Talk:Española, New Mexico

(Older comments)
Dirtyhalfblood 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT!Dirtyhalfblood 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I feel that this piece does not have alot of information on this beatiful city I call home.It also has "some" wrong information, for instance the curent major is Richard Lucero and the fiestas are in mid July not in the the fall. If theres gonna be a page on Espanola then it should have the correct information. >=[ User:Dirtyhalfblood

I forgot to log in, but I live in "Spa&ntilde;a", and I know people spell it with an e&ntilde;e, so I put two in. JerryFriedman
 * Does that mean it should be moved to Española, New Mexico? –Hajor 02:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article makes very poor claims to the "cause" of poverty, crime, and racism, as well as the "dependence" of the habitants of Espanola. There is no absolute truth to these claims nor vertification of such citing. There is also an absence of the effects and responsibility of the Santa Fe "artist" and Los Alamos scientist that contributes to a negative peception of Espanola. The effect is that of disparity and gentrification.

How can an article on Espanola not mention lowriders?

Political corruption
Being from the area, I can well believe that there is serious political corruption in Espanola. However, this needs to be documented from a verifiable source. 128.165.87.144 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Largest community of ethnically diverse Sikhs in the world?
A statement such as this definitely requires a verifiable source, otherwise it should be removed. Rodan44 07:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the name sounds similar to the Spanish word for Spanish español Atomic1fire 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Name
This is not the official spelling of the city name--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The nickname seems to belong to http://www.torrancecountynm.org/! However, New York Times thinks its in Albuquerque--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Images
Anybody have any better images? Someone who takes pictures like these out of a moving car is a dork. ~ WikiDon (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Metro" definition
I've changed the scope of Metro in the Infobox Settlement to be the Española Micropolitan Statistical Area. This seems more useful than lumping Española in with the much larger Santa Fe via the Santa Fe-Española combined statistical area as was done before. Leave comments here if you disagree. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tildes
I understand why people want to include the tilde in the name, as the city's website uses the tilde. However, it is plainly not the more common English spelling: espanola "new mexico" returns more than five times as many results as española "new mexico". If you check http://factfinder.census.gov, you'll see that it was listed as "Espanola" in the 2000 census, and no change is recorded by the Census Bureau. Moreover, the Geographic Names Information System, the official data repository of the United States Geological Survey (can't get more official than that) lists it as the City of Espanola, as well as the populated place of Espanola. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The USGS GNIS database appears to be of two minds about this. The city itself is listed without the ñ:, as are a number of other related features. But a sizable percentage of all related place names listed in GNIS do use ñ, such as , , etc. Finally, USGS topographic maps show the city as Española. See, for example, USGS topos at ACME Mapper. It seems to me that, at least as far as the USGS is concerned, either way is fine. Pfly (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Common usage should not trump fact unless the common usage is so overwhelmingly common, and seeing how this is a town of a few thousand in a state many people don't even know is part of the country :P, I would wager there is no 'overwhelmingly common' usage in English. The name of the city is Española; Espanola is a different word entirely, spelled and pronounced differently. And in the case we have here where official names are divided, go more local, which means include the eñe. "Common usage" is a catch-all used to justify way too much here. Just because some journalists or bloggers can't be arsed to find an eñe when writing about the town doesn't mean their laziness matters to us. --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. The common usage that decides is the common usage of the residents and those in the immediate area; if they pronounce the name [espaˈɲola], which they do, it's clearly Española. In addition to being disrespectful, the misspellings of clueless types who are quite happy to wish someone Feliz ano nuevo ('Happy new anus') are irrelevant. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

heroin usage source doesn't support summary
Here's the text:

Espanola is also considered one of the heroin capitals of the United States. The rate of substance abuse here is three times the state average and fifteen times the national average.[8]

Source [8] is this NPR article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4804031

The text at that link is an article about community responses to drug use many years ago in nearby Chimayo, and does not support the claim that Espanola is "one of the heroin capitals" of the country, nor does it mention either of the numbers ("three times" and "fifteen times").

Either the two sentences above should be removed or the citation should be changed to support the claims it is adjacent to.

