Talk:Aqueduct of Segovia

message: okay, I'll ask.  why not ... Segovia Aqueduct?
Blondlieut 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No deep reason. As you probably know, English can go either way on this, but to the best of my recollection I've usually heard it called "the Aqueduct of Segovia". Segovia Aqueduct should probably be there as a redirect, though. I'll add it if no one's beaten me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Off the top of my head: Colossus of Rhodes, Sea of Japan, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Great Wall of China. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, the Google test gives "Segovia aqueduct" 713, "aqueduct of Segovia" 805. It really looks like both uses are equally common. First hit on the latter is UNESCO, which ought to carry about as much weight as Britannica. I don't see much to choose between the quality of sites using each name. - Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aqueduct of Segovia vs. Segovia Aqueduct

message: "… convento jurídico (which translates into 'judicial covenant') of Clunia." I don't think so. I had left the phrase untranslated because I wasn't sure of an English-language equivalent, but "convento" is not "covenant" (it can be "convent" or "monastery"). I believe that convento jurídico is a monastery with legal proprietorship of a territory, but I don't know an English term. - Jmabel | Talk 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the term "Provincial Court", but it just loses the elegance of "Convento Jurídico", don't you think? I'll let you fellas decide. I'm still a newbie to the wikipedia community (this is the first artcile I've translated or even modified) and will defer to people's superior experience. # Ianfe 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: http://ceipac.gh.ub.es/biblio/Data/A/0053.pdf
See the above link.  Apparently, as it turns out, Roman Hispania had 14-some-odd jurisdictions; they were called conventus iuridici (the plural, at any rate), as, well, they didn't speak Spanish then, and in many of those same places now, of course, they still don't speak Spanish (or they speak it along with Basque, Catalan, Portuguese, etc.).  So using the Spanish expression for a Roman Hispania idea seems a bit off, in English (make it makes sense in Spanish, where Hispanizing the Latin is a lot easier, and the cultural continuum between Roman Hispania and modern Spain, and thus between Latin and Spanish is, well ... continuous).  At any rate, my first (pseudo)translation, provincial court, is only right in the sense that convento juridico can apply both to the jurisdiction of the court and the court itself.  So this should probably be something like.  ... "the area fell with the jurisdiction of the Roman provincial court (conventus iuridici [we'll have to find the singular], Spanish convento jurídico) located in Clunia.  That way the term is explained without over-translating it (and over-translating here ... doesn't provide much explanation for what we're talking about).
Does that make sense?Blondlieut 03:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I said my Latin was weak! So what is the singular (a meeting place for court), since convento jurídico is singular? - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Convento jurídico'' 

message: "Catholic Matron of the city": really "matron"? Despite its etymology, I thought a "patron saint" was a "patron saint" regardless of gender. In Spanish, the term is patrona. (And just a bit later, we refer to Saint Barbara as (patron saint of artillerymen). But I'm not Catholic. Does anyone confidently know the correct English-language term? - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had my doubts about this term, too. Like you, I'm not Catholic so I hesitated in changing it. But I'm fairly sure al saints are refered to as patrons regardless of their gender, but there might be an exception for the Virgen Mary.   GringoInChile 02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matron 

message: Well, I'm wrong (or at least half-way wrong).  The Virgin of Guadalupe, an apparition of the "true Mother of God," is the "Patroness of the Americas."  See below.  But when it's more than an apparition, and it's and actual person (not just Mary reappearing), then it's patron saint (see the New Advent Encyclopedia on that).  So St. Barbara is a ... patron saint (I made her the patron saint of artillery (as opposed to artillerymen) as the wikipedia article supports this, and it eliminates the sexism in the phrase (the wikipedia article on her also states that she is the patron saint of artillery gunners, but that seems not to follow as naturally in the text).
http://www.sancta.org/
Anyway, I made the text "Patroness of Segovia," paralleling "Patroness of the Americas" (Patroness of the  city .. didn't seem to cut it) and I took out "Catholic" as redundant (I mean, she ain't the Presbyterian Patroness of Segovia, now is she?) Blondlieut 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patroness 

message: OOoooookay, maybe this is just too obvious, but perhaps something needs to be added to the "Legend" section regarding the manifest import of the story, which is to say the roll that it played in Christianizing the foundational story of the aqueduct, and thus of Segovia itself?  I mean, if the the pagan Hercules had been founder of the city, and had sat a top the structure, very convenient indeed that a new story comes along, with a wonderful excuse to topple the image of a pagan deity and install the statute of a virgin and the Catholic saint, and the lads from the local Francoist military hotbed for decades got to hoot and holler under their beautific, shining faces on the patron saint for barbarism day.  Lovely, and I'm sure quite a site.  Or does the legend does kind of ... sit there, with no explication at all of the function it served in the cultural and religious transition of Segovia?Blondlieut 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably "sprinkled" is better, you're right. - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend 

message: Is that a common enough designation in English for Ferdinand & Isabel to pass without further comment? I can't judge, to me they are the Reyes Católicos, no sense of how common in English. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the first time I've seen them refered to as the Catholic Monarchs in an English text: They are usually named individually. Still, there is an article about them under "Catholic Monarchs" so if someone reading the article is in any doubt who they are, they can simply click on the link. GringoInChile 02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, yeah... I was surprised to find an article for Catholic Monarchs as well. When I first translated it I looked for "Catholic Kings" or something similar... then I retraced it to Felipe de Aragon and found out about the article... I'll check some History books and see if they're called that way in English outside Wikipedia. If not, we might suggest changing the title of "Monarchs" article? Ianfe 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Yup, I checked and "Catholic Monarchs" is the correct English term. #Ianfe 02:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Monarchs 

message: Segovia was not an important city during Roman times. Why such a big, beautiful and technically perfect aqueduct was built there? I have wondered it in my blog (in Spanish)
:We will probably never know for sure, but my best guess is that some rich people (or the leaders of a big and rich organisation like the church or a government organ) chose for whatever reason Segovia as their home base and decided they could afford to provide for a reliable water source, both for their own direct benefit and possibly also to win public support.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why in Segovia? 

message: Until when? When was it finally shut down? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  until recently? 

message: Someone has to check whether there are actually 75 single arches and 44 double arches (88 when counted seperately) and another 4 single arches. If that is the case, the total of 166 arches is incorrect and should be 167.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.208.61 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of arches 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Aqueduct of Segovia 08.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 8, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-08. 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) 01:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Aqueduct of Segovia 08.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aqueduct of Segovia. 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/20110516181723/http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_article/pg_38-41_Segovia.pdf to http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_article/pg_38-41_Segovia.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516171422/http://www.wmf.org/content/acueducto-de-segovia to http://www.wmf.org/content/acueducto-de-segovia
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came to this article to read about the legend of the Aqueduct of Segovia, which was mentioned in the news recently due to a controversial statue that is being proposed.  I found no mention of it in the article, but here on the Talk page I see where there used to be a section dedicated to it.
What happened to it?  It's totally gone, and no mention on the Talk page as to why.165.225.38.232 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend ?