Talk:Toledo, Spain

Untitled
Could the demographics be included on the city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.47.145 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2005 (UTC)

The Burial of the Count of Orgaz, exhibited in the Museo de Santa Cruz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.169.157 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
In addition to being the original place with the name, toledo was ounce the capital of spain and has been inhabited since prehistoric times, although there is more than one alkazar toledo is home to the most famous one. It is an important historical city, even if Toledo, Ohio is larger. The "what links here" refers entirely to the Spanish city (I fixed 20 or so that meant the city in Ohio), and naming conventions with American cities would put the Ohio city at its current location anyway. Per other cities such as Birmingham and Norfolk, I think Toledo deserves to be at its natural name. (The "city, province" method would Yield "Toledo, Toledo" and we don't want to go down that road.

Survey

 * Support . -- Vedek Dukat Talk 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Where does it end, folks?  Do we move Boston, Lincolnshire to Boston just because the English city is oldest?  We have an ideal situation right now:  Those looking for the larger American city will be led to Toledo, Ohio; those looking for the Spanish city will be led to Toledo, Spain.  Those typing in Toledo will get a disambiguation page advising them of the various subjects named Toledo.  I don't see where this is a problem. -- SwissCelt 00:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even Lincoln has been made a dab page, and that was a stronger claim than this is. Claiming that something is a primary meaning of term generally requires a large supermajority of usage, which neither Toledo meets. Septentrionalis 19:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The course of least inconvenience to reader and editor alike would seem to be to leave things pretty much as they are, particularly in the absence of any consistently-applied naming policy for Spanish localities. While the Spanish city's claim to most frequent usage has merit, IMO it's not quite strong enough to warrant the proposed alteration.--cjllw | TALK  00:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose A redirect or disambig at Toledo is best. Sending the user to the fully named "Toledo, Spain" provides a nice, extra confirmation that the reader is indeed at the correct article. --Davidstrauss 09:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'd also add that no one is proposing "Toledo, Toledo" as the name of this article. And frankly, given the size of Birmingham, Alabama and Norfolk, Virginia, the case could be made that the corresponding articles (Birmingham and Norfolk) should be made disambiguation pages, as there's arguably no primary topic for disambiguation.  But we'll save that battle for another day. -- SwissCelt 01:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to the Boston comment, I thought of mentioning that as an exception where one is significantly more notable than the other, but here, that's not the case. And as I mentioned below, if you'd like to suggest moving those other pages to disambiguations, you're welcome to try - but I doubt you'll get very far. -- Vedek Dukat Talk 02:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So what, do we exempt Eastern Hemisphere towns from disambiguation unless there is a Western Hemisphere town which is significantly more notable? That's ridiculous.  That's also demonstrating a regional bias, which is ironic considering how frequently we Americans are accused of this bias.  By the way, you're neglecting to mention the edit you made to Toledo, Ohio in which you removed the helpful boilerplate directing people to Toledo, Spain and Toledo.  I'm beginning to see a pattern... -- SwissCelt 02:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you try to be a little more civil? Not that it's your business, but I'm from California, and Toledo does not redirect to Toledo, Ohio, thus making a disambig notice redundant. What "pattern" are you talking about? -- Vedek Dukat Talk 03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's redundant for Toledo, Ohio, then it's redundant for Toledo, Spain. Toledo does not redirect to this article, either.  Nor should it.  -- SwissCelt 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever is done about the move, both articles should have dab headers pointing to the other (or a dab). Some reader will go to the wrong place, and want to get to the right one. Septentrionalis 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I apologize for removing the dab tag - I wasn't trying to provoke anyone by doing so (and after seeing SwissCelt's extreme reaction, I made sure to add User oops to my user page). I've actually reconsidered and decided the disambig page is best where it is. Sorry again. -- Vedek Dukat Talk 01:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Let me just add that I really can't believe the Spanish Toledo isn't considered the primary meaning... &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

