L'ASTURIES LLIBERAL

Un comentariu »

1. GOMEZ 19-10-2009 - 23:56:13 GMT 2

   Neglixencia nel aytu. de Llión

   Nun séi en que pensaba Abel Pardo cuando metéu a Auslli de xefe de la Llionpedia. Lo cierto yía que cuanto más s'anda na investigación d'esti escándalu, más se rellaciona'l nome d'Auslli al de Pardo. Ya mayor chapuza resulta esti proyeutu.

   Agora paez ser qu'Abel "contratóu" a Auslli pesie a la súa probada incompetencia, neglixencia ya creencia filonazi. Lo meyor de too yía que nun paez que nin dientro del sou partíu, la UPL, del sou aytu., el de Llión, ya na sua autonomía, Castiella ya Llión se-y pida nenguna responsabilidá.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Auslli esta yía la polémica páxina na wikipedia n'inglés d'Auslli, ya yá ehí se-y rellaciona a ADRIANU (Adrianu Martín).

   D'esi enllaz:

   Asturian parishes

   Hello. Why are you placing CSD tags on Asturian parish articles when they are Spanish populated places, comparable to an American "county"? As you can see, there is additional info about most of them on the Asturian and Spanish language wikipedias that I didn't translate, but someone else could. There are historic buildings in some of them, and some of them have notable people that I haven't linked. In other words, they are stubs and they need work. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   Hello Rosiestep. The minimun unity in Spain is the municipality, (then there are villages and then parishes!!!) and many of this parishes has less that 50 people living and with 100 meters distance one for another... There are municipalities with more than 100 parishes, so I believe that is not a dictionary (and almost all the pages I have proposed for deletion are) and nor a parish guide. They have absolutely no relevance, and if they have, it has been not shown properly in the parishes I proposed for deletion.--Auslli (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   That as maybe but they still aren't eligable for speedy deletion as they do contain content. They would need to be deleted using WP:PROD or WP:AfD so I've removed the speedy delete requests. Dpmuk (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
   When I looked at the Asturian and Spanish-language wikipedias, I saw that an Asturian "parish" is a sub-unit of a "municipality", and that "villages/towns/hamlets" are sub-units of parishes. I reviewed WP:POPP to see if a "parish" would be considered an appropriate article. Per WP:POPP#Criteria for judging small population centres' first example (A residential hamlet in the parish of X is the birth place of a published author. The existence and location of the hamlet should be noted in X's article, and the fact of the author's birthplace on the author's article. There is nothing else to be usefully said so no separate article is necessary. Redirect the name of the hamlet to the parish aricle.), a parish is notable (at least that's how I read it), while a hamlet (town/village, etc.) may or may not meet notability criteria. It's true I did not include hamlets/villages/towns in each parish article; I could go back and add that info, as could anyone else. I admit to not being an expert on Asturian parishes, so please let me know if I should be reviewing something else besides WP:POPP in order to establish notability of a populated place. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
   Hello Rosiestep. I think we can have an agreement. Yes, certainly we can be talking about "subunities" and finishing in the part of the table of the kitchen where a man of the parish is seated, but that doesn't convern wikipedia. If Ronald Reagan was there, does. And like I tell you, in Spain the minimun unity is the municipality, or going farther, the villages who have their own ellectionships for major. What do you think about consider appropiates articles those who really have something that permit them to be considereted as "interesant" for wikipedia, like some monument, birthplace of a cellebrity or somethnig like that, and not all the other ones? Beacuase like I tell you, we have to make a stop elsewhere and don't include places without enciclopedic interest. Best regards.--Auslli (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   to Auslli, from Rosiestep

   Hello Auslli. I respect your opinion and your interest in the Asturian parish articles, and I agree that writing "interesting" place articles is good for Wikipedia! However, I disagree with your suggestion as to which Asturian parish articles I should or shouldn't create as: (a) per the Asturias government website, parishes are a part of the territory organization; (b) per WP:Notability (geography), populated, legally-recognized places are notable; (c) the Asturian parish articles I'm creating are transwikied from other language wikipedias, so their notability has been established elsewhere; and (d) only creating articles about "interesting" places... well, that's subjective (right?).
   I hope you reconsider your position on this issue, and that you remove the Prod Tag from Ronda (Illano). But if you continue to disagree with me as to whether or not articles such as Ronda meet wikipedia's notability standard, we could seek the opinion of the wiki community, perhaps at WikiProject Spain and/or WikiProject Geography? In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the cup of tea. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
   So, I think we could arrive to an agreement. The last unity is the parish, according to wikipedia and the legallity in that regions. I'll remove the tag, in that sense. Are you ok?--Auslli (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   All ok with me. We've reached agreement on this notability issue, and *gracias* for removing the Prod Tag. Also, in case you want to add it to your Watchlist, I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain#Asturian language name asking for feedback about including/excluding the Asturian language name translation within an Asturian geo article. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Pues vei ser que las parroquias n'Asturias son la unidá alministrativa más pequeña. Eiquí la cousa furrula, más ou menos, de la siguiente manera. Ya espero que si m'enquivoco, seipan correxime:

   Unión Europea>Reinu d'España>Principáu d'Asturias (C.A.)>Conceyu>Parroquia

   Sí, n'Asturias hai un dereichu públicu que remanez de la Xunta Xeneral del Principáu d'Asturias, sita n'Uviéu: yía'l poder llexilativu que nos diemos tolos asturianos nas últimas eleiciones.

