Talk:Alhambra

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jianhe.pitzer.edu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Err
Sorry, but are those really the best photos we can get of the Al-Hambra? No offence, but it really doens't show you enough of the interior. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have a pretty good selection of photos of the Alhambra (and Generalife) from my trip there in 2002. I offer them under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license. You can use any of them that you like for this article, and they can be found here. --Prwood 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

i have just visited the Alhambra (march 2007) and i bought a book explaining the history of it. (This book was bought in Granada) In the book, it says that the name is derived from the same word in Arabic meaning red, but the red comes from the top layer of oxidised soil which is red (i saw it!). the name of the book is The Alhambra and Granada in focus. Please research this.--Aixoise21 13:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always been told that the lion fountain was a gift from the jews in the city. It says in various places that it is a rare example of Islamic Animal statues, and that it was probably made by Christians as Muslims believe that it is idoltry... I don't think that either of those is correct in this case.

mmm, i don't think so, I mean why do you think the conflict between the Arab in Andalusia and in the homeland of Arab? because of this matter. Arab andalusia started to make statues and so on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewoone (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * This article should be called Alhambra, not The Alhambra. In Spanish it receives the definite article, but if this were an integral part of the name it would have been left untranslated. The begining of the name is, in fact, the Arabic definite article anyway. The definite article may have been put there to distinguish it from other Alhambras. However, that is what Alhambra (disambiguation) is for. A notice at the top of this article already points users there if this is not what they are looking for. --Gareth Hughes 14:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ''Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~


 * Support Gareth Hughes 14:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the reasoning above. Jonathunder 05:43, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Alhambra is never ever referred to just as "Alhambra" in English. We should use the normal English name - which in this case includes the definite article, jguk 22:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What is being proposed is not to remove the word the when it occurs before Alhambra in running text but to remove it from the title because The is not part of the name itself. Consider how the United Kingdom is listed. The word the is almost always in front of it in text, but The is not a part of the article title itself. Jonathunder 00:31, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)


 * Support The naming convention is this case comes down to "is the "The" normally capitalised in running text?"  (As there's no "title of 'works'" or "official name" consideration here.)  Evidently it's not -- witness the article itself.  Alai 23:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, for reasons given by Gareth Hughes. -- Uppland 21:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Both WorldBook and Britannica list just Alhambra; though in commentary it is almost always referred to using the definite article. Standard practice indicates article should be listed simply as "Alhambra." - Quartermaster 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity and hearsay?
I removed some adjectives that were blatantly subjective, and I think perhaps we should open a discussion on the objectivity of some of the other statements in this article.

Also, does anybody know of a trustworthy source that verifies the story about Napoleon's "crippled soldier" story, under the history section? It sounds a lot like hearsay.


 * The information appear on few sites as well i.e. 1 2 3, but i never came across it before; anyone has a source? Thank you --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM (talk) 06:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Much of the information here seems to be faulty and not backed up by in-depth research. I removed several passages referring to the often-repeated yet not entirely accurate statement that Islam forbids the depiction of humans and animals. In fact, in addition to the famous lions there are several paintings in the Alhambra that clearly depict humans (frescoes in the Torre de las Damas in the Partal Palace and paintings on stretched leather on the alcove ceilings in the Sala de los Reyes in the Riyad Palace, or Court of the Lions). It should also be noted that almost all of the names used in this article are not original designations. Rather, they are post-conquest Spanish names (many of which were based on Arabic corruptions and misunderstandings) or more fanciful names applied by foreign travelers during the Romantic Period.83.43.234.5 12:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's not true, it's certainly widely believed, and of course the Alhambra contains a monument to the crippled soldier in the form of a large plaque just outside the Alcazaba. Flapdragon 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Patio lions as a clock
''The twelve lions functioned as a clock with water flowing from a different lion each hour. The Christians of the Reconquest took apart the clock to see how it worked and it hasn't worked since.''