toledo was ounce the capital of spain and has been inhabited since prehistoric times, although there is more than one alkazar toledo is home to the most famous one. It is an important historical city —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.142.236 (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuous
Somebody's being disingenuous about the whole issue with Toledo, Ohio. First of all, there are still a number of links to Toledo that refer to the Ohio city, despite Vedek Dukat's claim that they all (now) refer to Toledo, Spain. Secondly, it's disingenuous to change the links to Toledo, Ohio, then infer that because the remaining links are for Toledo, Spain we should somehow believe that the latter usage is the most popular on Wikipedia. But most annoyingly, the statement at the top of this page that Toledo, Ohio is the most populous of the cities of the world named Toledo has been changed to read that Toledo, Ohio is merely the most populous of the cities of the US named Toledo. Unfair, people! Let's give Toledo, Ohio its due. There's no reason to relegate that city to secondary status just to artificially inflate the importance of its parent city. -- SwissCelt 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, my point was that more of them referred to this one in the first place because people use the US naming convention of (city, state). Second, the fact that I missed one or two or people linked to it after I posted that message (I'm not sure which, I haven't checked yet) does not make my motives dubious. Third, I did not make any such changes - the only edit I've ever made to the page was reverting someone's test vandalism. Finally, I'm not trying to "artificially inflate" anything by suggesting that we keep our articles uniform (if you'd like to suggest Birmingham and Norfolk be made disambiguation pages, you're welcome to try, but I doubt you'll get very far). -- Vedek Dukat Talk 02:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How many links currently go to what is irrelevant for choosing this article's name. What matter are convention and notability. Links to disambig pages should be fixed; moving articles to ambiguous names is just a hack. --Davidstrauss 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Demography
I'm moving the Demography section down to make the article more aesthetically pleasing... That's the way it's done with several other city articles including New York City and Paris. Ben Tibbetts 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested external links
I have some more general photos of the city itself at http://dheera.net/photos/thumb.php?q=europe2005/toledo, if someone wants to include it. All the photos will be captioned by their appropriate building names and locations very shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerav2 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sister cities
I can't find any confirmation that Jerusalem is a sister city of Toledo. Arpad 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC) And this source http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-twin-towns-and-sister-cities plainly state that sister city of Toledo is Toledo(Ohio) Arpad 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, answer.com copied that list from wikipedia, see List of twin towns and sister cities. Bukvoed 10:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well - Toledo(Ohio) lists Toledo on its sister list here: http://www.tsci.org/ As for Jerusalem - I got zero result on all my searches Arpad 10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

TheDarkSavant (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I'm really curious as to why someone keeps changing the location of Jerusalem to the so called Palestinian Authority...


