:
it seems to me that if there is only one owner it should read "and the first merchant owner was", and if there were more than one it should be "and the first merchant owners included" but it does not ( opinion) really work as it now stands. Carptrash ( talk) 17:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Then fix it? 174.131.209.55 ( talk) 05:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the section on the Spanish settlement in the Española Valley should be placed prior to the 1880s section. Otherwise we find the reader jumping all over in the place in time. Let's run the whole History Section from oldest to newest. Carptrash ( talk) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Since there has been no discussion here I am going to put the early part of the history first. Again. Carptrash ( talk) 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"Today, there are efforts to make downtown more business friendly once again, also in planning is a railroad museum."
The Pre-1880s section has been up for questioning because the first capital was San Juan, New Mexico. Being in the Espanola Valley, it is not how Espanola became a city, the railroads made Espanola what it is. Certain users have reverted changes.
Please give input on this.
And, if reverted back we must make sure the article's pictures meet up with the storyline. Reverted edits make a mess. JHarrelson ( talk) 03:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be mentioned, but it is not top priority. It shouldn't be. There is a current format where pictures line up with the railroad history, and we have more information on the railroads. Maybe if we find more information on the "New capital" we can add the information as top priority as well as some photo's to describe with. JHarrelson ( talk) 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that government source are considered okay in wikipedia, but you are thinking that this particular phrase shsould go? Carptrash ( talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
you thought it was okay to change the name of the city to "Espanola" without engaging in any discussion about it? The city's own website calls itself "Española". The Rio Grande Sun, the local newspaper calles it "Española". All the road signs around here spell it "Española". The federal govt. probably never uses an ñ. I urge you to revert your redirect and post something on the discussion page. As was done in 2009. Carptrash (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
On "every government source"? A wonderful statement, it is just wrong. The city of Española's web site says "Española" and they are a government site. The road signs spelling it "Española" are put up by the government. New Mexico Magazine has this to say. "The jewel of northern New Mexico, Española was founded in 1598 by Spain as the first capital of New Mexico." Does that suggest that the city's history should begin with the Spanish instead of the Anglos? As far as everyone always having their way goes ........... Carptrash ( talk) 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that the New Mexico Magazine is not a credible source? You do not care what the city of Española calls its self? Carptrash ( talk) 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm. My 1965 edition of New Mexico Place Names spells it "Española", Lucreo had not become mayor yet. Carptrash ( talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The 2009–2010 New Mexico Blue Book, put out by the New Mexico Secretary of State, spells it with a tilde. See for example Resource Section p. 322, p. 324. -- 75.208.79.241 ( talk) 15:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This clearly seems like something that should have been discussed before performing. Also, there is a definite problem with using the census bureau, as they appear to omit all diacritics. They name a particular town in Colorado as "Canon City", yet our article on Cañon City, Colorado states that the federal government approved the use of an eñe in the title. However, the same agency apparently has not done the same for Española: Entries for the town in the GNIS all refer to "Espanola", though some specific locations include the eñe. (see [1]). So the question becomes, who matters more: The city or the federal government? For a city name I would always defer to the city or, if possible, the state (and I don't know if the state itself records and manages such things). But let's be clear: Any argument that relies on the census bureau's name has just been proven insufficient, so please don't use it. -- Golbez ( talk) 15:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I had decided that I would allow you to what you want with this article, so chose to not add pictures. Actually, I still have not added any to the article, just the discussion page. The reason is to show you how the city and the state (who do the road signs) refer to the city. To have you write that what the Sec. of State of the state of New Mexico says is not good enough is taking this whole discussion into a surrealist, Kafkaesque, Twilight Zone sort of place that we might never get out of. You asked for a pre-1990 use of Española, I gave you one. You are ignoring it. I looked up Peñasco NM in the census and it was spelled "Penasco" Pretty soon I am going to post this discussion on the Admin board and get some professional help in here. Carptrash ( talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yea, well FYI, Peñasco, New Mexico is actually spelled with the eñe, here. Espanola is not. JHarrelson ( talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Why would we mislead people? This is an encyclopedia. The government never "okay-ed" an approval to change the name. That is like adding an accent mark on Santa Fe, to Santa Fé. Why would we do that? They have not, we should not either. JHarrelson ( talk) 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Good for you, business licences we have, (family owners of 11 businesses) all show from the state, "Espanola" I thought that was weird since you said the "state", the secretary of State's office alone