Mikedelong (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to confirm this story, so I replaced it with one I could confirm. The old story was probably not accurate, since (1) the numbers seem exaggerated compared to the new story; (2) these kinds of figures are usually tracked by county and not by city, so we wouldn't know the figures for Española by itself. --Uncia (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama picture
I'm inclined to agree with the IP; the picture does not really illustrate anything about the city. It illustrates that, yes, Senator Obama visited the town, but it doesn't even do that well. It's not like we need the picture to prove it happened. I don't really see what it adds to the article. --Golbez (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Why I reverted. The article is not really a 'scrapbook' and it should not be used as one. It's nice that Obama was in town and all, but its not a big deal to the area of the article. I could see if Obama's face was noticeable. 98.23.200.16 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I found this sentence
in the Agriculture section.
 * " While there is a tangible feeling of pride for culture and family amongst Hispanics and natives, there is an ever-increasing influence and presence of people that do not belong to either of these groups."

This means what? "natives" are who? And who exactly are these "people" in question? Anglos? Mexican Nationals? Folks from Chimayo? And the next paragraph is even more of an editorial on victimhood than the previous one. All unsourced. However, since I am an inclusionist and not a deletionist I am reluctant to just whack it out without discussing it first. Carptrash (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

the last edit made
includes the phrase:
 * "and the first merchant owner included "

it seems to me that if there is only one owner it should read "and the first merchant owner was", and if there were more than one it should be "and the first merchant owners included" but it does not (opinion) really work as it now stands. Carptrash (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Then fix it? 174.131.209.55 (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering a question with a question is always an interesting choice. So....I don't know (hence the question in the first place) fix it singular or plural? Carptrash (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

regardless of when the city was founded
I believe that the section on the Spanish settlement in the Española Valley should be placed prior to the 1880s section. Otherwise we find the reader jumping all over in the place in time. Let's run the whole History Section from oldest to newest. Carptrash (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That we include this phrase several times in the article " Española has been called the first capital city in America" suggests that it's history does start with the Spaniards. To me. Carptrash (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion here I am going to put the early part of the history first. Again. Carptrash (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just moved this sentence here
"Today, there are efforts to make downtown more business friendly once again, also in planning is a railroad museum."
 * we can't use words such as "today" because, what day would that be?
 * a phrase such as "more business friendly" refers to what?
 * and plans for a railroad museum (as well as everything else in here that is going to be retained) needs to be sourced. Carptrash (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Another edit war, History Section
The Pre-1880s section has been up for questioning because the first capital was San Juan, New Mexico. Being in the Espanola Valley, it is not how Espanola became a city, the railroads made Espanola what it is. Certain users have reverted changes.

Please give input on this.

And, if reverted back we must make sure the article's pictures meet up with the storyline. Reverted edits make a mess. JHarrelson (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So really the Pre-1880s stuff does not really belong in the article at all. Certainly not between the 1970s and the 1980s were it currently is lodged.  Carptrash (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but it is not top priority. It shouldn't be. There is a current format where pictures line up with the railroad history, and we have more information on the railroads. Maybe if we find more information on the "New capital" we can add the information as top priority as well as some photo's to describe with. JHarrelson (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this sentence in the opening paragraph?
 * " Española has been called the first capital city in America.[3]" Carptrash (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a source that was thrown in there way back to add to the history section. No one really refers to it as the capital city, that's Santa Fe's history. Plus the source comes from the city's website. Not such a reliable source coming from the government, and people who tore down downtown businesses and historical buildings to create a plaza that never even existed in Espanola. JHarrelson (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that government source are considered okay in wikipedia, but you are thinking that this particular phrase shsould go? Carptrash (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were to ask anyone what the first capital city would be, I'm sure they would not answer Espanola. I don't know if we should remove it, but it's not the first capital. Could be the first capital city. JHarrelson (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering why
you thought it was okay to change the name of the city to "Espanola" without engaging in any discussion about it? The city's own website calls itself "Española". The Rio Grande Sun, the local newspaper calles it "Española". All the road signs around here spell it "Española". The federal govt. probably never uses an ñ. I urge you to revert your redirect and post something on the discussion page. As was done in 2009. Carptrash (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the United States Census refers Espanola, as Espanola. It is listed as "Espanola" on every government source. The discussion held previously had more for Espanola, than Española. Locals refer to it as Española, but everyone always can't have their way. I'm just doing what is right for this site. JHarrelson (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