 * You know, there's more than one Toledo, United States, right?   That's why you're supposed to specify the name, state and country when naming US Cities, rather than City, CountryHailBobSaget (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC).
 * I know a lot of things. How does your "smart" reasoning apply to Corpus Christi? How many are there? Why do you assume that US is special (or seeing your ethnocentric edits in Bucharest the whole Anglo-speaking world)? Why do you assume that this concerns any matter other than article titles? Why do you accuse me of promoting an edit war, when that's rather you and your blocked (blocked for trolling) mate "DeLaMancha Nahual"?--Asqueladd (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's Wikipedia policy, despite your protests. And who's to say your counteredit isn't also a form of ethnocentrism?   Ethnocetrists often lump people from large, diverse areas into one monolithic group...  Kinda like what you're doing.
 * Like I said, it's Wikipedia policy, despite your protests. In fact, here's a direct quote from the article, since you probably didn't read it.
 * A United States city's article should never be titled "city, country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "city, state, country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, U.S."); that is contrary to general American usage. Postal abbreviations (such as CA or Calif. for California) are never used in article titles. (For postal abbreviations in articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Special considerations.) 20:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. accusing people of trolling, and accusing people of being associated with trolls because they don't agree with your worldview is also against Wikipedia policies HailBobSaget (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The concerns remain the same. Why do you assume that Naming conventions (geographic names) concerns any matter other than article titles involving every mention of the toponym across Wikipedia instead? Let's say that the need for an explicit disambiguation overrule the practicality of the existence of an actual link in the case of "Toledo" (which is not certain by any means)... Is there any other "Corpus Christi" in the United States? PS: If consciously putting additional flags for Canada, United Kingdom and the US is not a case of Anglocentric bias, I do not know what is. If creating a thread titled Spanish Wikipedia-sysops-linked users from Spain being violent and saying about non-existent rules in English Wikipedia and then starting a passive-agressive interchange addressing nothing is not trolling I don't what is, either. You may just have a point in not being any need to associate you with that user. Point taken. Anyways, back to this article, I also propose to remove the flags here also per WP:FLAGCRUFT, as country flags confuse the issue and move the focus/emphasis away from the cities (partnership is with the city, not with the sovereign country), suggesting some non-existent broader relationship aside from bluntly detracting from the actual purpose of the section which it is to highlight the link between cities, not countries.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're so insistent that you're correct, how about you mail a letter to 1 First Avenue, Cleveland, United States.
 * Maybe it might go to Cleveland, Cleveland, or Cleveland.   Or maybe the post office would reject it based on your ambiguous address.   HailBobSaget (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss of what point are you trying to make. The concerned content is a list of cities with internal links to cities. That's it. Not addresses. Even the country is arguably an unnecessary convenience. You are not expected to send anything with the information in the article, ZIP code or whatsoever. The single and modest purpose of the list is linking other articles (namely sister cities/twin towns). It's just a platform for clicking on the relevant links!! In any case, I must insist: 1) Why do you assume Naming conventions (geographic names) is "Wikipedia policy" outside of the scope of article titles. 2) Is there any other "Corpus Christi" in the United States?--Asqueladd (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Water Locks?
Is it possible that the reference in the article to the "Water Locks" might refer to the even more famous water clocks which were once located there? Following the link leads to the description of a device which appears to function as a water clock, a opposed to allowing ships or boats to navigate a sudden change in the elevation of a river. Is the most elegant fix to simply fix the text and delete the citation (citing, as it does, faulty text) 65.31.27.152 02:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Random Browser

Degrees?
This bit "The old city is located on a mountaintop and it gets up to 150 degrees, surrounded ..." makes no sense. What kind of degrees? Angles? Temperature? What units? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.231.115 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

History Needs to be Greatly Expanded
The history of Toledo is missing substantial sections that are part of its development. Based on the history here now, one would never be able to tell how it emerged into the modern world. Any contributions such as its importance to the translation movement or transmission of knowledge would greatly improve the article. Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Toponymy
I don´t understand why the arabic name of the Toledo is written in bold type. The article correctly states the name comes from the latin Toletum, so the arabic name is really not very important. If any name should be written in bold type is the latin name, not the much later arabic version.--Knight1993 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheeses
I have removed the sentence "toledo is also known for its vast variety of cheese" (in Culture section) as there is no supporting reference and a search on the web provides no evidence for it, only the famous Manchego ewes' cheese appearing regularly. Romit3 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The photo of the "restaurant"
This so called "restaurant" shows in its signs "tapas bar", "coffee, "tea" and "spirits". That hardly sounds like a restaurant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.30.250 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation centre
History, paragraph 3: what's a "tag-team translation centre"? And rew D alby 12:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for —106.77.204.226 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The coordinates in the article seem OK. If you have a specific quibble with them (or with any other aspect of the article), please explain yourself clearly below. Deor (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The origins of Toledo and order of paragraphs in its history
Hello, I am an inexperienced editor and wish to discuss some proposed changes to the history of Toledo. The current history of Toledo on Wikipedia begins with a story related by Isaac Abrabanel apparently published in 1846 and dating to the late 1400s. This source -- Abrabanel -- is not a reliable or accurate historical source for information on the founding of Toledo. It is a story told over a thousand years after the founding of the city. For context, see the article on Sephardi Jews. In the late 1400s this community was under severe pressure and responded by producing texts to prove that they had been in the city a long time. Such texts cannot be considered historical evidence for events occurring in the 5th century BCE. Instead, they must be considered evidence of the history of Toledo in the 1400s, but not of its founding. Therefore the paragraph on Abrabanel's story should be moved downwards to after the paragraph that ends with "... the Jews of Toledo."

