Talk:Costa del Azahar

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

Catalan-speaking countries

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Spain Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Good! Can we get a decade for the beginning of this usage? --Wetman 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What usage? User:Angr 15:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names

I would like to mention @Fromcs: to provide a valid source for the alternative names that had no source, in order to put them back again.

I see "Costa Azahar" or "Costa del Azahar" is what prevails in most Internet sources, either in English or Spanish. While "Costa dels Tarongers" is only shown in the Catalan Wikipedia based from what it says in the "Catalan Encyclopedia" which is an "encyclopedia" that claims Valencia is a country belonging to the greater Catalan Countries so that "encyclopedia" is obviously as valid as a random blogspot, that name is also only mentioned by some Catalan sources... but not Valencian ones. Even the official Comunitat Valenciana site calls it just "Costa Azahar" as proven here: https://www.comunitatvalenciana.com/es/itinerarios/costa-azahar

So is there any reliable source proving the alternative names? LucenseLugo (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fromcs: I don't know whats your point on Wikipedia already. I have been trying to help you and to make you understand how things work. You got to solve a content dispute by proving up your point with reliable sources, there is no "wait for consensus" when something gets deleted because it's unreferenced (no sources) and more if you don't even engage in the talk page.

Stop being WP:DISRUPTIVE and stop doing WP:SYNTH and first provide your examples in the talk page to see if they are valid or not. In your last change, not only that you've added unsourced text back, you also used 2 random sources that didn't back up any of the changes from your new content. LucenseLugo (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that, when you decide that a change must me done and someone reverts you, you should go to the talk page and talk it out. In the meantime, the article gets reverted to its stable version, not the version you want. I tried to explain that to you before, but you keep copying and pasting links to Wikipedia rules which you have not even read (you didn't know how the 3RR works, for example, and you have still violated it again in spite of many users having told you how it works).

As I told you before, "Costa de Azahar" is not an English name, and there is no official translation into English. It is true that most English sources use "Costa de Azahar", and that means that that is the name that must be used. But that is far from meaning that the other native name must be removed.

Since your main motivation on Wikipedia appears to be removing every non-Spanish name from every Spain-related article, and since those names were for the most cases already there when you first started editing, you should wait for consensus before removing that information.--Fromcs (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "stable version" of this page, because I have asked for sources 1 week ago for unsourced names (and I have also opened this talk page section) and not only you didn't engage in it, but you simply did bald reverts to my edits to add back unsourced text, directly breaking WP:VERIFIABILITY since you can't care less about WP:GUIDELINES as said 10 times to you to read them before editing again (the main proof is that an admin closed your report and said that should be discussed in the talk page) you can't care less about any Wikipedia rule or about what any other user says to you, you just want to impose your POV with repeated personal attacks such as right now (2nd or 3rd time you break WP:NPA in 24 hours) saying my main motivation is nationalistic because I only follow Wikipedia's Rules regarding WP:UNSOURCED and WP:VERIFIABILITY content.

What consensus do you want if 1. Unsourced text has to be deleted if no WP:RS is provided (and moreso if someone gives a warning for 1 entire week) and 2. You didn't engage in this talk page until today and to make personal attacks. I gave you too many chances, I am tired of your WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior and your repeated violation of the WP:NPA rule. LucenseLugo (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My latest edit had references.

By the way, how come you only erase unsourced names when they are not in Spanish? Don't you think that, by applying your criterion, the name 'Gerona' should be erased from the page Gerona? How come you don't come and erase it?

As for the report, may I remind you what the green sign at the bottom of the discussionmeans? That means that the report was positive. That in turn means I was right. So don't get confused: the only reason why your version is still on the page is because I forgot to provide the link to the version I wanted the page to be reverted to. That is why they merely protected the page instead of also reverting it.

As I already told you, you are not the one to talk about personal attacks. Just take a look at your interventions (specially at the discussion on Valencian language, where it is pretty clear that you are falsifying a reference). Fromcs (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep disrupting talk pages with unrelated claims and still personal attacks based only on your biased perception? As far as I see, the page is called Girona and Gerona is not even in bold text. What's your point? Don't try to deviate the main context as you always try to do.

You are again wrong. The admins didn't take any action because this is content dispute that has to be solved in the talk page. This talk page, the one you didn't want to engage in for 1 entire week until today just to make personal attacks. Yesterday I have even mentioned you here (you got a wikinotification) but you couldn't care less, as instead of doing something properly, you just blindly reverted my edits as they don't find your own POV despite I only follow WP:VERIFIABILITY.

And your sources from today didn't mention that name in any moment, you wrote 2 random sources thus making WP:SYNTH. Again, you desperately try to get me blocked or to get me reverted but you see how your claims make no sense and that you have 2 options: 1. Follow Wikipedia guidelines and taking advice to read how you should edit on Wikipedia 2. Keep doing these edits, being disruptive, doing personal attacks, false accusations and so on... until I will fill a full ANI against you with all of the proofs but I am still trying to be polite and to give you another chance to improve your editing skills and to comprehend how Wikipedia works. LucenseLugo (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]