has 5 workers from Espanola. How would we know they would not have been biased? Anyway, I have always pronounced it as, Es-paan-olla along with all my co-workers and employees. Anyway point being, as someone who was born and raised here we have two whole different opinions. As for the city website is concerned? I know who runs it, and you probably wouldn't be suprised. You should already know how corrupt politics are here, Espanola pretends to be something it's not. JHarrelson ( talk) 23:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Some observations (some of which were repeated above): States are the sovereign authorities for municipalities; the existence of a municipality is entirely at the will of the state. In most states, secretary of state is the definitive authority for a municipal name; when a municipality is formed or renamed, it is the secretary of state that certifies the act and keeps the official register of municipalities. The United States Board on Geographic Names normalizes the names for federal government uses; it is not itself the original naming authority, only an authority on what name federal agencies are to use at the time for clarity. (And Google Maps just copies the BGN GNIS and its derivatives.) Regardless of how it came about, if the New Mexico Secretary of State says it is "Española", either it really is "Española" now, or someone at the Secretary of State's office has modified the official registry. I do wonder how a town that long-time residents consider to have no eñe came to end up with one at the Secretary of State. Is there a chance that municipality names used to be recorded with no accents or eñes in New Mexico, and when they migrated the registry to a newer filing system, the Secretary of State made a decision to add what accents or eñes (they thought) would have existed had the old registry had a system for them? At that point it starts getting into subtle legal matters; but, absent evidence that the Secretary of State has done something unauthorized, that office's registry entry is almost certainly as official as official gets. Another possibility: Does New Mexico law allow a municipality to change its name by city council resolution rather than referendum? That could have snuck by without much notice. Also, as far as the federal BGN GNIS: How recently did GNIS start carrying accents and eñes in its system? It might be that it only has accents and eñes for names that have been updated in the system since it began being able to take eñes. -- Closeapple ( talk) 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan, so the party affiliations, if any, of the Mayor and City Councilors is irrelevant. These should be removed from the infobox. Community-banned user PoliticianTexas ( talk · contribs) often uses his sockpuppets to put these in. -- 75.208.239.43 ( talk) 17:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone crying foul?
An email to the Rio Grande Sun, the gossip newspaper of Espanola, New Mexico. I read your reports on how you gave false information about what was discussed on here. Nice way of twisting everything up, hope to hear from you in the future. JHarrelson ( talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
So, again, which part of this is "false" and which part "twisted"? Carptrash ( talk) 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. -- Hadal ( talk) 22:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Espanola, New Mexico →
Española, New Mexico – This article was moved from "Española, New Mexico" to "Espanola, New Mexico", without discussion, by a community-banned editor. Other users have provided evidence to the contrary, including images of highway signs, etc., and an email from the NM Secretary of State's office confirming that "Española" is the official spelling (see earlier talk page discussion).
Camerafiend (
talk)
00:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
of the section discussing the Bond House, because it is not built in the neoclassical revival style. Please feel free to suggest other wise and we can discuss it. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Española, New Mexico. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Española, New Mexico/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
== Assessing at Start, Low == The information that is here seems pretty good but most statements are unsourced. Providing reliable sources should be the first priority in improving the article. The article also omits many of the topics from the WP:USCITY guidelines, for example, Government, Infrastructure, Media. -- Uncia ( talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Espanola, New Mexico has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
unprotect the redirect 65.175.134.44 ( talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Española, New Mexico. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Española, New Mexico. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In the "Early Settlers section authors have written about Juan De Onate's early efforts. Then one reads "He declared the area a capital for Spain, the area of Don Diego de Vargas' new villa at Santa Cruz." That sentence is not easy to figure out in a quick read. Did the author mean to say that De Onate claimed an area in Espanola as capitol city for Spain and that the area he claimed later was where Don Diego De Vargas' later built his villa at Santa Cruz? If so, that needs to be clarified with a slight edit. De Onate was recalled to Mexico City after his atrocities and told never to return. Spaniards left in droves after the Pueblo Revolt of 1598. De Vargas appeared many years later, so De Onate and De Vargas never crossed paths in Espanola which is why the offending sentence is so troublesome.
67.0.62.253 ( talk) 07:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Since the Ohkay Owingeh (San Juan) Pueblo and the Kha'po Owingeh (Santa Clara) Pueblo existed long before Juan de Oñate and his community of Spanish settlers claimed the region as Española for the Spanish crown, perhaps this section should be renamed "Early Explorers " or "Early Spanish Settlers."
