Talk:Santa María de Óvila

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Santa Maria de Ovila
(pictured), but never used them in a building?
Current status: Featured article

Built in which century?

According to the box, construction started in the 12th century with groundbreaking in 1171. In the lead, it would therefore probably be better to say "built at the end of the 12th century" or even "built in the 12th century". See also here which provides additional details. - Ipigott (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, that construction began in 1171. Are you saying that there was enough of the site completed in less than 29 years that it could be said to be "built" before 1201? I was putting the 13th century in the lead paragraph because of the 1213 "completion" year, completion of a sort, anyway, and of course the consecration of 1213. Of course we know that construction resumed at various times, especially the 1610s to the 1650s.
The book you link to says that construction started on the edificio in 1181, and "In 1186 the monks went down to the right side of where the monastery is today, and began work on the abbey." It does not say anything was finished before 1201. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could compromise by saying "in the early 13th century". It was the contrast between the groundbreaking in the box and the beginning of the lead which rather surprised me. Another option would be "built from the end of the 12th century". But I'll leave it to you. - Ipigott (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "beginning in 1181"? That takes out the ordinal century problem. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! - Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Herrera Casado

The Spanish historian Antonio Herrera Casado, the official historian of the Province of Guadalajara, is perhaps under-represented in this article. He wrote a handful of books, published by AACHE editions of Guadalajara, that include information about the monastery, especially his 1997 Monasterios Medievales de Guadalajara. We cite his 2005 Monasterios y conventos de Castilla-La Mancha: una guía para conocerlos y visitarlos but I think we can dig deeper. Because he is an expert on the topic, his blog offers a few opportunities: "Una excursión al Monasterio de Ovila" written in 1992, "Una excursión desde Trillo: El monasterio de Ovila" written in 1993, and "El Octavo Centenario del monasterio de Ovila" written in 1986. Casado wrote the introduction to and supplied modern photographs for the 1998 edition of Francisco Layna Serrano's 1931/32 work, El Monasterio de Ovila. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casado says that Architectural Restoration Professor José Miguel Merino de Cáceres is a special expert on Santa Maria de Ovila. Cáceres wrote his doctoral thesis on the monastery, then continued with further research and writings for the next three decades. Cáceres visited California to see the monastery's stones in various places and to speak with those who are rebuilding the chapter house. He says he is unsatisfied with the rebuilding project, though he honors the people involved:

"La abadía de New Clairvoux está reconstruyendo ahora la Sala Capitular en California. ¿Está satisfecho de estos trabajos?"
"No, en absoluto. Y prefiero no hablar de aquello. Quiero mucho a esa gente y no voy a hablar."[1]

"The Abbey of New Clairvaux is now rebuilding the chapter house in California. Are you satisfied with this work?"
"No, not at all. And I'd rather not talk about it. I love these people and I will not speak."[2]

We could quote Cáceres, or at least cite him. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources, not yet used

Title

Shouldn't this be at Santa María de Óvila, like usage in the article? Srnec (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If consistency between title and article usage is seen as a goal worth following then I'd change article usage to be plain Roman characters, no accents. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The goal I had in mind was whatever is standard in English (and in accord with our conventions), which I take to be indicated by the article's usage, since the article is directly sourced. I would prefer the accents, since it would mark the title off as Spanish (as opposed to, say, Italian). Srnec (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish sources use the accents but the English ones do not. For instance, Margaret Burke, the foremost English-language scholar on the topic, writes the name without accents. So do the American periodicals. This article is for English-speaking people, so it arguably should leave out the accents except when directly quoting sources in the Spanish language. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should Spanish names, like Cáceres, whom you cite above, have accents? Should English-speaking people who know Spanish be denied a little aid in how to pronounce the term "Ovila"? (Maria should be obvious to one who knows Spanish.) If it were called "Saint Mary's" we wouldn't be having this discussion, but why use Spanish only half-way? I'm not sure we need to follow every idiosyncracy of English publishing. Srnec (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about a bit of confusion in the English-speaking world, resulting from common usage of the unaccented name: the Belgian beer line branded Ovila puts an accent in the wrong place, over the i and not the capital O. (Perhaps that was intentional, for trademark purposes.) However, my general stance on the issue is that article titles should be as simple as they can possibly be in English. I think
Wikipedia:Requested move notice and get more opinions. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Given my origins, I can't be neutral in this discussion. However I would appreciate to see the tonic accents preserved, as
wikipedia:official name
and how many citations you get on Google, on Google books, .... is very limitating, forgetting that there is live outside Google books. I would suggest to use redirect to accommodate different spellings, having Santa María de Òvila as the main article title and any other relevant spelling as redirect (making sure that the article use the Spanish spelling it deserves).
I have a more fundamental objection though. If I am not mistaken, a monastery can't be dedicated (or consecrated) to the Virgin Mary or a saint. It's main church is (per catholic
WP:Commonname Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Even if "Óvila abbey" is technically correct, the term is not used in reliable sources except with regard to the line of Belgian beers brewed by Sierra Nevada Brewing (especially "Ovila Abbey" without the accent.) "Ovila monastery" gets a lot more Google hits, almost all of which are preceded by "Santa Maria de" in the form of "Santa Maria de Ovila monastery". Perhaps the word monastery should be added to the end of the title. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 13:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria de Ovila → Santa María de Óvila – See section above. The article uses the accents throughout, as it does for other Spanish names (García, Navascués, etc.). The fact that some sources do not may reflect their editorial practices rather than ours. Our practice seems to be generally to preserve diacritics in Spanish. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Hi Binksternet - maybe but WP:EN has been edit-warred on this issue and it is questionable whether the current version reflects en.wp reality or the wishes of editors. Baltimore Sun website is an unreliable source for Spanish names, L.A.Times website the same, SF Weekly already know to be the same. I don't see a single source able to give Spanish names in that selection at first sight. These don't meet
best such sources. Do you have a source which can use Spanish but doesn't? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, Margaret Burke's 1982 scholarly work linked above can use diacritics but does not. It is the single most scholarly work in English on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Burke's essay appears in Studies in Cistercian art and architecture Volume 1 ed. Meredith P. Lillich Cistercian Publications, 1982 but I cannot get the website link you give to display -- Google Books only shows a few pages of the original which look as though it was printed with a font that wouldn't take accents. Has someone uploaded it to the web? Could you name a specific Spanish name that does appear with accents in Burke's original essay please? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Burke's work was originally published in 1982 in Studies in Cistercian Art and Architecture, volume 1, edited by Meredith Parsons Lillich. Lillich herself might shed some light on the question of diacritics... you can email her if you wish. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any need to email someone, I'm more than happy to take your word for it if you can tell me what Spanish words are accented. You said "Margaret Burke's 1982 scholarly work linked above can use diacritics but does not" so evidently you saw Spanish accents being used on some page. If you can simply provide the specific words you saw with your own eyes to be accented - but Santa María is not - then that will be more than sufficient :). In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet I found the pdf. Burke doesn't use any Spanish accents, even when they are needed, so what you say above appears to be incorrect, it's just another non-source for the statement being made. This should be a bread and butter simple matter about spelling a Spanish place the same way as the name plate which is physically in the article. Why are we even having an RM? All Spanish places are spelled with Spanish names on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support This discussion comes down to agreeing on which page is the redirect of the other one. Why then not using the correct Spanish spelling as main one and the broken Spanish spelling as redirect?--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I carefully checked the spelling used by Spanish scholars for Ovila. The following spellings are used: Óvila and Ovila. The vast majority is using the spelling "Ovila" instead of "Óvila" (See article page). If moved, this page should be renamed Santa María de Ovila or Ovila abbey (see discusion below) Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, surprising. "Ovila abbey" is succinct and clear. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the pronunciation? Is the stress on the first or second syllable? Srnec (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The stress falls on the penultimate syllable: O-[vi]-la, like most Spanish words ending with a vowel. The spelling of this place, however, is not stable over the ages. If you look back to archives, you will find the spelling Obila (see Google Books; Google books 2). Traditionally Obila is translated as "high moutain/hill" and would have given the name to the city of
