Talk:Española, New Mexico

message: Dirtyhalfblood 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean it should be moved to Española, New Mexico? –Hajor 02:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (Older comments)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political corruption 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Metro" definition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tildes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  heroin usage source doesn't support summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Obama picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I found this sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  the last edit made 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  regardless of when the city was founded 

message: "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)
thread_title:  I just moved this sentence here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Mexico municipal elections are non-partisan 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  I just cut this out 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: unprotect the redirect
65.175.134.44 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No. TJH2018talk 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence needs Clarificaton 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed; went with "Spanish settlement". --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! Thank you, Golbez (talk)!  Taram (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested "early settlers" change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "The newly expanded Presbyterian Hospital, additions added over 43 new beds" If not 43, how many?