Talk:List of Dominican Republic Provinces by etymology
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jmarcano in topic Untitled
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
editThis is a useless article (?) because those etymologies are better in the articles of each province. And many of them are very wrong or without an appropriate reference. For example:
- Azua - where did you get that etymology?. Azua has always been in a valley.
- Baoruco - It is the name of the Baoruco (or Bahoruco) mountains; the Yaque del Sur River has never been called Baoruco.
- Barahona - You took the folkloric theory, not the true origin.
- Dajabón - Of the several theories that are in your reference, you took the wrong one. See the article Dajabón Province.
- Seibo - It can be right but it has never been proved; this theory appears only in personal websites.
- Hato Mayor - This is only a translation into English, not the true etymology.
- La Altagracia - You have given the history of the Virgin of High Grace (not upper grace) and not the reason why the province was given that name.
- La Romana - You have used information for La Romana in Spain, not in the Dominican Republic. Even the reference is for the Spanish town.
- La Vega - It is an invented, romantic, origin of the name. Columbus was who gave the name to the valley (Royal Valley in English).
- María Trinidad Sánchez - María Trinidad Sánchez was never a soldier.
- Monte Cristi - Columbus named as Monte Christi the mountain now known as El Morro.
- Puerto Plata - In this region or any other of the island there was not silver; the name came from the mountain Isabel de Torre that seemed to be covered in silver (the clouds).
- Samaná - It was the Taíno name of the region and not the name of a tribe.
- San Pedro de Macorís - You have given a possible meaning of Macorís but not of the whole name.
And the ortography is horrible. I will not correct it because I think that the whole article should be deleted. --Jmarcano (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)