ISBN 978-84-7800-893-3. Retrieved 1 August 2012., the author give an interesting insight about the etymology of Obila (Ovila), which may come from Upêlis small stream of water, and why its could not have been Óvila. Hope this helps. Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Santa María de Óvila, Trillo
Hi Alberto, (1) I think you agree first that Santa María itself must be accented irrespective of Ovila/Óvila? No place in Spain can be "Santa Maria" (sic).
The are places in Spain where María goes Maria like in Catalonia or the Basque Country ;-) In this page however, as I suggested above, the Castillian form of María should be used.Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so you Support María? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(2) these books do seem recent enough that there shouldn't exist the metal type problem, but there is still a tendancy in some Spanish books to not observe
Santa María de Ovila
, but at first sight I'm not convinced the authors are following acentuación of mayúscula letters. It looks more like laziness than deliberately following the Roman name.
You have a point here but even local authorities tend to go by Ovila ([3]) and Spanish ministery in charge of cultural heritage also use the same spelling (Monasterio de Nuestra Señora de Ovila. Do they lack of computer skills? Are they lazy? No idea. Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they miss all mayúsculas then yes they lack computer skills or are lazy. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As regards García Alonso Lenguas prerromanas en el territorio de los Vetones (2001), yes that seems likely that the original etymology of "Óvila" was "Obíla", but we cannot have
    Santa María de Obíla as the name when for 100s of years the name has been Santa María de Óvila, Trillo. If we did that we'd have to rename every town and village in Spain to Roman or medieval spellings. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You are missing my point. I am not suggesting to use the medieval spelling for Ovila or late 19th century spelling (see Diccionario Geografico-Estadistico de España) but instead use it as evidence that the correct spelling of the place may not be the one people uses most commonly. The question is whether Óvila is the actual spelling of the place. I would tend to disagree based on usage statistics among scholars (sorry for the NYTimes who uses accents at his discretion) and etymology but it may be just a problem of usage of acentuación of mayúsculas. Having said that a redirect would also do the trick for me, together with a foonote giving all the different spellings of the place. I will change my opinion to Neutral Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but are you Neutral on Santa María? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; "our practice" is to use the rendition found in reliable English-language sources, not to presume diacritics where they are only rarely used. Powers T 20:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then look at these sources: NY Times "..the monastery of Santa Maria de Óvila, founded in 1181 as a Christian bulwark in lands retaken from the Moors" 2005, Sacramento News "..Monastery of Santa María de Óvila in Spain." 2002 In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This monastery is mainly still in Spain, despite some stones being in California, LtPowers' comment above that "our practice" is to use the rendition found in reliable English-language sources, is incorrect for diacritics, that is evidently not "our practice" as 4 million en.wp articles show. "We" (en.wp article creators and editors) spell Spanish geo-names correctly by Spanish spelling regardless of whether they appear in diacritic-equipped texts or not - we do presume diacritics. Someone find one Spanish/LatAm geo article that doesn't.
But the issue here is different, did this monastery lose its Spanish name when part of it got off the boat at Ellis Island, so to speak? The only way we can establish that is by a survey of
reliable-for-statement-being-made sources, which means a book which spells uses Spanish accents sometimes, so can spell Santa María de Óvila, but doesn't, exceptionally anglicizes it. I don't see one. Duggan naturally uses the accents (because he's describing it in Spain). True The Getty Villa Page xiv "from a Spanish monastery, the Colegiata de Santa María la Mayor, ..." Oh, well then the answer is support. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Johnbod, sorry but what is especially significant about an article in a 1982 Art magazine not using Spanish accents? Did even NY Times use Spanish accents for Spanish place names in 1982? NY Times in 2005 cites Burke (as 1980) then says "Santa María de Óvila." in 2005. The three oppose arguments here seem to be summed up by "follow limitations in sources which cannot write Spanish place names in full" - am I misreading? We are in 2012, 1982 is 30 years ago.
WP:IRS
says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."
In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
There are several exceptions on
