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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Málaga for Jo-Hy's strong arguments against accepting a derivation from the triliteral root for "salt" pending further (specialist) sourcing. — LlywelynII 08:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, LlywelynII. I'm not sure why you linked the Huss ref to Korean Google Books, but I re-linked it to English Google Books. Please do not change the citation style I used to write the article; also, if you make any editorial changes, keep in mind that the article is written in British English. Carlstak (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one writes Google Books URLs by hand, as far as I know. I linked to Korean Google Books because that's the URL that I copied. It doesn't help or hurt anyone to leave it that way, although your having removed the link directly to the page cited seems unhelpful. The Engvar I'll deal with below, but you should tag your articles and not copy other users' inconsistent text (esp. Americanized text prominently displayed in the article's lead) if it's very important to you to use British English. Other editors will assume there's inconsistency and standardize the article, wasting everyone's time, all the moreso when it produces hurt feelings and back-and-forth issues. — LlywelynII 15:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main point, though, is the bit about Johanna-Hypatia's strong objections to thinking that the name is related to the Punic word for "salt". I've certainly seen several lay references that mention that point but—if the triliteral root really is MLḤ (as Malaga stated) and the city's name was MLK' (as Huss attests)—we really should keep that etymology off of the page pending a fairly knowledgable and scholarly source that supports it. The Engvar fight is unpleasant, but it's great if you see what she's saying and are keeping an eye on these pages to make sure it doesn't sneak in based on an unreliable source. — LlywelynII 15:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to my edit, the article's usage was unclear. It's used "romanization" and "favor" (e.g.) from its founding. I standardized it to American English which, per WP:ENGVAR, is actually the page's correct default now. That said, I do appreciate the work you've put into it and am fine compromising to Oxfordized British English. If it really is an important feature for you, it's best to tag your pages with sth like {{UK-English}} or {{Oxford English}}. — LlywelynII 14:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wrote the article in non-Oxford British English, although I live in the US; that is the style I use for the history articles I've written or edited massively. Someone else may have changed the spelling, although it's possible that I missed them when I wrote it. I'll correct them, and add the {{UK-English}} tag. Carlstak (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, like I said, I don't really want to get you started edit warring over this, but the article was first standardized as American English. Just now. Prior to that, it had always been a hybrid. I'm fine with compromising to Oxford English. If not, we can just send it up the pipeline to the committees or go back to the Malaga page to see who first started whichever form in all the material you brought over from there. But, with all due respect and appreciation for your contributions, this isn't "your" page to control by fiat. — LlywelynII 15:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I just checked the article revision history, and it appears that I created and wrote it mostly in American English, so Oxford English will be fine. To be clear, when I created the "History of Málaga", this was all that had been in the history section of the "Málaga" article. I translated much of "History of Málaga" from the Spanish WP article, though I added a great deal of content, so that my version had almost twice the kilobytes. I must say that there were errors of fact in the Spanish article that I strove to correct. Carlstak (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
