Talk:Somió
It seems there are some doubts about the official administrative division and correct naming of the barrios and places. So just to make it clear:
The official laws (which are: BOPA Nº 229 - Martes, 3 de octubre de 2006 & DECRETO 105/2006, de 20 de septiembre, por el que se determinan los topónimos oficiales del concejo de Gijón) talk of the following 27 divisions:
|
|
|
Please note that the only current applicable law is "DECRETO 105/2006, de 20 de septiembre, por el que se determinan los topónimos oficiales del concejo de Gijón" which clearly states:
Artículo 2.—Denominaciones oficiales. Los topónimos así determinados tienen la consideración de denominaciones oficiales, sustituyendo a las anteriormente vigentes, si las hubiere.
(Rough translation: "Article 2.- Official names. The toponyms so established are considered the official names, replacing all the previously valid names if they exist.")
Additionaly, the Council of Gijón / Xixón states:
Estos nomes son agora oficiales a tolos efectos, d'usu obligáu per parte de les instituciones (Ayuntamientos, organismos del Principáu, etc.) en cualesquier comunicación fecha en castellanu o n'asturianu.[1]
(Rough translation: "This names are now effectively official, and of obligatory use by the institutions (City Halls, Principality's bodies, etc.) in every communication (message) made in castillian or in asturian.)
Thus, the only official toponyms and territorial divisions of the Somió district are the ones stated on the aforementioned law. No other previous division or naming is official anymore, and no other institution than the Principality of Asturias can enact the official administrative divisions and toponomy of this territory.
Plus, the Wikipedia Naming conventions for places state:
Countries of Europe: (...) In case of name changes, the current widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used.
Simple. There is not a widely accepted English name for Fuexo, La Guía or La Carbayera, so the current local official name is to be used.
Besides, since this is an encyclopedia, I think its just a matter of common sense: We must use the official administrative divisions and toponyms for an encyclopedic article about official administrative divisions and toponyms. -- · Ravenloft · talk 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Those 27 names are toponyms of places within the parish, but not administrative subdivisions. Official subdivisions (Barrios) are 10.--Banderas (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines? In this cases, editors should provide a reliable source for any material the want to change into the encyclopedia.
- In this particular case, the only official reliable source is the Principality of Asturias through the laws published in the Boletín General del Principado de Asturias (B.O.P.A.) [2]. The Principality of Asturias is the only responsible institution for territorial administrative divisions in Asturias. Evidently, no other institution, neighbour association or civil parrish assembly can enact the official divisions of the Principality of Asturias. If you have the B.O.P.A. (official document) with a different Barrio division for the parrish of Somió -which repeals the aforementioned- please provide it.
- You say your map of the Unidad de Integración Corporativa del Ayuntamiento de Gijón has 10 barrios. Ok. I doesn't really matter, but anyway, there are two possible explanations: A) The map was made before the publication of the law in the BOPA 3rd October 2006. B) The map is wrong. It happens. Last week EMTUSA (a municipal company) had to remake hundreds of bus stops signs because some civil servant used a repealed BOPA with repealed toponyms.
- But, as you've seen, I don't have any problem at all with having a mention to the 10 toponimic divisions you're kin to in the article. Anyway, I insist the official names must stay: We must use the official administrative divisions and toponyms for an encyclopedic article about official administrative divisions and toponyms. Provide a newer B.O.P.A. with your suggested Barrio division for the parrish of Somió before making any change.
- We should keep this talk in this talk page. Thanks -- · Ravenloft · talk 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- "BOPA Nº 229 - Martes, 3 de octubre de 2006 & DECRETO 105/2006, de 20 de septiembre, por el que se determinan los topónimos oficiales del concejo de Gijón" only states the new toponyms for some places (squares, parks, crossroads, etc), but does not at all mention any new subdivision from the existing 10. "Topónimos" are names, but not subdivisions. Those 27 names are not, by any means, subdivisions. They are just new names of places, and I already accepted the new names for the 10 barrios, but confusing toponyms with administrative divisions is a mistake. A ver si ahora el estatuto de autonomía permite la división de las parroquias en "topónimos" en vez de barrios.--Banderas (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the change of the names of the barrios which conform a parrish also implies the change of the administrative division of the parrish itself. Simple math: Same territory + lots of new toponyms = Less territory for each toponym. Anyway, until we find some reliable legal source on the matter, I propose to mention both things in the article. Deleting 17 official toponyms from the article isn't acceptable. As a temporary measure, we could mention the 10 names you propose as traditional barrios, and the rest 17 names the law mentions, as places (as you know, the administrative division below "barrio" is "llugar"). Ok? -- · Ravenloft · talk 20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Somió. 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/20070927024915/http://www.asturias.es/Asturias/DOCUMENTOS%20EN%20PDF/PDF%20DE%20SITUACIONES/Estatuto.pdf to http://www.asturias.es/Asturias/DOCUMENTOS%20EN%20PDF/PDF%20DE%20SITUACIONES/Estatuto.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) 14:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)