WP:PRECISION. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You are missing my point. The naming convention of religious buildings on Wikipidia is not consistent. But for the Cistercians monks it is. However, the vast majority of the Cistercians abbeys in En Wiki goes by the pattern "My Place Abbey", independently of what NY Times authors thinks on the subject. Imho, it is not obvious for a casual reader that the name "Santa María de Ovila" refers to a Spanish abbey as not everybody knows, for example, that "Santa Maria del Fiore" refers to the Florence Cathedral. I was trying to bring to your attention that it is "Santa María" which is redundant and not Abbey. Having said that, it doesn't hurt to have a redirect of "Ovila Abbey" to "Santa María de Ovila". Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After we sort out the requested move, I will redirect to the article every other conceivable form of the name. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be losing track of the simplicity of Srnec's proposal. Binksternet, given that English sources support the RM, will you change your oppose to support? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument did not move me, the one in which you dismiss any English source that does not use diacritics for Spanish names requiring them. My whole point is that most English sources do not use them, and that this article's name represents mainstream English usage. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, it's not a question of being moved, but of going with or against what en.wp does. Like it not we do dismiss as a source for Spanish spelling any English source that doesn't use diacritics. If we didn't not a single Spanish person or place name on en.wp would have a Spanish title. Can I ask, where did you get the idea that we should use sources which don't have diacritics to decide diacritics? Because we simply don't do that on en.wp. If you think otherwise then please indicate a single Spanish article where there aren't more English sources that don't use Spanish accents than those that do. Likewise if you oppose this Santa María then you are opposing every article with Santa María in the title on wikipedia. See Special:PrefixIndex/Santa María. What makes this one different? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not purposely trying to be difficult or obstinate, and I'm not trying to go against past practices in other articles. All I'm doing is looking at Wikipedia guidelines and trying to follow them. At
WP:DIACRITICS, the guideline says there is no right or wrong way to do diacritics; it says to "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". That's why I did not accept the argument that any English source without diacritics cannot be counted as a reliable source for settling the title question.
Naturally, the question has several answers. This article will not be made worse if we choose one of the generally acceptable alternatives. It's more than slightly silly that I'm arguing for English usage in the title when a) the article title includes the Spanish "de" for English "of", and b) the article text is full of diacritics. Believe me, I can see the irony.
However, my understanding of the guidelines keeps me returning to the title of "Santa Maria de Ovila", the most widely used name of the topic in English sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Binksternet, yes I know. But if you look at the history of that sentence "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" you'll see it's been contested, even edit-warred, for several years. Considerably less consensus and input goes into some of those MOS pages than demonstrated on the more democratic WP:RM prcess, and that sentence is a good example of the problem. That particular sentence in the guideline is obviously bonkers ["when spelling Spanish use English sources that don't spell Spanish"] and at odds with every French, Spanish, you name it, article title on en.wp. But good luck changing it to reflect how en.wp is.
Back to the real en.wp, see Special:PrefixIndex/Santa María - how many of them follow that sentence? None of them. Why should this be the only article that does? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other side of that coin is
Santa Maria de El Paular.
I am not usually swayed by an argument using the example of other articles—articles A, B and C are one way so article D should also be that way. Rather, I am swayed by guidelines. I think it is terrible that the guideline in question is the target of so much change. Nevertheless, the general principal of using English for titles has not been changed. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Santa Maria de Manresa is Catalan, and the article on Santa Maria de El Paular uses the accent throughout, just not in the title. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec, ditto. But the El Paular one needs to be included in the next RM.
@Binksternet "general principal of using English for titles has not been changed" no, it hasn't but what has this got to do with places which have no English name? The article is not a saint "Saint Mary of Ovila", it is about a Spanish place which, being in Spain and not very notable has no English name. We do use English in titles if English exists, but evidently "Saint Mary of Ovila" doesn't exist as a place name. As far as the edit-warred guideline, Binksternet, would you support restoring that sentence to Prokunsul Piotrus' version?In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most English sources don't use Jaromír Jágr either, but we do. I believe this is an editorial decision and does not need to be governed by what other English sources do any more than we must decide whether to use BCE/CE or BC/AD in an article based on what the sources for the article use. Srnec (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that when we have ridiculous examples like Jagr's article (we are virtually the only English-language source that includes diacritics on his name; that is ridiculous), it becomes more difficult to justify using
Wien, or any number of other cases where names and words have been Anglicized. Powers T 17:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Not really as we use Munich für München rather than the diacritic stripped Munchen; cf
Exonym Agathoclea (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. Removing diacritics from Latin letters is not anglicisation. Konigsberg is not anglicised, just stripped of a diacritic. Koenigsberg would be something else, but it's still not anglicisation. Srnec (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LtPowers, given that "Jágr was the flag bearer of the 2010 Winter Olympics for the Czech Republic." (which why on earth is that not in the lede per
WP:WORLDVIEW
?) it is not "ridiculous" for a Czech to have a Czech name. We don't do the Ellis Island-type anglicization of BLP names on en.wp unless they change nationality.
As far as Moskva, please see English exonyms. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santa María de Ovila per 1930s Spanish sources that don't accentize capital vowels would also be an improvement into line with normal en.wp practice - but would contradict 1970s jpg name plate Santa María de Óvila image in article. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)}}[reply
]