Can we have some references for this intriguing but unlikely-sounding idea? A brief search turned up only one not very authoritative reference. If it was widely accepted as fact I feel it would be more widely mentioned. Flapdragon 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) hello

Arabic name
As far as my basic Arabic goes, "الحمراء" means "the red", just a definite article and an adjective. It does not specify any noun -- a castle, a cat or whatever. So I'd translate that as "the red one", or something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.214.36.10 (talk • contribs).
 * Indeed, but the whole name of the fortress was القلعة الحمراء. That means "The Red Fortress". --Garcilaso 17:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV & Peacock terms
I just reverted two edits by 86.129.108.118, one of which added a grammatical error that was previously corrected back into the article and both of which put peacock terms back into the article. If, after reviewing the edits I reverted, anyone feels that this was unjust, please discuss it here, rather than edit warring. Thanks. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits by User:Rafmad
Beautiful and poetic writing works marvelously in brochures, travelogues and descriptive books. Here on Wikipedia, the writing style should be more objective and factual. Sentences like "the Nasrids sought to immortalize themselves through a work of beauty that seems to exist in some dream world as much as it does in this one" are completely unsupportable via external references. How can anyone today know what the Nasrids were thinking? Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only one sentence (the one quotated by Blinksternet) of the edit by Rafmad is poetical and empty, the rest is valious information, and improves the poor section about the historical context of Alhambra consttruction. I restore it. --Garcilaso (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Most-visited monument in Spain
Official sources earlier this year (late last year?) stated that the Alhambra is now the most-visited monument (dare I say tourist attraction?), ahead of the Prado, etc. I don't have time now to find the reference, but maybe someone can and modify the lead accordingly. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But look out! You need to make advance reservations to visit the Alhambra. On visiting last Sunday (10th October 2010) we arrived at about midday to discover that it was sold out for the day, and we could try coming back at 8am the next day when we might be able to get in. We were told that we could not reserve a ticket for the next day as reservations were booked up at least a week ahead. It was a disappointing visit to Granada. Luckily both Cordoba and Seville which were on our itinerary offered amazing monuments that made up for it... (Mike Kemp) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.227.61 (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Map needed
Wouldn't it be better to add a map to show its location? Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Unfortunately, the WHS infobox doesn't allow for location maps, but I have added one to the setting section . Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WE NEED A DANG MAP-- Ryan H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.41.136 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Physical description
Rewrite and source needed:
 * The literal translation of Alhambra "red fortress" derives from the color of the red clay of the surroundings of which the fort is made. The buildings of the Alhambra were originally whitewashed; however, the buildings now seen today are reddish.