In addition, further down, the sentence " Toledo was again called Ṭulayṭulah" should be removed, as there is no evidence the city was called Tulaytulah until the Arab conquest in the 8th century.

Anyone familiar with Iberian archaeology for the century 500-400 BC will understand that the idea of Toledo as a city founded by Jewish people circa 450BC is simply baseless. Phoenician settlement in the Iberian peninsula, beginning around 750 BC, was focused exclusively on southern Spain near the Mediterranean coast. It is certainly possible that Jews were present in the Phoenician colonies. However the interior of Spain was at that time inhabited by Celtic peoples with little to no connection to the Mediterranean trade routes. Toledo first enters history as the target of a Roman expedition against Celts in the year 193 BC. At that time it was a Celtic town far from the old Phoenician colonies. That is where the history of Toledo should start.

The contribution of the Jewish people to the history of Toledo is enormous, historically, architecturally, culturally, politically, and should certainly be emphasized. But we must include accurate historical sources and provide an accurate picture of history. The Abrabanel story is a legend unsupported by any historical or archaeological evidence. Jroo222 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Carpentia
The current article states that under the Romans, Toledo became an important Roman colony (OK) and the capital of Carpentia. I have found no other references to a land called "Carpentia" in ancient Hispania or in ancient Rome at all. The Wikipedia list of ancient Roman provinces reveals no Carpentia Roman province. Tracking down the source of this fact, it has been copied and pasted from the online Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/place/Toledo-Spain. However, that article itself cites no sources, so the chain of verifiability is broken. At present I can find no evidence that a place called Carpentia existed, nor that Toledo was its capital. For now I am questioning the accuracy of that fact pending further research. It is possible that the Britannica article is itself pasted from previous editions, and that our understanding of the Roman Empire has changed. At any rate, unless we can identify "Carpentia" in other sources, it is spurious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroo222 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, problem solved. Previous wording referred to "Carpentia", I figured out this was CarpetaniaCarpetania. I've edited to indicate Toletum was a Carpetanian city, but am leaving out the previous wording that indicated it was the "capital" of Carpetania, as "Carpetania" was not a Roman administrative region.Jroo222 (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

On the importance of Toledo in Roman times
I have to question parts of the current entry as they relate to Roman times. The current text in the history section is as follows: "Later it became an important Roman colony.[3] It grew in importance during Roman times, being a main commercial and administrative centre in the Roman province of Carthaginensis."

The reference takes us to the online Britannica where the sentence "Later ... colony" is copied from. The sentence about being a "main ... centre" has no reference.

The problems are as follows. Firstly, Toledo does not appear to have had much significance in Roman times. It appears twice in the chronicles and histories, once when Marcus Fulvius Nobilior fought the Celts nearby in 197 BCE, next when a church council is held in 400 CE. In six hundred intervening years nothing happened there worthy of being recorded by any contemporary chroniclers. This is hardly an "important" or "main" center or colony. That could apply to major cities such as Tarraco, Emerita, Carthago, Hispalis, Corduba, or even military outposts like Luca Augusta, but not Toledo, not until the very end of Roman occupation and the arrival of the Goths.

Secondly, to call Toledo a Roman colony is obfuscation. "Colony" in the Roman context refers to a city founded by Roman citizens, usually former soldiers settled on conquered land as a reward for military service. Toledo was never a colonia in this sense, it was a native Celtic city and as such a stipendiary civitas with no Roman citizens. It would have become a municipium after Vespasian declared all Spanish cities municipia in the first century CE, and only a "colony" in the formal sense after Roman citizenship was extended to the entire empire in the third century and all cities were called colonies. Even then, calling it an "important" colony is hardly accurate, nor is calling it a "main administrative centre," which it most certainly was not, at least based on currently available evidence.