image used in article "Santa María de Óvila Trillo".






Survey (2013)

  • Oppose per
    Cadiz, Mexico, Peru, etc. Also oppose, as a majority of reliable English-language sources omit the accents - even some sources which otherwise include diacritics (see Gender Space Architecture, Jane Rendell, et al., eds., 2000. p.243. (cf. São Paulo, pp.149-150; Académie française, p.74, etc.)). Dohn joe (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Dohn Joe - I added in [non-exonym] to RM nom to please you, but since you've addedNote:nom added "non-exonym" after I responded below.
Cadiz, Mexico, Peru and local names such as Santa Maria de Ovila, or indeed your Lech Wałęsa (commonly rendered Lech Walesa) so we register your !vote and move on. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate that you added "non-exonym" to clarify your statement, but it then made my response seem out of context. I suppose I could have added a small note to my response instead. As to exonyms, you and I had a lengthy discussion on the topic a while back, and so I would think you would agree that exonymship is not actually as straightforward as one might think. In particular, where a foreign name has some particular reason to be known in English-speaking areas, that name is often adapted by English-language sources. This particular Spanish monastery, for example, was brought stone by stone to California by Hearst. Therefore, it has a significance to English-language sources outside of its Spanish origins, unlike any other Spanish monastery. It is thus natural and unsurprising that English-language sources will omit the accents - even, as has been noted, in sources that otherwise use them. For a similar case, see Medjugorje - an otherwise typical Bosnian town that would be spelled with native diacritics if it weren't notable in English-speaking areas as a pilgrimage site. Dohn joe (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn Joe, please re-read the move proposal: The New York Times spells the Spanish monastery correctly in full Spanish in repeated articles about the parts of the monastery no longer at Coordinates: 40.7008°N 2.5572°W. i.e. The New York Times spells the Spanish monastery correctly in full Spanish in the context of the stones in California. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Aragon and Mexico are pronounced differently in English than in Spanish. There is a general difference between how higher level geographical names are treated and how lower level names are treated. (Compare Naples to Ventimiglia.) The fact that it's not Saint Mary's of Ovila is reason enough to retain the diacrticis. For the record, I'd much prefer Cádiz. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Srnec. P.S. see my exonym comment in the previous discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing has changed since the identical move request directly above this one, except that in the interim I bought a CDROM of the Spanish book by Francisco Layna Serrano, a CD which was shipped from Spain to me in California. (AACHE Ediciones had no method of sending the book electronically.) The CDROM book is called El Monasterio de Ovila, with no accent. Inside the book, the monastery is consistently referred to as Santa María de Ovila, having an accent in "María" but none in "Ovila". This book was originally written as a monograph in the 1930s, but the digital edition was completed in 1998, edited by respected topic expert Antonio Herrera Casado, with a foreword by Tomás Nieto Taberné, a scholar from the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando. This typography, with only "María" accented, is consistent with the 2005 AACHE Ediciones book, also by Casado, titled Monasterios y conventos de Castilla-La Mancha: una guía para conocerlos y visitarlos, containing a chapter about the "Monasterio de Ovila, junto a Trillo", using no accents in the chapter name. So the suggested title (with two accents) does not match recent Spanish scholarship.
    Finally, it remains true that the major scholarly work in English, the paper by Margaret Burke, does not use any accents. Therefore Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is the best path to follow. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So would you accept Santa María as New York Times and as the 1930s book of Serrano? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One accent in "María" is a better choice than two accents. Burke's work has no accents, so my first choice is still no accents. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the question of usage, do you think that "Santa María de Óvila" is wrong? Is there a correct version in Spanish? Would "Santa Maria" be correct Spanish? Why should we follow the editorial practice of any other author or publisher? I think this question is on the same level as when to introduce section headings, where to use hyphens and dashes or how to paraphrase a cited author. Srnec (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the above question deserves an answer. Yes Burke's 1982 paper appeared in a journal with basic-ASCII fonts (as was normal in 1984), but the question is does anyone think "Santa María de Óvila" is wrong? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But is it common usage in English? Of course this topic is not very widely known, but most of the people who have written about it in English have used no accents, which makes it like the Peru/Perú example in that the English usage is a no-accent Romanization of the Spanish. Sources with no accents: Los Angeles Times in 2010, The Baltimore Sun in 1997, SF Weekly in 1999, SF Weekly in 2000, National Catholic Reporter in 2008, American Heritage in 1981, and of course the Margaret Burke piece from 1982. The website of the current home of the rebuilt Chapter House does not use accents. And then there are the many reliable sources that have not been used in this article but which also present the name without accents: Medieval Archives in 2011, CBS News in 2012, National Catholic Reporter in 2013, The Blaze in 2012, MSN Money in 2012, Mountain Democrat in 2013, National Trust for Historic Preservation in 2006, Popular Mechanics, SF Gate in 2012, ChicoER in 2007, Huffington Post in 2012, Seattle Times in 2012, Catholic News Agency in 2013, The Washington Post in 2011, The Davis Enterprise in 2013, Verlang.com – an architecture reference, The Bay Citizen in 2012, The Blade in 2010, Minutes of a 2013 meeting by the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission, Our Sunday Visitor in 2011, Corning Observer in 2010, Tehama County Genealogical & Historical Society in 2010, Financial Times in 2011, US Secretary of State, The California Guide, Red Bluff Daily News in 2012, Houston Chronicle in 2012, and the Journal of the Institute for Sacred Architecture in 2003. The English-speaking world appears to greatly prefer using no accents. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, but that is not the question that was asked, and those links are not "reliable for the statement being made" since en.wp is not a basic-ASCII website - not a single Spain, or indeed Europe or LatAm, geo article is in basic-ASCII on en.wp, so why is a list of basic-ASCII websites relevant to what en.wp should do? By the same logic someone could argue because Charlotte Brontë is "Charlotte Bronte" in basic-ASCII websites that en.wp should follow that. But we don't since en.wp definition of