Taram ( talk) 08:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The timeline of the post-railroad history is confusing. It starts taking about the urban renewal of the '80s, and then goes into the start of the Manhattan project, which would have been ~45 years earlier. Hb94 ( talk) 13:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there some reason for the imprecise and uninformative "over 43"? Is the actual number 44? 100? It reads as though someone was bitten by the dreaded over/more than bug. This needs to be cleaned up by someone who knows the facts. Barefoot through the chollas ( talk) 19:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dirtyhalfblood 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT! Dirtyhalfblood 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I feel that this piece does not have alot of information on this beatiful city I call home.It also has "some" wrong information, for instance the curent major is Richard Lucero and the fiestas are in mid July not in the the fall. If theres gonna be a page on Espanola then it should have the correct information. >=[ User:Dirtyhalfblood
I forgot to log in, but I live in "Spaña", and I know people spell it with an eñe, so I put two in. JerryFriedman
This article makes very poor claims to the "cause" of poverty, crime, and racism, as well as the "dependence" of the habitants of Espanola. There is no absolute truth to these claims nor vertification of such citing. There is also an absence of the effects and responsibility of the Santa Fe "artist" and Los Alamos scientist that contributes to a negative peception of Espanola. The effect is that of disparity and gentrification.
How can an article on Espanola not mention lowriders?
Being from the area, I can well believe that there is serious political corruption in Espanola. However, this needs to be documented from a verifiable source. 128.165.87.144 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A statement such as this definitely requires a verifiable source, otherwise it should be removed. Rodan44 07:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
the name sounds similar to the Spanish word for Spanish español Atomic1fire 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not the official spelling of the city name-- mrg3105 ( comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody have any better images? Someone who takes pictures like these out of a moving car is a dork. ~ WikiDon ( talk) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the scope of Metro in the Infobox Settlement to be the Española Micropolitan Statistical Area. This seems more useful than lumping Española in with the much larger Santa Fe via the Santa Fe-Española combined statistical area as was done before. Leave comments here if you disagree. Thanks. -- Uncia ( talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand why people want to include the tilde in the name, as the city's website uses the tilde. However, it is plainly not the more common English spelling: espanola "new mexico" returns more than five times as many results as española "new mexico". If you check http://factfinder.census.gov, you'll see that it was listed as "Espanola" in the 2000 census, and no change is recorded by the Census Bureau. Moreover, the Geographic Names Information System, the official data repository of the United States Geological Survey (can't get more official than that) lists it as the City of Espanola, as well as the populated place of Espanola. Nyttend ( talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's the text:
Espanola is also considered one of the heroin capitals of the United States. The rate of substance abuse here is three times the state average and fifteen times the national average.[8]
Source [8] is this NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4804031
The text at that link is an article about community responses to drug use many years ago in nearby Chimayo, and does not support the claim that Espanola is "one of the heroin capitals" of the country, nor does it mention either of the numbers ("three times" and "fifteen times").
Either the two sentences above should be removed or the citation should be changed to support the claims it is adjacent to.
Mikedelong ( talk) 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the IP; the picture does not really illustrate anything about the city. It illustrates that, yes, Senator Obama visited the town, but it doesn't even do that well. It's not like we need the picture to prove it happened. I don't really see what it adds to the article. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
in the Agriculture section.
This means what? "natives" are who? And who exactly are these "people" in question? Anglos? Mexican Nationals? Folks from Chimayo? And the next paragraph is even more of an editorial on victimhood than the previous one. All unsourced. However, since I am an inclusionist and not a deletionist I am reluctant to just whack it out without discussing it first. Carptrash ( talk) 03:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
includes the phrase:
it seems to me that if there is only one owner it should read "and the first merchant owner was", and if there were more than one it should be "and the first merchant owners included" but it does not ( opinion) really work as it now stands. Carptrash ( talk) 17:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Then fix it? 174.131.209.55 ( talk) 05:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the section on the Spanish settlement in the Española Valley should be placed prior to the 1880s section. Otherwise we find the reader jumping all over in the place in time. Let's run the whole History Section from oldest to newest. Carptrash ( talk) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Since there has been no discussion here I am going to put the early part of the history first. Again. Carptrash ( talk) 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"Today, there are efforts to make downtown more business friendly once again, also in planning is a railroad museum."