On "every government source"? A wonderful statement, it is just wrong. The city of Española's web site says "Española" and they are a government site. The road signs spelling it "Española" are put up by the government. New Mexico Magazine has this to say. "The jewel of northern New Mexico, Española was founded in 1598 by Spain as the first capital of New Mexico." Does that suggest that the city's history should begin with the Spanish instead of the Anglos? As far as everyone always having their way goes ........... Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not matter what a website "says", the State still has signs that say "Espanola", and secondly, Espanola was not founded by the spanish. You really need to stop that. Without Railroads, Espanola the "city" would not exist, the city was founded in 1880 with the introduction of the railroads. There was no buildings before the railroads. San Juan was founded by the Spanish. JHarrelson (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that the New Mexico Magazine is not a credible source? You do not care what the city of Española calls its self? Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, I don not hold it as a reliable source, because Santa Cruz and San Juan are the areas the Spanish founded. Secondly, this town fails to admit it started as a railroad town because of the anglo culture, it was mayor Lucero who started adding an eñe. I have been researching through old Newspapers and all call the town "Espanola" until 1995. There was never an offical change with the State. JHarrelson (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. My 1965 edition of New Mexico Place Names spells it "Española", Lucreo had not become mayor yet. Carptrash (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny, but the GNIS calls Espanola, Espanola, and here. I'm sure they know their cities. Espanola was never refered to as "Española" before the 1990's If you have proof, show it. JHarrelson (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The 2009–2010 New Mexico Blue Book, put out by the New Mexico Secretary of State, spells it with a tilde. See for example Resource Section p. 322, p. 324. --75.208.79.241 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This clearly seems like something that should have been discussed before performing. Also, there is a definite problem with using the census bureau, as they appear to omit all diacritics. They name a particular town in Colorado as "Canon City", yet our article on Cañon City, Colorado states that the federal government approved the use of an eñe in the title. However, the same agency apparently has not done the same for Española: Entries for the town in the GNIS all refer to "Espanola", though some specific locations include the eñe. (see ). So the question becomes, who matters more: The city or the federal government? For a city name I would always defer to the city or, if possible, the state (and I don't know if the state itself records and manages such things). But let's be clear: Any argument that relies on the census bureau's name has just been proven insufficient, so please don't use it. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You ask for proof that "Española"was used prior to the 1990s right after I posted that it is spelled with an  "ñ" in my 1965 New Mexico Place Names?  Do you want me to scan and post that?  Anyway, I just emailed the New Mexico Sec. of State Office about it.  Here is their reply.
 * "Einar,
 * The correct way to spell it is Española. It has a tilde over the n. I think some people don't know how to use the tilde symbol on their computers and that is why you see it without the tilde in some places.  Angel Espinoza    Webmaster    Secretary of State's Office."
 * Do we need more than this? Carptrash (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Golbez, on alot. But i'd rather us be safe and use the federal government's name for Espanola. Which is Espanola. And pictures all the sudden Carptrash? why the urge now? JHarrelson (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might need to e-mail someone from the federal government. State would be biased, since there are employees that are from Espanola. And GOOGLE.COM, spells it ESPANOLA as well. JHarrelson (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First you need to establish, through some kind of Wikipedia policy, that the federal government is the end-all be-all for municipal naming, because we have local and state governments to handle that kind of thing. Municipal governments exist at the pleasure of the state government, not the federal government. Secondly, I'm not sure the existence or lack thereof of an eñe has anything to do with 'safety'. I know what you meant, but the terminology still felt hyperbolic. Frankly, I was ready to throw the article back to Española until I saw that the GNIS includes the eñe for Cañon City, but not for Española, which complicated things slightly. But in that case, we're making the USGS's GNIS the singular authority on Wikipedia for place naming in the United States, and if that's the case we need a policy or guideline stating such before we can proclaim it to be so. If there is no extant policy or guideline for either of these (GNIS as single source, federal government superseding state government on municipal naming), then I propose moving the article back until such time as they exist. If there is, then please present them. My opinion places the municipal government or state government as paramount; yours places the federal. Both are valid opinions, we must decide which one is correct. --Golbez (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I had decided that I would allow you to what you want with this article, so chose to not add pictures. Actually, I still have not added any to the article, just the discussion page. The reason is to show you how the city and the state (who do the road signs) refer to the city. To have you write that what the Sec. of State of the state of New Mexico says is not good enough is taking this whole discussion into a surrealist, Kafkaesque, Twilight Zone sort of place that we might never get out of. You asked for a pre-1990 use of Española, I gave you one. You are ignoring it. I looked up Peñasco NM in the census and it was spelled "Penasco" Pretty soon I am going to post this discussion on the Admin board and get some professional help in here. Carptrash (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, though I'm involved. But I don't think this has escalated to that point yet. No edit or move warring has occurred; while you may thing JHarrelson is being obtuse, he nonetheless has not insulted or violated any rules. He was bold and moved it. The question is, is there a procedural reason to move it back? If so, then yes, admins should be consulted. But at this point I don't see it as something that has gone at all into the realm of "needs administrator action". We're still way back in the "discussion" stage, and perhaps eventually a Requested Move vote. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to move it back, Google Espanola, New Mexico. The majority of articles are spelt "Espanola" my family has lived in Espanola since 1882, the introduction of the railroads. And according to my family, it has always been Espanola. I'm sure they would know, they were some of the first business owners here. I'm just pointing out, it's best we don't try to create a fake profile of the city, there is no source from the fed's that say Espanola has an eñe. Plus city-data.com also has Espanola, as Espanola. JHarrelson (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Just ask my family" is a far worse argument than you've been giving, you should step away from using that. --Golbez (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, well FYI, Peñasco, New Mexico is actually spelled with the eñe, here. Espanola is not. JHarrelson (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying, United States Board on Geographic Names has Espanola, as "Espanola", that's federal. They also have our high school with out the eñe, and our junior high school with out. But, the Middle school consolidated and became Vigil Middle school. JHarrelson (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm just asking, where is the Wikipedia guideline that we defer to the feds on all municipal naming issues? --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would we mislead people? This is an encyclopedia. The government never "okay-ed" an approval to change the name. That is like adding an accent mark on Santa Fe, to Santa Fé. Why would we do that? They have not, we should not either. JHarrelson (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have yet to demonstrate where it is even within federal authority to "okay" a name change. That the USGS catalogues names does not mean they are an arbiter of names, merely that this is what the federal government uses, which may be different from local and state usage. And we have not added an accent to Santa Fe because no government - federal, state, or municipal - uses one, so that argument is a straw man. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And as to why we should change it back? There is more evidence that the town is in fact Espanola, besides using (selected site) pictures that have the eñe, most places in town don't even use it. I always wondered why this article had the eñe, most that decided have never been here. JHarrelson (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having lived in the region for a year or so, and with family there, I've always heard it pronounced, by locals and family, as Espanyola, which is spelled with an eñe. So my personal evidence counteracts yours, so both can be discarded. :) As for "selected pictures" and "most places don't use it", that doesn't change that the official city website includes the eñe. However, the seal does not appear to, though it is too low resolution to really tell. As for why we should change it back: Because it's the city's name. :) Now, the question is, who decides a city's name? The city, the state, or the feds? I say the city and the state; you say the feds. Neither of us have backed up our arguments with Wikipedia guidelines, so it remains an empty shouting match. The only real option appears to be to ask the naming conventions board and to run an actual Requested Moves process (Which, and I've been saying this all along, should have been performed before your move). --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good for you, business licences we have, (family owners of 11 businesses) all show from the state, "Espanola" I thought that was weird since you said the "state", the secretary of State's office alone has 5 workers from Espanola. How would we know they would not have been biased? Anyway, I have always pronounced it as, Es-paan-olla along with all my co-workers and employees. Anyway point being, as someone who was born and raised here we have two whole different opinions. As for the city website is concerned? I know who runs it, and you probably wouldn't be suprised. You should already know how corrupt politics are here, Espanola pretends to be something it's not. JHarrelson (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither snide remarks nor inside first-hand knowledge are viable sources for a Wikipedia article. Just because you disagree with the government in the city doesn't make its name less valid. --Golbez (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Some observations (some of which were repeated above): States are the sovereign authorities for municipalities; the existence of a municipality is entirely at the will of the state. In most states, secretary of state is the definitive authority for a municipal name; when a municipality is formed or renamed, it is the secretary of state that certifies the act and keeps the official register of municipalities. The United States Board on Geographic Names normalizes the names for federal government uses; it is not itself the original naming authority, only an authority on what name federal agencies are to use at the time for clarity. (And Google Maps just copies the BGN GNIS and its derivatives.) Regardless of how it came about, if the New Mexico Secretary of State says it is "Española", either it really is "Española" now, or someone at the Secretary of State's office has modified the official registry. I do wonder how a town that long-time residents consider to have no eñe came to end up with one at the Secretary of State. Is there a chance that municipality names used to be recorded with no accents or eñes in New Mexico, and when they migrated the registry to a newer filing system, the Secretary of State made a decision to add what accents or eñes (they thought) would have existed had the old registry had a system for them? At that point it starts getting into subtle legal matters; but, absent evidence that the Secretary of State has done something unauthorized, that office's registry entry is almost certainly as official as official gets. Another possibility: Does New Mexico law allow a municipality to change its name by city council resolution rather than referendum? That could have snuck by without much notice. Also, as far as the federal BGN GNIS: How recently did GNIS start carrying accents and eñes in its system? It might be that it only has accents and eñes for names that have been updated in the system since it began being able to take eñes. --Closeapple (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. The main problem here is, we have lots of statements flying around and nothing to back them up. --Golbez (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After contacting the Sec of State's office and getting the reply that I did I was tempted to revert to "Española" back and forth a few times and draw the Admins into the fray, but will not. Part of my original objection here was that there was no discussion about this move prior to its being initiated. But Golbez, I see that you have addressed that too. A look at the discussion page above this discussion will show that JHarrelson and I have disagreed before - about where the history section should begin, with the Spanish  or the Anglos.  I decided to let him have his way, tho I think it weakens the article. But now he appears to me to consider the article to be his to do with what he will.  Time to draw the line.  I find this statement to be particularly revealing. "the secretary of State's office alone has 5 workers from Espanola. How would we know they would not have been biased?"  I mean, if there are 5 Españolans working for the Federal Government can the same claim be made about them? Carptrash (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, if there are 5 people from the city in the secy of state's office, and they say there's an eñe in the name, why is JHarrelson assuming they are incorrect? What makes those residents less relevant than his family? Political bias? --Golbez (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course we have disagreed before, it's not about the "Spanish" or "Anglos". It's about what is right for this article. This city was NOT founded by the Spanish. The surrounding areas were, Espanola came up from the sand because of the railroads. The town would not exist, at all. We would not be having this discussion. But, that is a whole different conversation. If you want to revert it, be my guest, I believe I did the right thing. JHarrelson (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan
New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan, so the party affiliations, if any, of the Mayor and City Councilors is irrelevant. These should be removed from the infobox. Community-banned user often uses his sockpuppets to put these in. --75.208.239.43 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