Not fluent English, and hard to correct without a source. Red bcz the clay has penetrated the surface of the building materials? In what sense is "the fort is made" of "the red clay of the surroundings"? Is it simply a network of dirt berms? Brick baked from local clay? Rammed earth? Is "the buildings now seen today" a redundancy? Are these new buildings, or has their appearance just changed? In my climate, whitewashing is regarded as something more casual than painting, presumably needing more frequent renewal; does no one bother to renew it, or has the surface eroded (from neglect or abuse?) to the point where it would look even worse it were whitewashed again? If a source in good English is not offered soon, i'm prepared to remove at least what i've quoted here. --Jerzy•t 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Link out to Alhambra Model
A link out to an model of the Alhambra in an application called 'Second Life' has been removed as off topic; while I don't use the application, I see a simulation of the architecture featured in this article as topical and useful to readers. What is the rational for removal?Mavigogun (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is, how accurate is the representation of Alhambra? I'm not familiar with Second Life, but it essentially appears to be a game. A representation of Alhambra in a game isn't really useful to the reader as it almost certainly won't be accurate. However, on commons there are some videos round Alhambra which I think would be very useful in the article. They bring the place to life a bit more than static pictures. Nev1 (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The key problem I have with your assessment and removal of the link out is illustrated in the above statement 'I'm not familiar'; if you don't know, you can't assess- and your presumption of a lack of worth due to a lack of personal knowledge isn't a basis for a credible judgment; the expressed prejudice you have regarding the platform for delivery of the simulation is unfortunate: several game engines (Quake, Unreal) have been employed as architectural tour vehicles to great effect- which you might find laudable.  If you are familiar with Alhabra, you might consider installing the application and assessing the link out.  Mavigogun (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the game engines, not the games themselves. It is possible that Second Life has a remarkably accurate recreation of Alhambra, but since it's essentially a computer game and it isn't likely. I realise I'm generalising here, but it's common sense that as the site is very complex it wouldn't be recreated accurately. If it was an archaeological or architectural reconstruction then I'd be all for it, but let's be honest that since it's a computer game it's unlikely to have the highest standards of adhering to reality. I'd be happy to be proved wrong though as iff it is accurate it would be very useful to the article's readers. Nev1 (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the link because this is an article about the real Alhambra, not about any virtual Alhambra. If there were some notability given the virtual version, a popular commentator comparing them, a well known critic saying they don't match up perfectly, then there could be article text devoted to the virtual version. As it was when I chanced upon it, the virtual version was given a free pass as if its notability was assured, which I doubt. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the article isn't about a simulation... and the article isn't about 2D drafted plans of the structure- but a link out to architectural drawings of Alhambra would be just as topical.  The link out is contextually congruent with the article and section heading.   If you doubt the appropriateness because the material linked to may lack merit, I can only suggest investigating.   Suspicions are not our metric.Mavigogun (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't put a computer model made by one or more fans of the building in the same category as architectural drawings made from surveys of the building. Instead, I classify the Second Life virtual version the same as a detailed story or recollection written about the Alhambra. I see no reason to list any work of fiction about the Alhambra unless the work can be said to be notable. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your classification of the simulation as a 'work of fiction' is contrived: by that measure, any rendering- be it architectural drawings, photographs- are 'works of fiction'.  The application 'Second Life' is used for virtual conferences, news distribution (by several prominent sources, including NPR), and architectural simulations -in addition and apart from being a storytelling platform. You have admitted total ignorance as to the quality of the rendering- and thus the ability to assess worth -yet you persist in making presumptions of quality and issuing baseless judgments.   The simulation could be totally insubstantial- or of exceptional quality. Unless you are willing to review a source, you can't assess it's worth with any authority.Mavigogun (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me the proof that the virtual Alhambra is notable. Binksternet (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you have discarded your initial stated reason for removing the link out?  You asked 'how accurate is the representation of Alhambra'; now your criteria is 'prove it is notable'- it appears that your reason is morphing to support a position.   Have you examined the model to assess its accuracy?   Have you sought out the proof you desire?   Your removal of several such SL link outs without due consideration (examining of the referenced material) speaks of an agenda, as does your above presumption of quality.   You have prejudged the value for all other users- rather than seek to establish value.Mavigogun (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing my talk points with those of Nev1. Nev1 asked about accuracy. I asked about notability and context. I'm also concerned with verifiability and the level of knowledge held by the creator of the virtual version. I have been examining all the instances of http://slurl.com/secondlife (as in search results such as this) to see whether the link to Second Life is discussed in the article or if it is presented baldly with no context. In the instances with no context, I have been removing the links. I would like to see the links given a place in the article text so that the connection to the article subject matter is clear. In the case of Alhambra, the Second Life virtual version has not been connected to its creator which means we don't know who put it together, how accurate it is or what gives it notability. We don't know if referring the reader to the link is helpful or harmful. At WP:External links, we see that "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". The request by Nev1 for a verification of accuracy is perfectly valid. Who made the virtual version? What is their architectural modeling background? Are they knowledgeable enough? Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Much of the article seems sourced from the 1910 Britannica, but newer material refutes some of the more romantic and dramatic aspects
Here is the Britannica article.

Please note how Irwin refutes much of the questionable material in this article in the introduction to his 2004 book The Alhambra.

1910 Britannica may be a good source for descriptions of the site, but the historical aspects of this article need to be scrutinized closely. Aquib (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish builder of the Alhambra
Why is there no mention of the fact that the Alhambra was originally built by the Jewish vizier, Yehoseph ibn Nagralla, as per the link below? Would soemone care to make the amendment?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-lions-of-the-alhambrajews-in-moorish-spain/

Note that this is supported by the Junta de Andalucia (regional government). See the link below which states '1056-1066?. El visir Yusuf ibn Nagralla  construye el Hisn al-Hamra'.