WP:RS
is "reliable for the statement being made" - a basic-ASCII website is not a reliable source for non-basic-ASCII names any more than a black-and-white photo is a reliable source for colour. Or do you think that all en.wp geo article titles are wrong? You're probably talking about 500,000 articles. And they are all wrong?
In any case that wasn't the question, Srnec asked "do you think that "Santa María de Óvila" is wrong? Is there a correct version in Spanish? Would "Santa Maria" be correct Spanish?" It would be polite to answer the question that Srnec asked. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer, of course, is that "Santa María de Óvila" is not wrong - but neither is "Santa María de Ovila" or "Santa Maria de Ovila". As for the "correct" version in Spanish, simply read the previous RM to find out that many Spanish sources omit the accent in "Ovila". No one here can answer what percentage of those omissions is due to typographical limitations and what percentage is intentional. And as a matter of fact, there are Spanish sources, spanning centuries, that omit the accent in "Maria" as well. See for example Historia genealogica de la casa de silva, Volume 1. 1685. p.338. and Formaciones travertínicas y tobáceas en el valle del Tajo (sector Cifuentes-Trillo): estudio geomorfológico, petrológico y sedimentológico, Cuaternario y Geomorfología, vol.1. (1-4). pp. 231-245. 1987. Indeed, finding "Maria" with no accent is not uncommon in Spanish-language sources. (This is not to say that "María" is not vastly more common - just to say that "Maria" is not necessarily incorrect even in Spanish.) Dohn joe (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn joe - I'm sorry but I think now you're moving from being persistent to being disruptive. A question was asked of Binksternet and you answer by pasting a link to a book published in 1685. How is this not disruptive? Enough has been said that you should be aware that printing technology in 1685 and the modern Ortografía normativa del español are different, so what purpose does posting a link to a 1685 text serve.
As to your comment that editors here, which includes myself and Srnec, are unable to answer your question - but we have answered exactly that question: 100% of ommissions are due to typographical limitations; none of them are "deliberate" - Spanish publishers do not "deliberately" mispell Santa María counter the rules of Spanish orthography - just as es.wp doesn't (except in this one article). Your opinion on Spanish publishing is contradicted by basic sources such as Ortografía y redacción para secretarias -- 1988 - Page 22 "La presencia o ausencia de un acento gráfico, en ocasiones, cambia incluso el significado de una palabra: papa/papá ..." María is even used as an example of the need for accent in Spanish course books "En algunas palabras la vocal acentuada es la débil y por eso recibe acento gráfico: María, geografía" - so you say "Santa Maria" is not wrong, but reliable print sources on the Spanish language say that it is wrong, it is not "deliberately" written that way when there is no typographic limitation. "La tilde o acento gráfico es un elemento importante de la ortografía española." In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can it possibly be "disruptive" to show examples of Spanish usage, when the question asked was one of Spanish usage? And why do you ignore the 1987 source? The accents in that paper appear to have been manually added. Isn't it significant that they omitted the accents on both "Maria" and "Ovila"? And there are other examples as well. In short, it is clear that 1) the vast majority of English-language sources omit the accents; 2) this includes multiple sources that use diacritics elsewhere; 3) Spanish sources on occasion omit them as well. Once again, given the special status of this monastery in English-language sources, omitting the accents here is neither "inaccurate" nor "wrong". Dohn joe (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason presenting a 1685 print as evidence against the New York Times is disruptive is (a) because it is counter to WP:RS "sources reliable for the statement being made" and (2) because introducing a 1685 text is part of an effort to keep this article as an oddity as the only non Europe geo article with í-to-i basic-ASCII-ized title, (3) because with or without the 1685 printing any argument is disruptive if it aims to keep 1 unique Spain geo article at odds with (and therefore disrupting) the consensus on titles found across 500,000 other geo articles. (As for the 1987 pdf, I didn't bother downloading it - but if you say "The accents in that paper appear to have been manually added" how does that help your case for following basic ASCII sources rather than the New York Times?) This is MOS-warrioring by proxy. If someone is against Spanish names for Spanish geo articles they need to raise an RfC against all Spanish, or all European and LatAm geo articles, not just fix on making this one an exception. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You ask if using accents is "wrong", but that question is not the one that matters to me. The question that matters is "what is common usage". To me, it looks like the Spanish name "Santa María de Óvila" or "Santa María de Ovila" is commonly written as "Santa Maria de Ovila" in English, without accents, in the same manner as the city of San Jose, California, which is commonly written without the accented 'e' in English. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And your usage stats are not the ones that matter to me. I guess it's an impasse. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, the important difference is that, unlike California, Spain is not part of the USA. San Jose, California is not a place in Spain, it is in the USA, the native language is English. A more relevant comparion would be San José del Valle, Cádiz. If the point is that some of the stones are in California, please be reminded that this article is not about the stones in California, it is about the Santa María de Óvila monastery in Trillo in Spain, as shown by the geocordinates at the top of article. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Californians have defined the name of the topic in English. The California influence is huge. This is not a purely Spanish topic, described for English-speaking audiences about a place that is only in Spain. It is a topic about architectural pillage that became known in English because of the actions of California residents, especially Hearst. Most of what has been written about the topic in English has been from California observers. To Californians, the monastery is not simply a place in Spain, it is a massive collection of stones which are unfortunately in different places. This defining feature is what makes this topic stand out as the exception. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Binksternet, but isn't Sacramento also in California? Sacramento News Review - Local Stories - "A TIME TO GATHER STONES" 2002 "The stone and 900 others like it represent all that’s left of what was once the chapter house of the Cistercian, or Trappist, Monastery of Santa María de Óvila in Spain.". We can agree that a 1984 pdf with basic ASCII fonts is the most important source on the abbey's architecture, but that doesn't make it "Californians have defined the name of the topic in English" - Californians in Sacramento with unicode fonts are spelling the Spanish name in Spanish, the same as New York Times, and New York Times is also "English." ... the problem I don't think you seem to realise is that with every other Spanish geo article titled in Spanish to have this one titled in 1984-pdf-fonts is going to mislead readers, mislead in 2 ways. Firstly not having the Spanish accent on Santa María immediately shouts Catalan!, since only Catalan churches have no accent on Santa María, but this monastery isn't in Catalonia it's just north of Madrid. The second way this title will mislead readers is that the natural pronunciation of "d'Ovila" would be to stress the i, do-VEE-la; only with the inclusion of the accent Ó is there to help native Spanish speakers pronounce d'OH-vila. If native Spanish speakers need help to know how to pronounce it then that goes moreso for en.wp readers. With every other Spanish geo correctly accented to hold out against the majority on this RM for basic ASCII isn't creating a "Californian name," it's just messing readers up and suggesting a monastery in Catalonia with the wrong pronunciation. Who is that helping? Residents of Sacramento and New Yorkers are able to ignore the Spanish accents if they want, or notice and be informed if they want, why shouldn't en.wp readers have the same option? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that some of the source in English use two accents, but the great majority do not. Your assertion that the monastery is a little bit north of Madrid is only half the story; the rest of it is California. This topic is the exception because it is the only Spanish location which is half in California! That is why you have such an annoying exception to your otherwise smoothly uniform article names.
Regarding the pronunciation, there are Californians who have settled upon the "wrong" pronunciation, for instance the beer label that is pictured in the article puts the accent on the second syllable. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we'd stop talking about right vs wrong and instead discuss what's best for our purposes. The reason "Santa María de Óvila" is best is that: (i) it will cause no confusion or uncertainty in those unfamiliar with Spanish orthography, but "Santa Maria de Ovila" will cause confusion to some of those familiar with it but not familiar with monastery, such as assuming it is a Catalan site; and (ii) our editorial standards should be above those of newspapers and like sources, no matter how reliable they are, and, in light of this, consulting the RAE for guidance on Spanish orthography makes sense. The words are Spanish and the place is Spanish. As long as we treat it as a Spanish monastery and not as a set of artefacts in California, we should go with Spanish spelling. Srnec (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two observations: 1) Wikipedia's editorial standards are not chartered to be "above those of newspapers". There is no such policy. 2) This particular monastery is half in Spain and half in California, which is the whole point. This glaring fact cannot be ignored. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As regards 2), by my count the article text devotes about 1,100 words to the history and status of the monastery in Spain, and about 2,500 words to the move by Hearst and subsequent history in California. That's almost 70% of the article being devoted to the Californian history. Dohn joe (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Wikipedia's fonts are not "chartered" (?) to be "above those of newspapers" no, but the fact is by consensus of editors WP:MOS is. En.wp could artificially be held down to a basic-ASCII html environment if en.wp editors' wished it to be, but across 4,000,000 articles en.wp do as Britannica and consistently have Slavic accents, let alone Spanish ones. This editorial consensus across en.wp is evident even here with 4-2 majority for this being treated as any other en.wp article.
(2) seems a pretty pointless argument since Californians also write in unicode as the Sacramento articles show, and the New York Times is also available in California. If the article was Randolph Hearst's purchase of some of the stones of the Abbey of Mary of Oliva fine, but it isn't; the geocordinates in the article header identify this as a WP Spain article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, neither Binksternet nor Dohn joe chose to address my argument that "it will cause no confusion or uncertainty in those unfamiliar with Spanish orthography, but 'Santa Maria de Ovila' will cause confusion to some of those familiar with it but not familiar with monastery". Srnec (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that reader confusion is a significant issue. Very quickly the reader will see that the article is about a monastery that was built near Madrid, then mostly torn apart and hauled to California. The English Wikipedia readers who might be expecting a Catalan topic (because there are no accents) are already sophisticated enough to be able to see right away upon beginning to read the article that it is not Catalan. This very minor confusion cannot be more important than the observed common usage in the majority of English-language sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Binskternet, that is not true: I myself was confused into thinking this was a Catalan name, and pronounced o-VEE-la. And readers shouldn't have to read the lead to see that the abbey is not in Catalonia and not pronounced o-VEE-la as the title currently leads to expect. Of course among all the 4,000,000 en.wp articles if we give only this 1 a basic ASCII title because it was basic ASCII in a 1984 pdf it will cause confusion; Otherwise why do you think we are having this RM? The inconsistency problem is behind the 5-2 support for the move. And what do readers gain from introducing the confusion - you haven't shown any reader benefit from this article uniquely on en.wp having an ASCII name. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to actual name. A source in ASCII or in a non-Spanish language won't have the accent, but that's not a reason to exclude it. --Article editor (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Article editor. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

