Talk:Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo

State of article

I've done my best to translate the existing article from Spanish, but it was totally lacking in inline citations, and rather confusing in places, especially about dates. The only references provided were books to which I do not have access. Furthermore, some of the terms used (e.g. humilladero) have no simple English translations and called for explanation rather than simple translation. I'll try to strengthen the English language article before moving on. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Found lots I can cite for, but this is a tough one. - Jmabel | Talk 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Now mostly cited, and considerably expanded, but some interesting lacunae remain, as discussed below. - Jmabel | Talk 08:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hermandad de los Negritos

It turns out that the negritos referred to are, indeed, Black people. There is some very interesting content at a source cited only in passing here, http://www.hermandadlosnegritos.org/capitulo.asp?id=4: clearly the Hermandad deserve an article of their own, and there is a lot interesting there about Black people in 15th century Spain. - Jmabel | Talk 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy Week in Seville

There is some history about scandals, disorders, and reforms that belongs either in this article or in Holy Week in Seville. We need to decide which, but it should not be omitted. Further remarks at Talk:Holy Week in Seville#Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo. - Jmabel | Talk 08:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1536

I can't find a good source for the Marquis buying and moving the templete in 1536 (brought over when I translated from es-wiki). http://trianasevilla.blogspot.com/2009/09/el-templete-de-la-cruz-del-campo.html, the only other thing online that mentions the Monastery of San Benito Abad in this context appears to be just a plagiarism of the uncited article in es-wiki; http://www.galeon.com/juliodominguez/2006/ccc.html does not at all obviously qualify as a reliable source. I have run into reliable sources with vague allusions to the templete being moved—for example, José L. García, Un sinfín de restauraciones, ABC Sevilla, 2000-02-24, p. 50 tantalizingly begins a sentence, "De toda ellas, obviando el «acercamiento a Sevilla» a que lo sometió Fadrique Henríquez, primer marqués de Tarifa..." ("of all these, laying aside the «bringing closer to Seville» to which it was submitted by Fadrique Henríquez, first marquis of Tarifa...") before dropping the subject—but nothing more concrete. So, we have a solid source for him moving it at some time, but not for buying it, nor for the year. - Jmabel | Talk 08:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Streets of the city

Another thing from es-wiki that I can't find a reliable source to cite for: that this is the only Via Crucis through the streets of a city (Spanish: Vía Crucis callejero) in Spain. - Jmabel | Talk 08:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, oddly, I haven't found a good basis to make a map, but I'm sure it's out there. I haven't even been able to verify the length of the modern route. - Jmabel | Talk 08:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Orthography

Also haven't been able to cite from a reliable source for the fact that Vía Crucis is Hispanicized Latin (a Latin phrase, with an accent mark added to Via). - Jmabel | Talk 09:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1957

According to es-wiki, on 8 March 1957 the descendants of the Marquis of Tarifa reestablished the Via Crucis. I've put that in the article, but the only part of it I can cite for is the year of reestablishment, but not the precise date, nor "the descendants of the Marquis of Tarifa", nor the fourteen penitential confraternities es-wiki identifies as participating that year, nor for the marble memorial about Bueno Monreal giving the benediction (nor, really, anything much about the placing of the new azulejos for the stations, nor how this played into the difficult situation with two bishops: Pedro Segura y Sáenz died only weeks before this. - Jmabel | Talk 09:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

29 February 2008

I actually rather doubt the date of 29 February 2008 for the completion of restoration of the templete. The date comes from es-wiki, and is uncited there. It seems odd that Francisco Correal, El templete se abre con todas las bendiciones, Diario de Sevilla, 2008-03-27, a news story about the event, would be published nearly four weeks later. - Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Municipal ownership of the templete

When exactly did the templete pass into municipal ownership? Assuming that the Marquis of Tarifa bought it in 1536, it was not in municipal ownership at that time. Clearly, it was in municipal hands by the time the municipal architect Aurelio Alvarez did work to improve its structural integrity did work to improve its structural integrity in 1880. - Jmabel | Talk 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100220212431/http://www.hermandades-de-sevilla.org:80/galeria/viacruciscruzcampo.htm to http://www.hermandades-de-sevilla.org/galeria/viacruciscruzcampo.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://huespedes.cica.es/~masa/tvs/mon/umentos/CasaPilatos/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100122093400/http://www.fundacioncruzcampo.com:80/01_Quienes_Somos to http://www.fundacioncruzcampo.com/01_Quienes_Somos/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100125103438/http://www.hermandades-de-sevilla.org:80/marco10.htm to http://www.hermandades-de-sevilla.org/marco10.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100125103438/http://www.hermandades-de-sevilla.org:80/marco10.htm to http://www.hermandades-de-sevilla.org/marco10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Cruz del Campo

I created a new article Draft:Cruz del Campo to split the this pilmigrame way and other building that appears in this artcile (the "templete").

my reasons: There are two different articles ('Cruz del Campo' and 'Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo'), one is about a stations of the cross I mean a pilgrimage Catholic route "that ends [reach] in the building of that article that I am creating", and the other article of the building itself. In the same context, it's as you cant says that the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela must not have an article because the Camino de Santiago already exists.

The user that oppose (in the article created) changed his opinon and now he allows that i do that. I'm going to wait a while, and if nobody answers me here and we reach a consensus, I will then create the article. Thank you.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@ILoveCaracas: that's not quite right. What I said was that it's fair to argue that there should be separate articles for the Via and the Templete, but as I said on the draft, Via Crucis to the Cruz del Campo § The Templete is better-written. If no-one offers an opinion then you're welcome to perform the split but could I suggest using the section here as a starting point for the new article, rather than the draft? Pinging Jmabel as the author of this article in case they have a view to share. Thank you for raising the discussion here and for being patient—I think this is the right way to approach it. Mortee (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you for answer and help--ILoveCaracas (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really have time to look into this now, but on general principles:

• Think twice before splitting an article where it is likely that anyone looking up either topic will want to know about both. Ultimately, we are here to serve the reader. Often that is better done by a redirect (possibly to a particular section) than a separate article.
• If a split is in order, obviously if we have two possible texts to start from and can agree which is better, then use the better one. - Jmabel | Talk 20:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, i will try to develop better the draft-article including information from here. and that it decide that it is the most convenient--ILoveCaracas (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)