The Pre-1880s section has been up for questioning because the first capital was San Juan, New Mexico. Being in the Espanola Valley, it is not how Espanola became a city, the railroads made Espanola what it is. Certain users have reverted changes.
Please give input on this.
And, if reverted back we must make sure the article's pictures meet up with the storyline. Reverted edits make a mess. JHarrelson ( talk) 03:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be mentioned, but it is not top priority. It shouldn't be. There is a current format where pictures line up with the railroad history, and we have more information on the railroads. Maybe if we find more information on the "New capital" we can add the information as top priority as well as some photo's to describe with. JHarrelson ( talk) 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that government source are considered okay in wikipedia, but you are thinking that this particular phrase shsould go? Carptrash ( talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
you thought it was okay to change the name of the city to "Espanola" without engaging in any discussion about it? The city's own website calls itself "Española". The Rio Grande Sun, the local newspaper calles it "Española". All the road signs around here spell it "Española". The federal govt. probably never uses an ñ. I urge you to revert your redirect and post something on the discussion page. As was done in 2009. Carptrash (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
On "every government source"? A wonderful statement, it is just wrong. The city of Española's web site says "Española" and they are a government site. The road signs spelling it "Española" are put up by the government. New Mexico Magazine has this to say. "The jewel of northern New Mexico, Española was founded in 1598 by Spain as the first capital of New Mexico." Does that suggest that the city's history should begin with the Spanish instead of the Anglos? As far as everyone always having their way goes ........... Carptrash ( talk) 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that the New Mexico Magazine is not a credible source? You do not care what the city of Española calls its self? Carptrash ( talk) 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm. My 1965 edition of New Mexico Place Names spells it "Española", Lucreo had not become mayor yet. Carptrash ( talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The 2009–2010 New Mexico Blue Book, put out by the New Mexico Secretary of State, spells it with a tilde. See for example Resource Section p. 322, p. 324. -- 75.208.79.241 ( talk) 15:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This clearly seems like something that should have been discussed before performing. Also, there is a definite problem with using the census bureau, as they appear to omit all diacritics. They name a particular town in Colorado as "Canon City", yet our article on Cañon City, Colorado states that the federal government approved the use of an eñe in the title. However, the same agency apparently has not done the same for Española: Entries for the town in the GNIS all refer to "Espanola", though some specific locations include the eñe. (see [1]). So the question becomes, who matters more: The city or the federal government? For a city name I would always defer to the city or, if possible, the state (and I don't know if the state itself records and manages such things). But let's be clear: Any argument that relies on the census bureau's name has just been proven insufficient, so please don't use it. -- Golbez ( talk) 15:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I had decided that I would allow you to what you want with this article, so chose to not add pictures. Actually, I still have not added any to the article, just the discussion page. The reason is to show you how the city and the state (who do the road signs) refer to the city. To have you write that what the Sec. of State of the state of New Mexico says is not good enough is taking this whole discussion into a surrealist, Kafkaesque, Twilight Zone sort of place that we might never get out of. You asked for a pre-1990 use of Española, I gave you one. You are ignoring it. I looked up Peñasco NM in the census and it was spelled "Penasco" Pretty soon I am going to post this discussion on the Admin board and get some professional help in here. Carptrash ( talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yea, well FYI, Peñasco, New Mexico is actually spelled with the eñe, here. Espanola is not. JHarrelson ( talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Why would we mislead people? This is an encyclopedia. The government never "okay-ed" an approval to change the name. That is like adding an accent mark on Santa Fe, to Santa Fé. Why would we do that? They have not, we should not either. JHarrelson ( talk) 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Good for you, business licences we have, (family owners of 11 businesses) all show from the state, "Espanola" I thought that was weird since you said the "state", the secretary of State's office alone has 5 workers from Espanola. How would we know they would not have been biased? Anyway, I have always pronounced it as, Es-paan-olla along with all my co-workers and employees. Anyway point being, as someone who was born and raised here we have two whole different opinions. As for the city website is concerned? I know who runs it, and you probably wouldn't be suprised. You should already know how corrupt politics are here, Espanola pretends to be something it's not. JHarrelson ( talk) 23:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Some observations (some of which were repeated above): States are the sovereign authorities for municipalities; the existence of a municipality is entirely at the will of the state. In most states, secretary of state is the definitive authority for a municipal name; when a municipality is