Our evidence right now indicates that Toledo was in every way a minor city until Visigothic times, it was not a significant center in Roman times. Because of this, I intend to edit these two sentences to reflect more accurately the relative insignificance of Toledo in Roman times. Jroo222 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Splitting first paragraph
With recent additions to antique history of Toledo the first paragraph has gotten long. Splitting off early and late antiquity makes sense as Toledo increased in importance in late antiquity.Jroo222 (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

/* History */ Divide article into subsections
The history section was starting get very long and difficult to edit it so to make it easier to navigate I have divided it into sections. These are Antiquity, Visigoths, and Arab Toledo, to encompass the portions that I have been editing; and Medieval Toledo after the Reconquest and "Modern Era Toledo" for the later sections. The portion on Visigoths I have titled "Toledo becomes the capital of the Visigothic kingdom," maybe a little literary but an effort to make it interesting. This could just as well be simply "Visigothic Toledo." However the fact remains that one of the most interesting things about Toledo was its outsized position as capital of Visigothic Hispania in the 600s, so to highlight that seems reasonable. All divisions into subsections are of course temporary and must evolve as the article evolves. I hope these are useful.Jroo222 (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

/* Toledo under Arab rule */ Correcting error: previous text said "under Caliphate of Cordoba, actually Emirate
I just corrected the previous text in this article, which stated that there were numerous insurrections under the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba, referring to the years 761 to 857. During those years, the Umayyads did not claim the title of Caliph. The Umayyad rulers called themselves Emirs or Amirs, and the polity was an Emirate. Jroo222 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Splitting off the history section
The suggestion has been made to split off the history section into a separate article. I have been contributing a great deal of this new text for the history of Toledo, and I think this is a good idea. The history section is starting to overwhelm the article. As soon as I have time (!) I will write a summary of the history so far. Then I will attempt to copy and paste the current history into a new extended History of Toledo article, leaving the summary behind in the main Toledo article. Hopefully then you will be able to read a brief summary, and if interested to continue on to the longer article. Not everyone wants the details of medieval Arab sieges of Toledo. On the other hand, some people really want that information.