@DohnJoe - If you want to add a small Spanish monastery to

WP:IRS "reliable for the statement being made". In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

In ictu, the point is that because the "book of feminist architecture" (published by Routledge, a division of Taylor and Francis) universally applies diacritics throughout (across multiple languages, and in many contexts - placenames, personal names, institutions), but not for the subject of this article, is that they did so intentionally. I believe if you peruse other works by the same publishing house, you'll find diacritics liberally used. Just because they intentionally omit diacritics for a placename you wish they hadn't doesn't mean the the book "doesn't have a well-proofread MOS." If I were Routledge/Taylor and Francis, I'd take umbrage. Dohn joe (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But why would they do so intentionally? Unless we can come up with a good reason, I see no reason to follow them. This is an editorial decision. Srnec (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a major academic imprint that uses diacritics elsewhere. Isn't it reasonable to assume that they acted intentionally in this case as well? Dohn joe (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's not enough for us to blindly follow them, since it is not as if the diacritics are wrong. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a historical issue with accented-capital-O due to the legacy of metal type, but "Santa María de" is evidently Spanish and should have been caught by publishing software. It wasn't intentionally kept out as an authoritative statement designed to lead a Wikipedia editor to argue that out of all the 100s of Spanish "Santa María de" this single one is officially an English "Santa Maria de" .....and as above, since when is "de" English? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Santa María de Óvila. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Santa María de Óvila. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Santa María de Óvila. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santa_María_de_Óvila&oldid=1206070686"