formed or renamed, it is the secretary of state that certifies the act and keeps the official register of municipalities. The United States Board on Geographic Names normalizes the names for federal government uses; it is not itself the original naming authority, only an authority on what name federal agencies are to use at the time for clarity. (And Google Maps just copies the BGN GNIS and its derivatives.) Regardless of how it came about, if the New Mexico Secretary of State says it is "Española", either it really is "Española" now, or someone at the Secretary of State's office has modified the official registry. I do wonder how a town that long-time residents consider to have no eñe came to end up with one at the Secretary of State. Is there a chance that municipality names used to be recorded with no accents or eñes in New Mexico, and when they migrated the registry to a newer filing system, the Secretary of State made a decision to add what accents or eñes (they thought) would have existed had the old registry had a system for them? At that point it starts getting into subtle legal matters; but, absent evidence that the Secretary of State has done something unauthorized, that office's registry entry is almost certainly as official as official gets. Another possibility: Does New Mexico law allow a municipality to change its name by city council resolution rather than referendum? That could have snuck by without much notice. Also, as far as the federal BGN GNIS: How recently did GNIS start carrying accents and eñes in its system? It might be that it only has accents and eñes for names that have been updated in the system since it began being able to take eñes. -- Closeapple ( talk) 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan, so the party affiliations, if any, of the Mayor and City Councilors is irrelevant. These should be removed from the infobox. Community-banned user PoliticianTexas ( talk · contribs) often uses his sockpuppets to put these in. -- 75.208.239.43 ( talk) 17:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone crying foul?
An email to the Rio Grande Sun, the gossip newspaper of Espanola, New Mexico. I read your reports on how you gave false information about what was discussed on here. Nice way of twisting everything up, hope to hear from you in the future. JHarrelson ( talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
So, again, which part of this is "false" and which part "twisted"? Carptrash ( talk) 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. -- Hadal ( talk) 22:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Espanola, New Mexico →
Española, New Mexico – This article was moved from "Española, New Mexico" to "Espanola, New Mexico", without discussion, by a community-banned editor. Other users have provided evidence to the contrary, including images of highway signs, etc., and an email from the NM Secretary of State's office confirming that "Española" is the official spelling (see earlier talk page discussion).
Camerafiend (
talk)
00:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
of the section discussing the Bond House, because it is not built in the neoclassical revival style. Please feel free to suggest other wise and we can discuss it. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Española, New Mexico. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Española, New Mexico/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
== Assessing at Start, Low == The information that is here seems pretty good but most statements are unsourced. Providing reliable sources should be the first priority in improving the article. The article also omits many of the topics from the WP:USCITY guidelines, for example, Government, Infrastructure, Media. -- Uncia ( talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Espanola, New Mexico has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
unprotect the redirect 65.175.134.44 ( talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Española, New Mexico. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Española, New Mexico. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In the "Early Settlers section authors have written about Juan De Onate's early efforts. Then one reads "He declared the area a capital for Spain, the area of Don Diego de Vargas' new villa at Santa Cruz." That sentence is not easy to figure out in a quick read. Did the author mean to say that De Onate claimed an area in Espanola as capitol city for Spain and that the area he claimed later was where Don Diego De Vargas' later built his villa at Santa Cruz? If so, that needs to be clarified with a slight edit. De Onate was recalled to Mexico City after his atrocities and told never to return. Spaniards left in droves after the Pueblo Revolt of 1598. De Vargas appeared many years later, so De Onate and De Vargas never crossed paths in Espanola which is why the offending sentence is so troublesome.
67.0.62.253 ( talk) 07:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Since the Ohkay Owingeh (San Juan) Pueblo and the Kha'po Owingeh (Santa Clara) Pueblo existed long before Juan de Oñate and his community of Spanish settlers claimed the region as Española for the Spanish crown, perhaps this section should be renamed "Early Explorers " or "Early Spanish Settlers."
Taram ( talk) 08:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The timeline of the post-railroad history is confusing. It starts taking about the urban renewal of the '80s, and then goes into the start of the Manhattan project, which would have been ~45 years earlier. Hb94 ( talk) 13:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there some reason for the imprecise and uninformative "over 43"? Is the actual number 44? 100? It reads as though someone was bitten by the dreaded over/more than bug. This needs to be cleaned up by someone who knows the facts. Barefoot through the chollas ( talk) 19:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)