   Tamién hai un dereichu priváu, nacíu de la costume, que foi recompiláu ya escritu polos servicios xurídicos del Principáu.

   Val, pues dientro d'esi dereichu públicu, La CA del Principáu d'Asturias (Asturias), dixébrase en Conceyos, son lo equivalente a los Municipios llioneses de los qu'Auslli fala.

   Bon, pues los conceyos asturianos, nun total actual de 78, sodixébranse en parroquias. (Bien yía verdá que davezu los conceyos xuntan en mancomunidades -mal llamadas anguaño tamién comarcas-, ya las parroquias en coutos, en partíos, en cuartos... especialmente pal occidente).

   De según la llei asturiana, bono chái-y un güeyu, (sacáu de la Páxina del Principáu d'Asturias:

   Rural Civil Parishes
   Information on Asturian rural civil parishes

   In accordance with Article 6 of Asturias’ Statute of Autonomy, rural civil parishes will be granted legal personality as they are traditional coexistence organizations and settlement units of the Asturian population.

   In order to develop this Article, the 11/1986 Law, of November 20th, has been approved, acknowledging the legal personality of rural civil parishes. The law covers matters as important as the rural parishes’ competences, the organic legislation, and the functions and resources of civil parishes.

   Val; n'asturianu pa entendelu toos (de la miesma páxina):

   L’artículu 6 del Estatutu d’Autonomía del Principáu d’Asturies prevé la reconocencia de la personalidá xurídica de les parroquies rurales como forma tradicional de convivencia y asentamientu de la población asturiana.

   En desarrollu de dichu artículu, díctase la Llei 11/1986, de 20 de payares, pola que se reconoz tala personalidá xurídica y que prevé nel so articuláu aspectos tan importantes como’l procedimientu de reconocencia, les competencies de la parroquia rural, el réxime orgánicu y funcional de les mesmes y los recursos de les parroquies.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Oi una cousa, habíais mirar pal tremendu trabayu llingüísticu d'Abel Pardo na prestixosa revista Mikroglóttica

   http://www.mikroglottika.com/1.3.2007.pdf

   ¿Nun yía tamién mui antiasturianu? ¿Nun vos resulta familiar? Nun se paez a la retórica d'Auslli? Pensáilo...

   Con la llegada de la transición comienza el proceso de recuperación en Asturias, que genera una normativa propia y segregacionista con respecto al resto del dominio lingüístico, creando la “Academia de la Lengua Asturiana” como una institución del Principado de Asturias y circunscrita a ese ámbito territorial, basando su eje en los dialectos centrales asturianos y cerrándose al sur de la cordillera cantábrica.

   Por su parte, la reacción mirandesa se produce a finales de los años 90, en la que se crea una normativa propia, basada en la ortografía portuguesa y propia de la zona occidental, que logra el reconocimientooficial del gobierno portugués9 y comienza su inclusión en la educación lectiva y uso en instituciones oficiales.En el medio del dominio, frente a dos normativas “segregacionistas”, y ante la carencia de cualquier mínimo grado de unidad territorial o de autogobierno que generara, al igual que sucedió en Asturias, una institución normativizadora y normalizadora, comienza a surgir, en base a los dialectos centro-occientales una “koinee” leonesa que poco a poco va cuajando como norma general para las provincias de León, Zamora y Salamanca. Esta “norma” empieza a difundirse fundamentalmente a través de la red

   , con usuarios del idioma que, con aportaciones propias de vocabularios dialectales de sus zonas, van generando un estándar no escrito que hoy se está consolidando y que ha comenzado a enseñarse en los cursos de educación para adultos.

   Es por ello que frente a la enseñanza en colegios de las normas asturiana y mirandesa, y a la difusión de la norma asturiana con publicaciones en formato papel (libros, prensa, etcétera) el leonés está cuajando una normativa “popular” siendo internet su medio de configuración, afianzamiento y difusión. Es “a posteriori” cuando, al contrario que en Asturias o Miranda, comienza a llegar el reconocimiento institucional (firma del convenio entre la Diputación de León y El Fueyu, entre determinados ayuntamientos y El Fueyu) y cuando por primera vez se recoge en el articulado del proyecto de reforma del estatuto de autonomía de Castilla y León el reconocimiento expreso del Leonés.

   Yía'l miesmu estilu antiasturianu, politizáu, falseador, acientíficu, ya queixón que carauteriza a Auslli... .. .

   http://exllionpedista.nireblog.com/post/2009/10/18/neglixencia-nel-aytu-de-llion

Dexar un comentariu