This may take a while, if anyone else wants to have a crack at it feel free.Jroo222 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I copied the long history section to a separate draft article titled History of Toledo. I submitted the separate article today, the response was it would take two to three weeks to be reviewed. Once it is approved we can delete the same material from this main Toledo, Spain, site. I will replace the long text with shorter summaries at that time, and add any further details to the separate History of Toledo article.Jroo222 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've accepted the article, it is a great start and there is no reason not to move it to the mainspace and let you proceed. One issue I'd like you to address soon is to add a lede paragraph, see History of Hamburg, for instance. Second, add subsections and, possibly, more images. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 16:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and effort. The History of Toledo now exists as a separate article. In coming months I will replace the long sections of the main Toledo, Spain -- History of Toledo section, with shorter summaries. When I find new detailed information on the history of Toledo I will add it to the History page instead of the main city page, that way the main Toledo, Spain page can remain uncluttered and easy to read. Hopefully we will see these changes develop over the next year or so. I will also add the intro to the History of Toledo page. Thank you to everyone for the suggestions and reviews.Jroo222 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Important sights
I am interpreting Summary style to mean that a moderate amount of detail is desirable and should hence be included. I invite to explain why he thinks it's not appropriate. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding 28,337 bytes of info, already present in the articles about the named sights, is not a moderate amount of detail. And at least fix the 10 links to disambiguation pages that you have now again introduced. The Banner talk 12:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of sights to be seen in Toledo. Compared to that, the detail is moderate. Are you suggesting there's some maximum amount of bytes that can be added? X-kbytes of info per monument? If so, how many bytes per monument are you suggesting? Kleuske (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We shall see what other people think. And don't forget to fix the links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 12:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. I welcome any comments anyone may have. Apropos "10 links to disambiguation pages"... I just checked and failed to find any. Can you please be more specific? I did notice your revert discarded a lot of information that wasn't mentioned in other articles. Care to comment? Kleuske (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, there are really 10 links to disambiguation pages in the text you have added. Just check what you have added. Try WPCleaner to find and fix them. The Banner talk 12:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did check and did not find any. Care to point out what I missed? I do not install software just to suit your preferences, but since you (apparently) have installed it, it should be a breeze just to list them instead of playing dumb. If you list them, I will fix them. Promise.
 * I notice you have abandoned your earlier objections and are now sidestepping the issue. Kleuske (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am not sidestepping my earlier objections about adding a lot of information copied out of other articles. I am awaiting comments from other people as I know well enough how you act. But I am amazed that you have dumped a load of text and fail to check what you have dumped. Competence is required is required and so. But a hint: 7 kings, 1 place, 1 of the sights and 1 other subject. The Banner talk 13:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you keep WP:ASPERSIONS in mind. I'm in no mood to play silly buggers. Either provide the details or fix any perceived shortcomings yourself.
 * I conclude you have no serious arguments, so unless anyone else wants to contribute, I consider this case closed. Kleuske (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To fix the shortcomings, I would just revert the mess you gave added. To give you a last chance: Disambiguation pages linked by Toledo, Spain. Good luck. The Banner talk 21:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Just reverting is always the best solution, isn't it? But since you have been kind enough to give me "a last chance", I have decided to choose the implied "or else" option and listen to some Mozart instead. Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As expected... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See Self-fulfilling prophecy. I note, by the way, you seem not very interested in actually improving the page. If that were the case, you'd have fixed them yourself, but for some, strange reason, you don't. Kleuske (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have re-introduced the links to disambiguation pages... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So? Kleuske (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * SO! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite right "Remove almost completely unsourced information written in poor English. Not encyclopedic and mars an otherwise decent article." instead of "revert unhelpful edit"''. Kleuske (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

File:1 toledo spain evening sunset 2014.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:1 toledo spain evening sunset 2014.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 28, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-28. 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) 03:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia-sysops-linked users from Spain being violent and saying about non-existent rules in English Wikipedia
User Asqueladd says "US-centric bias." to an edit by naming conventions. Another double-edit edit says it: "Take it to talk page. Naming conventions are for titles." --DeLaMancha Nahual (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the only "violent" thing in here is the title of this thread, written by you.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Plz, don't justify vandalism. --DeLaMancha Nahual (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Stick to WP:BRD and refrain from making absurd accusations. Maybe something will come out of this.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sir, plz make your signatures properly. --DeLaMancha Nahual (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you call me "Sir"? My signature is perfectly fine. Back to the issue here, could you show evidence of the so-called US naming conventions applying everywhere (every mention of the concerned toponym), not only to the titles?--Asqueladd (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And finally, particularly if you can't bring that required evidence, could you answer how on Earth adding the first-level sub-national division to (for example) "Corpus Christi" is not a case of a US-centric bias?--Asqueladd (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry sir, I didn't mean to be inconvenient, seriously!.--DeLaMancha Nahual (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Trimming the History section
I see there is a template to trim the long section on history. I think it would need to be cut by 60-70% and only keeping the most significant events most related to the city. Would this be alright with everyone? Danial Bass (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2024
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. While there is general agreement that the long-term significance leans towards the Spanish City, consensus is that it is not clearly primary over the city in Ohio. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Toledo, Spain → Toledo – I think there's pretty clear evidence that the Spanish city is the primary topic when talking about the name "Toledo". Right now, the article for "Toledo, Spain" has 106 inter-language links and gets 993 daily average page views. In contrast, "Toledo, Ohio" has 82 inter-language links and gets 893 daily average page views. On Google Scholar, "Toledo" "Spain" gets 475,000 hits, while "Toledo" "Ohio" gets 269,000. So it seems clear that the usage of the term leans towards the Spanish city. In addition, the Spanish city of Toledo has much greater long-term significance, as a far older and historically significant city, and it is even listed as a UNESCO world heritage site.

