Talk:Siege of Madrid

Re-Classify

This article is not a stub.

Jdorney 23:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Its no stub, but its contradicting itself. It says its a Republican victory with the date ending in dec 1936. Yet the beginning of the article goes on as does the main body beyond 1936 and onto its fall on 1939. So its really a Nationalist victory. Its alot like say "The siege of Troy", ignoring the possibility that it may not have existed, it was still a Greek victory, even though the initial assault was a failure.Tourskin 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair point. Initially the battlebox was attached to the section 'the battle for madrid', of november to december 1936, so 'republican victory' was accurate, although you could also say that this battle was a stalemate. However the siege as a whole could probably do with a new battlebox, that would say 'nationalist victory'. Jdorney 16:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Victory or Defeat?

Which was it? It says it was a defeat but the Nationalists maintained the siege and took over the city eventually, so it's a victory -Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the new change; it is more precise. Thank you to whoever did it...Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.58.112 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Madrid. 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/20080527232104/http://web.usal.es/~iea/Texts/WebQuests_Americans/Unit_6/Bessie_Text_4_6.PDF to http://web.usal.es/~iea/Texts/WebQuests_Americans/Unit_6/Bessie_Text_4_6.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• ¡No pasarán! Madrid.jpg
• Патруль республиканцев.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on belligerents

Was Francisco Afan Delegado a Nationalist leader during the Siege of Madrid? Because his hyperlink shows he was a Filipino-Spanish Politician, with no mention of the Spanish Civil War.

--Napoleon684 (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

BRD March 2021

By this edit [1] I removed a repeated link and an introductory paragraph to four battles that took place in 1937 around Madrid. User:Jdorney reverted [2] with the edit summary "no need to remove that longstanding para", I reverted with the edit summary "repetitive and confusing follow BRD and take it to Talk" and Jdorney reverted again with the edit summary "No, para is not in the least confusing. Explains clearly, relevance of following 2 paras. Has been part of article since 2007. Onus is on editor changing to explain deletion in talk.". Firstly links should only appear once in a page unless they are also in the lead, so the MAOC should not be defined and linked again. The fact that a para is longstanding is not sufficient reason for retention, otherwise nothing on Wikipedia could ever be changed or improved. There is no need for a paragraph to explain the relevance of the following paragraphs and I would argue that it is in fact confusing to briefly describe 4 battles and then describe them each individually. It confused me which is why I changed it and I'm sure would confuse other readers. The section heading is "Battles around Madrid (1937)" so we don't need a paragraph telling us that there were battles around Madrid in 1937, rather it should just go straight to describing each of the battles. Mztourist (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's confused any other readers or editors. But if it did they can comment here. Jdorney (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we base this article on the "Battle of Madrid" rather than the "Siege of Madrid"?

I have come across that this page revolves mainly around the battle itself rather than the long siege. It seems like the republicans won the battle and prevented the fall of Madrid throughout the entire war until its eventual surrender at the end of the civil war. Other articles on this battle also refer to it as "Battle of Madrid" rather than "Siege of Madrid". What do you guys think? Please leave some comments below! :)

--Archieproductions (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)