Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros

message: "Castile herself was in difficulties due to poor harvests and..."
Isn't Castile a place? Using "herself" could be confusing. CW 15:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: "War of the Communities" is a literal translation of the Spanish name for the conflict.  There doesn't seem to be much English literature on the topic, but what little I've read uses "Revolt of the Comuneros" or "Comuneros Revolt of 1520-21."  Checking Google Scholar...
* "Revolt of the Comuneros" has 162 hits, albeit some dubious and some for revolts with the same title elsewhere, but some clearly on this topic;
* "War of the Communities" has 4 hits.  The ones that are on point, like this, are Spanish papers that have a translated English abstract at the top, and were probably mechanically translated.  (The rest is in Spanish.)
So, yeah.  Moving it back here as the normal English term, and adding a hatnote for the other revolts. SnowFire (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: While I'm at it, figure I should lay out a few assumptions I've made in case people wonder why:
* Comunidad is left untranslated.  "Commune" or "Community" are both valid translations, but Community doesn't have the implications of government Comunidad had in the revolt.  The Comunidad was a community but also the city council itself.  "Commune" is closer, but that's mixed up with all sorts of utopian ideas from the 19th century and socialist ideas in the 20th, which weren't really present.  "City state" is probably closest, actually.  I think just leaving it untranslated is fine.
* Comunero/s doesn't get italics, because it's a proper name, not so much a word (compare: nobody italicizes falangists).  Cortes gets italics the first time when introduced as a word, and then never after, since I think that's also kind of drifted into English.
* Charles being both King Charles I and Emperor Charles V is annoying.  Normally I'd use the most common English name, Charles V, except that this takes place in Spain where he's Charles I.  ARGH.  Result: refer to him just as "Charles" with no numeral at all, unless it's important or specifically being brought up.
* English names for the most important cities are used, but for lesser cities the Spanish version is.  Seville and Corunna are the big examples of the English being used; many of the other cities are the same in both languages, just with the English ones missing an accent (like Avila).  Generally kept the accents so that people don't "correct" them to the accent later anyway and cause things to drift out of alignment.
SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation notes

message: I quote the guideline Disambiguation: "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term".  So the hatnote should be a link to a disambiguation page. PatGallacher (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still lightly disagree, since  has options for as many as five extra uses, and I've seen the two other uses thing in quite a few good articles.  But this is a pretty minor issue.  I intend to bring this article off to peer review once it has some more references added, and I figure we can raise the question there to others and see what they think.  I don't think it's a big deal either way.  SnowFire (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatnote

message: (copied from SnowFire's talk page, re this edit by Ceckauskas Dominykas)
The phrase is not logical. It says that king arrived with Flemish escort and these factors led to revolt. It sounds like Castilians were xenophobes, but this is discussed in any book on the subject that this had nothing to do with xenophobia. And phrase like this can disturb reader. I don't understand why you prefer non-referenced end illogical phrase over more detailed and referenced one. Maybe if you don’t like that it is discussed two times in the article you should delete the later phrase.
--Ceckauskas Dominykas 15:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Response: Okay, there's several issues here.
* First, the lede paragraph is meant as a summation of the entire article (see WP:LEDE).  Everything in it should be in the article already and referenced there (so yes, it should be in two places); there's no need for citations in it.  More generally, the lede should be short.  I don't think we have room for any more details here.
* Secondly, I'm not sure what you're getting at content wise.  As is noted in the article, there was both a culture clash between the incoming Flemish & old-guard Castilians as well as a power struggle.  The bit about the Flemish being big drinkers is a cute tidbit but I just don't think there's room; it's sufficient to say that the two sides didn't get along, and further that thanks to William de Croy his Flemish buddies were getting extremely rich off government offices and other assorted corruption.  So no, I don't think that the Castilians come off as simply xenophobes since we mention the issue of privilege and position.  (The culture clash issues, which you seem to want to accentuate, if anything hits the xenophobia angle much harder - ultimately drinking habits are not that relevant and not that great a reason to rebel.) SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede section 

message: About the relationship between Comuneros and the flag of the Second Spanish Republic, I don't have references, and :es:Bandera de la Segunda República Española while thorough does not have them as well. --Error (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  Will go back and try and research this myself later, but it seems that at the very least, adding the purple stripe was part of Castilian nationalism, but it's not clear how many people tied that to the Comuneros.  Some, for sure, but I can't tell if it was a major amount.  I'm removing it for now largely since there's not much room for more images in that section, but am going to try and take a second look and see if it can be restored. SnowFire (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican flag 

message: Huh, it says you're not supposed to start a section anymore...  anyway, as can be seen, this is an A-Class article that was also a former FA candidate.  Hopefully, since A>GA, this should be an easy pass, but I'm also interested in a peer review if possible about the prose.  The FAC had some, to me, nebulous complaints about "the prose isn't good enough," and I'd be happy if anybody could give their thoughts on if there's any improvements to be made.  (Vaguely tempted to have another go-round at FAC, but I haven't found much I personally would want to change since then, so perhaps a fresh set of eyes is needed.) SnowFire (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nomination comment 

message: I changed the portrait of King Charles I of Castile and Aragon to a high quality one, but have been reverted with the reasoning that the "focus is more on Charles" in the original. Which do you think represents the subject best?
File:Charles V. - after Bernaerd van Orley - depot Louvre-Musée de Brou, Bourg-en-Bresse.jpg|Original, bright, but cartoonishly poor colour, low detail. 
File:Bernard van Orley (1487-1541) Karel V - Koninklijk klooster van Brou 25-10-2016 10-06-36.jpg|Replacement, realistic skin tone, crisp. slightly smaller subject size in thumbnail due to frame - if that is an issue, a cropped version can be substituted.
: I was the one who reverted.  If you want to make and use e a cropped version, that's fine.  I just think that including the frame is appropriate if the focus is the portrait itself (e.g. in an article about the painter), but that is not the case here - Charles himself is.  SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image choice for King Charles I of Castile and Aragon