Answer = Alhambra was build by people from sindh (indus valey) who moved to arabic country during civil wars, many of these architect went marroco and spain, go and search about makli graveyard in sindh (pakistan) they had same design which they used on graves a stodework, the muslims learned it work on the stones from hindu temples which are 4000 years old, these sindhi muslim brought this culture to spain and build not a jew. ibn batuta was also in india and pakistan to learn and he came to spain with his people to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.187.21 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/educacion/webportal/web/milenio-del-reino-de-granada/cronologia-y-linea-del-tiempo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.200.0 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

High quality panorama showing the entire complex available
In case an editor finds it relevant, I would just like to mention that a high quality panorama with a rather attractive light of the entire complex is available. I am not a wikipedian and not knowledgeable about the topic either, so I do not feel competent in doing it myself (I am biased too as it is my photo). However, I feel, that maybe it could replace one or more other existing photos of the exterior as seen from Granada, to decrease overall image clutter on the page with many small thumbnails. --Slaunger (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. J e e  16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Slaunger (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good - nice work both of you! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple non-standard image sizes in gallery
Recent edits have created a mixture of large and non-standard image sizes in the gallery. One option would be to remove it altogether - the article is already heavily illustrated. Another would be to go back to the standard-sized gallery that we had up to 23 December. I can see an argument for a third option, which is to allow the two panoramas to be somewhat wider than the other images - otherwise they appear very tiny as they have a wide aspect ratio. The current arrangement has large images (bigger than the default in most cases) all at different size because of the newly-applied "packed" setting, which leaves upright images very small and panoramas very large. I am minded to remove the gallery as all the images will remain on the Commons Alhambra page where they can readily be browsed. The larger question is how many images there should be in the article: if it's less than 33, which does sound rather a lot, then removing the gallery would be the best answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to remove the gallery; the rest of the article is, as you say, already thoroughly illustrated with images, and I can't see what the theme of this gallery is supposed to be. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed some pics and moved others, & removed the stupid "packed" gallery format. The article should have lots of pics, and especially more and better text. It gets over 400k views a year (mobile excluded). Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The panorama shots within the intro are a bit much. Also the Layout section now looks too busy with the image that large plus the panorama. Perhaps a separate panorama gallery could contain all three of those shots.  I will spread some of the images out, but the right now the crush of large images at the top is overbearing.  Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagee - the big white space next to the TOC is the best place for images that need to be very wide - are you sure you aren'tr just reacting to what is unusual (on WP)? I wouldn't mind if the third one was moved there too. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are done working for a bit, I have a few adjustments that will help. I'll include the third panorama at the top, as you suggest. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably two panoramas are more than sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a bit more tidy and less imposing. As you said, what is really needed is more text. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks much tidier, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Muqarnas are not Mocárabe
There's a problem in the section "Architectural details" where it's written this: as well as innovations such as stilted arches and muqarnas

That's a huge mistake. The innovation wasn't the "muqarnas" (which existed long before the construction), but an innovation called "mocárabe", which derives from muqarnas adding a stalactite.

The article Muqarnas suffers from the same mistake saying: When some elements project downwards, the style may be called mocárabe

The article Mocárabe writes this: The terms mocárabe and muqarnas are similar and may be used interchangeably at times, but muqarnas do not necessarily have stalactite formations.

Untrue. If a square has a longer dimension, it's no longer a square, it's a rectangle. Different shapes has different names.

Even more, the Mocárabe article spits this afterwards: The Nasrid used mocárabe in the Alhambra, most notably in the "Sala de los Mocárabes."

I think the removal of "muqarnas" from this text as well as fixing both Muqarnas and Mocárabe to make the distinction clear. What do you think?

Also, moving Muqarnas, which is plural, to Muqarna, the proper singular. Same as if I go to Bricks, plural, will redirect me to Brick, its singular proper noun.