a recent exchange regarding how to spell the city's name

 * This appeared on my talk page today

Someone crying foul?

An email to the Rio Grande Sun, the gossip newspaper of Espanola, New Mexico. I read your reports on how you gave false information about what was discussed on here. Nice way of twisting everything up, hope to hear from you in the future. JHarrelson (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is my response. When I went to post it on the sender's talk page i discovered that he had been blocked, so I could not post it there.  So, I am posting it here instead, thinking that JHarrelson will posible find it.  My reply is:


 * I hope that this is soon enough for you. I will post the same thing on your talk page to improve the chance of your seeing it.  I am about to post the email that I sent the Rio Grande SUN and expect you to inform me (feel free to uses bold font to do so) which part of it is "false information" and what has been "twisted."  Hope to hear from you in the future.
 * Hi,
 * Hi,


 * I am a New Mexico Wikipedian who is engaged in a nasty fight on wikipedia over how to spell the name of the city of Española. My argument is with an editor who considers New Mexico Magazine to not be a credible source and also will not accept my email from the NM Secretary of State either.


 * His claim is that Española was founded by Anglos in the 1880s and they spelled it Espanola. He further claims that the name was never changed over to Española and thus the wikipedia article should be called “Espanola, New Mexico".  My posting pictures of road signs, school buildings etc have not changed his mind.  Not wanting to get into an edit war with him I have backed off but am now looking for an historically verifiable source as to the correct spelling of the town’s name and hope that you can help me out.

