Jump to content

Talk:Puerto Soledad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal (2007)

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This was a proposal to merge this article to Port Louis, Falkland Islands, made in October 2007.
The tag was removed in February 2008, as there was no consensus for the merger.
(Archived Jan 2011. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This article should be merged into Port Louis, Falkland Islands. --MacRusgail 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, it may confuse having articles for the same place with two different names. Justin talk 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus Port Louis covers much of the same time period. --MacRusgail 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument I can see for a separate article, is that there were three separate settlements in the one place. Originally Port St Louis a short lived French settlement, Puerto Soledad the Spanish settlement abandoned in 1811 and finally Puerto Luis/Anson's Harbour/Port Louis that traces through till today. Each could arguably have a small article linked to the main article. An appropriate analogy might be the two articles we have for Constantinople and Istanbul. Justin talk 09:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it a bit more, we have articles for the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, the United Provinces of the River Plate and Argentina. All are referring to historically the same place but for different political epochs and is more appropriate an analogy. There's definitely an argument for a main and separate articles. Justin talk 12:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually there would be... but the histories of Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul (under each individual name) by themselves are far more complex (and lengthy) than the entire history of the Falklands. Likewise, with Argentina, and even the River Plate articles, we are dealing with much larger areas, and populations. --MacRusgail 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also that first map needs to be sorted out. I can only see two red dots, and some writing on it!!! - But thanks for creating it though!. --MacRusgail 18:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually there would be...is kinda undermining the argument for merging them. :-) Justin talk 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's several factors against it... #1 It was never a big settlement in size or population. #2 It wasn't known as Puerto Soledad for long, and even then, that was the second name. #3 Although it forms a basis for the Argentine claims, more could be said about a year in Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul a piece, than the entire existence of Puerto Soledad. It was a small outpost, which has acquired an inflated significance, thanks to 20th century international relations. --MacRusgail 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disagree with any of that but once again the "inflated 20th century significance" argues more for a separate article than combining them. I leaned toward your suggestion at first but what you've said since makes me swing the other way. Justin talk —Preceding comment was added at 16:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(This discussion ended in Feb 2008, so I've archived it, to avoid further confusion. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge (2010)

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archived: There was no support for this idea. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC) There is no inflated 20th century significant, both articles deals with the same settlement, so why don't fuse them? The Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, the United Provinces of the River Plate and Argentina is a bad analogy, because the are succesor states but nothing known as succesor settlements. Then we all have to see each articles lenght, they are not so long so they could properly fit together. Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a merge tag at the Port Louis page; I presume this is the rationale for it. I’ve moved this comment here to there, to keep the discussion together. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking The Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute, page 30. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Puerto Soledad. 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).

  • 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) 09:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puerto_Soledad&oldid=1209900009"