Franzrogar (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Alhambra evening panorama Mirador San Nicolas sRGB-1.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Alhambra evening panorama Mirador San Nicolas sRGB-1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 22, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-10-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding "It is now one of Spain's major tourist attractions, ", which is also written in the article, isn't it actually the largest tourist attraction in Spain? At least this source states that in 2014: "Over 2.4 million people visited Granada’s Moorish palace in 2014 making it the most visited tourist site in Spain.". This source also says that "In 2010, the Alhambra issued a press release that said that it was the monument most visited in Spain in 2009, with about 3 million visitors. It also said that the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona was next, and the third was the Prado Museum in Madrid.". -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The blurbs follow the article. If there is a change in the article, the blurb can change. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Royal Complex (Nasrid Palaces)
The Royal Complex section (3.1) has issues. Patio de Machuca; Mexuar; Fachada de Comares; Torre de Comares; Patio de Arrayanes; Baño de Comares; Patio de los Leones; Sala de Abencerrajes; Sala de los Reyes; Sala de Dos Hermanas; Patio de Lindaraja; Peinador de la Reina;
 * The section mistitled: it should be titled "Nasrid Palaces"
 * The "Royal complex" paragraph refers to "three main parts: Mexuar, Serallo, and the Harem," which is not how the Nasrid Palaces and their areas/rooms/halls are referred to by the Patronato de la Alhambra y Generalife (http://www.alhambra-patronato.es/). In fact, I'm not sure where "Mexuar, Serallo, and the Harem" comes from, as the reference to the Khan Academy lesson says that "The Alhambra's most celebrated structures are the three original royal palaces. These are the Comares Palace, the Palace of the Lions, and the Partal Palace."
 * The halls/courts, etc. listed as 3.2 - 3.5 are halls/courts, etc. within the Royal Complex (Nasrid Palaces), so at the very lest, they should be demoted to 3.1.1, 3.1.2, etc. And to get really precise, there are rooms listed that should fall under a particular palace. E.g., 3.1.1 should be Palace of the Comares and 3.1.1.1 should be the Court of the Myrtles.
 * In the Hall of the Abencerrajes, information on the Hall of the two Sisters appears, which should be pulled out and made its own section.
 * The map that you get at the Alhambra (and that you can download from the webiste) indicates the following structures in the Nasrid Palaces:

In other words, lots of problems, and I'm not sure why (based on the listed sources) this section was written like this. Can anyone support why this section is organized this way? Seeteejay (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Metal was not present very mainly
What does that mean? TomS TDotO (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible image for the Commons??
I found an image from the Turkish magazine Servet-i Funun No. 1347, 10 May 1917: WhisperToMe (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/307/PFSIF9170510B002.jpg