So, again, which part of this is "false" and which part "twisted"? Carptrash (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. -- Hadal (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Espanola, New Mexico → Española, New Mexico – This article was moved from "Española, New Mexico" to "Espanola, New Mexico", without discussion, by a community-banned editor. Other users have provided evidence to the contrary, including images of highway signs, etc., and an email from the NM Secretary of State's office confirming that "Española" is the official spelling (see earlier talk page discussion). Camerafiend (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make the move. The Rio Arriba SUN, the local newspaper, did an article on this article (Website Reignites Spelling Debate: Tilde or No Tilde? - May 26, 2011) and concluded, "The Anglos just had it wrong."  Also a book published in 1888 uses the spelling Española showing that this is not just some modern PC thing.   I am not sure how to move the discussion page (just like the article?) or would try it myself.  Carptrash (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Move As noted above, the secretary of state should have the final word. Personally, I've always heard it pronounced with the tilde. Cliff (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Move; local evidence and government indicates the use of an eñe, despite federal choice or ignorance. --Golbez (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tentative Move I only know what has been posted on this discussion page.  From what I see:  1) the original move was controversial and done with-out prior discussion; 2) the oldest reference mentioned (1888) is said to show a tilde; on the other hand, 3) local use seems to be both; 4) I'm not sure, but from my experience with Google search, diacritical counting is iffy (along with the possible non-use of tildes on web sites by people who leave them off for such reasons as laziness [none of my Spanish friends use tildes in their e-mails] or lack of skill etc.); never-the-less the tilde version garnered over four million hits as opposed to under two for the plain verson.Kdammers (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

I just cut this out

 * "modeling the neoclassical revival style"

of the section discussing the Bond House, because it is not built in the neoclassical revival style. Please feel free to suggest other wise and we can discuss it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Española, New Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120323092348/http://bber.unm.edu/demo/GPS_Cities09.htm to http://bber.unm.edu/demo/GPS_Cities09.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927180921/http://www.newmexicohistory.org/filedetails.php?fileID=1319 to http://www.newmexicohistory.org/filedetails.php?fileID=1319
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927180921/http://www.newmexicohistory.org/filedetails.php?fileID=1319 to http://www.newmexicohistory.org/filedetails.php?fileID=1319

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016
unprotect the redirect

65.175.134.44 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. TJH2018  talk  16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Española, New Mexico. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Española, New Mexico. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204101757/http://www.ghostdepot.com/rg/mainline/san%20juan%20branch/espanola.htm to http://www.ghostdepot.com/rg/mainline/san%20juan%20branch/espanola.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080803201151/http://www.k12espanola.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=216 to http://www.k12espanola.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=216
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418003548/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/3502000.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/3502000.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sentence needs Clarificaton
In the "Early Settlers section authors have written about Juan De Onate's early efforts. Then one reads "He declared the area a capital for Spain, the area of Don Diego de Vargas' new villa at Santa Cruz." That sentence is not easy to figure out in a quick read. Did the author mean to say that De Onate claimed an area in Espanola as capitol city for Spain and that the area he claimed later was where Don Diego De Vargas' later built his villa at Santa Cruz? If so, that needs to be clarified with a slight edit. De Onate was recalled to Mexico City after his atrocities and told never to return. Spaniards left in droves after the Pueblo Revolt of 1598. De Vargas appeared many years later, so De Onate and De Vargas never crossed paths in Espanola which is why the offending sentence is so troublesome.

67.0.62.253 (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggested "early settlers" change
Since the Ohkay Owingeh (San Juan) Pueblo and the Kha'po Owingeh (Santa Clara) Pueblo existed long before Juan de Oñate and his community of Spanish settlers claimed the region as Española for the Spanish crown, perhaps this section should be renamed "Early Explorers " or "Early Spanish Settlers."

Taram (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed; went with "Spanish settlement". --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Thank you, Golbez (talk)! Taram (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Confusing timeline
The timeline of the post-railroad history is confusing. It starts taking about the urban renewal of the '80s, and then goes into the start of the Manhattan project, which would have been ~45 years earlier. Hb94 (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"The newly expanded Presbyterian Hospital, additions added over 43 new beds" If not 43, how many?
Is there some reason for the imprecise and uninformative "over 43"? Is the actual number 44? 100? It reads as though someone was bitten by the dreaded over/more than bug. This needs to be cleaned up by someone who knows the facts. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see any reason for it, so I removed the claim, since it was unsourced and just a caption on a photograph that was not showing beds or asserting that the photograph was of unit with the new beds. I also tagged the unsourced employer list and some (even more dreaded) "recently" noise from 2010. --Closeapple (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)