The last move discussion that proposed this took place in 2006, but to be honest, I found the arguments in opposition unconvincing. So I'm again proposing that this article be made the primary topic for "Toledo", and that the disambiguation page be moved to "Toledo (disambiguation)". Grnrchst (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even ignoring the other 30+ links on the disambiguation page, the city in Spain does not receive more attention than the city in Ohio; in fact, the city in Ohio gets |Toledo,_Spain slightly more pageviews. The number of interlanguage links is not relevant to naming an article on the English Wikipedia. The city in Ohio also has a population several times larger than that of the city in Spain. Since there is no clear primary topic, the current configuration is ideal in this case. Dekimasu よ! 08:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Clear primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see Toledo, Ohio. 162 etc. (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Dekimasu, though US cities commonly include the state and the Ohio one may be named after the Spanish one (though its not mentioned) there doesn't appear to be a clear primary topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator. American cities tend to have states as disambiguators even when the city is fairly known so there's a strong mandate for that on Wikipedia. That's not the case for cities in the old world. Killuminator (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is advocating moving the Ohio city to the base title, so this is really neither here nor there. Primary topic determinations are made according to the specific term involved regardless of whether the article will be located at that title. For example, Reno redirects to Reno, Nevada because the Nevada city is the primary topic; Birmingham is not a disambiguation page because the city in England because it is the primary topic over Birmingham, Alabama (not because US cities tend to have states appended to titles); Worcester is a disambiguation page because Worcester, England and Worcester, Massachusetts conflict. Dekimasu よ! 02:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per Dekimasu; 162 etc. and Crouch, Swale as well as per "Oppose" votes at the previous nomination, 18 years ago (May 6–11, 2006), at Talk:Toledo, Spain, above. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean oppose. I agree that Toledo in Spain is probably primary by long-term significance, but Toledo, Ohio may be primary by usage.  The fact that it's a much larger city and certainly more familiar in the United States—which accounts for a sizeable chunk of English language readers—weighs against the proposal.  The number of interlanguage links is not a useful measure here, since the question concerns English Wikipedia.  In Spanish Wikipedia—and most European languages—Toledo in Spain is likely to be more familiar to readers.  I am sympathetic to long-term significance arguments, but where the articles have been situated as they are for a long time, that argument is not very persuasive in compared with the opposing arguments.  P Aculeius (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's a much larger city and certainly more familiar in the United States—which accounts for a sizeable chunk of English language readers—weighs against the proposal. Note that this is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. If it were relevant we'd write everything in American English and use American terminology for everything. We don't. Incidentally, I'm British and a native English-speaker and the Spanish city is certainly more familiar to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at all irrelevant; this is English Wikipedia, so we go by what is primary in English. And looking at List of countries by English-speaking population, and then by number of speakers for whom English is a first language, the United States has considerably more English speakers than the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, and New Zealand combined.  So for the majority of English speakers, Toledo, Ohio is probably more familiar than Toledo in Spain.
 * This is not a claim that the original Toledo is unimportant—see my first sentence above. Nor is it a claim that what English speakers in the UK or anywhere else is irrelevant.  Merely that Toledo in Spain is not clearly the primary topic for English Wikipedia.  I also didn't say that Toledo, Ohio was the primary topic.  When the two main measures by which primary topics are determined are in disagreement, as they seem to be here, then the best solution is usually to regard neither as primary, and send readers to a disambiguation page.
 * As I also said above, I typically favour long-term significance arguments over usage, but in this case the argument for usage is a very strong one, hence my slight preference for maintaining the status quo. P Aculeius (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose per rationales above. If there were just the city in Spain and the city in the U.S., this would be a much cleaner decision, but there are dozens of things called "Toledo", including many cities, people, ships, etc. BD2412  T 18:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose not sufficiently more prominent than Toledo, Ohio. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)