Court of the Lions
User:R Prazeres, my edits here were to fix a broken wikilink at the Dome article, where a bot had mis-corrected the link Alhambra to link instead to Alhambra, based on similar spelling. After checking the Court of the Lions article, I assumed the rooms surrounding the courtyard should not be included there because they are part of the surrounding Palace of the Lions, rather than the courtyard. If I had noticed that the Hall of the two Sisters was also mentioned in that paragraph I would have made that a separate section as well, as was done with Hall of the Ambassadors. Long story short, I changed the wikilink in the Dome article. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for making note of that, and yes I think that's a better solution. For what it's worth, in the future I also think the Court of the Lions article should be changed to "Palace of the Lions" (and likewise Court of the Myrtles to "Comares Palace") so that these rooms can be described in fuller detail there, since there's no reason to describe the courtyard there but not the halls directly attached to it (and it would also be in line with how the palaces are described individually in many reliable sources). Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be highly likely to run foul of WP:COMMONNAME, and should certainly not be done without a proper WP:RM discussion. But I don't see why the rooms onto the courtyard should not be discussed as well - this is how other famous courtyards are normally treated. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They're actually quite standard names used in reliable scholarly sources (e.g. even the official guidebook of the Alhambra organises its descriptions under those names), so it would be in line with the WP:COMMONNAME policy as I see it, but I think the question would be more about the precision (and maybe naturalness) criteria, or in other words on whether editors and visitors are reading "Court of (...)" in the narrow sense or not. I don't personally read it in the narrow sense either, but that might be because I'm familiar with the palaces; whereas the current scope of those article and the comment by AmateurEditor above makes me consider that the page names lend themselves to a narrow scope for at least some readers. In the case of the Comares Palace/Palacio de Comares, in particular, the full palace also includes neighbouring elements that readers/visitors may not associate as clearly with the main courtyard, such as the Comares Baths and the "façade" in the Courtyard of the Cuarto Dorado.
 * In any case, I won't even consider making the move proposals, if at all, until after myself or others have expanded those articles with the relevant content first, at which point we can consider the logic of a name change. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of Court of the Lions article (January 2022)
I'm not really saying anything new but it's worth mentioning here that I've generally completed a major revision and expansion of the Court of the Lions article, and in the process I've added a full overview of the rooms connected to the court. In my view those rooms need to be part of that article's scope either way, as this matches how this topic is treated in any scholarly overview of the Alhambra and it also allows this article (Alhambra) to remain unburdened by large amounts of information about specific rooms. I think the scope of the topic is still pretty intuitive and unsurprising as is; the court is the centerpiece of the building and the rooms are all dependent on it to one extent or another. (The same may not be true for the Comares Palace vs Court of the Myrtles, but that'll be for another time.) I've added "Palace of the Lions" as a second name in the lead there and the relevant disambiguation page already directs to the Court of the Lions article as well. If there's disagreement on this issue though, I'd invite further discussion, perhaps preferably at the Court of the Lions talk page. Aside from that, I also invite anyone looking over the expanded article there to simply keep an eye out for any typos, awkward phrasings that could be improved, etc. (It's easy to miss these when re-reading one's own writing, especially after a long session of editing!) Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Revising lead
I'm going to attempt a major revision of the lead by removing the last three paragraphs which appear to be based exclusively on the 1911 Britannica reference (Chrisholm 1911). I get why a freely-available source was used at some point, but there's been over 100 years of intense research as well as significant changes to the site itself since then, and there are various statements that don't hold up well. The information is also a little repetitive and not really written in a concise summary style per MOS:LEAD. The last paragraph is more on point but I'll try to reintegrate the same basic information in a new paragraph or two based on recent sources. R Prazeres (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Revising description sections
In the same vein, and as per the work I've been doing elsewhere, I'm rewriting much of (but not all of) the descriptions of the Nasrid Palaces and the Alcazaba. Most of it is simply unsourced. The citations that are present either don't support any of the specifics or only support one detail (in which case I've retained them for that purpose). Some of the details are clearly contradicted by reliable sources. I've already expanded and revised the articles for the Court of the Lions and the Court of the Myrtles (which corresponds to the Comares Palace, name issues notwithstanding), which now provide detailed overviews, so I'm sticking to the basics here. I plan to also make a "Mexuar" article in the future to complete the set. That should finish most of the work I personally hoped to see on this article, but there will always be more to add/revise afterward. Feel free to raise any questions or issues about this work here, if helpful. R Prazeres (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding new map
I've added a based on an architectural plan from scholarly sources, to more clearly identify the different structures and locations mentioned in the article (minus some individual rooms and towers covered in dedicated subarticles). I wasn't sure about how to best insert the image, though; it should be large enough to be reasonably readable and thus useful, but I tried a few options with awkward results. I settled for now on a multiple image template that also integrates the already-present Nasrid palaces map, which seemed more helpful than the alternatives, but there may be better options. I've also left the in, but not sure if it's worth having two maps with the same scope. For what it's worth, I've also uploaded a of the new map to make it easier to modify in the future. Feedback welcome. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Freely interpreted floor map of Alhambra Spain
I have created Freely interpreted floor map of Alhambra Spain and maybe it can be of use. If there is a need for, I can also create a numbered version. If anyone wants that please just ping me, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That looks great, thanks! I think we should make use of it in the future. I can't devote time to the idea now, but as a first thought, it could replace the first OpenStreetMap-based image at the beginning of the layout section . A minor advantage of the two present maps (or at least the black-and-white one I put together crudely) is that they also identify some of the outlying buildings like the Generalife and so on. If that seems like an advantage worth keeping, maybe we could have one general map that just identifies the main areas, and another one with more detail that identifies the rest. In any case, this gives us some avenues for improving the article's visuals. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @R Prazeres Just ping me if you want some other version or type of map/image. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)