Template talk:Spanish language sidebar

Appearance

I think it looks a bit ugly now. :( — Chameleon

Well that's a bit subjective, isn't it? Objectively, though, even if you don't see it, the new version was more compact (it took up less horizontal space), and to me it also looked better because there were no nested lists adding excessive indentation. As with the title of Spanish verb paradigm, do as you please, but it's not nice to revert someone else's changes like that. --Pablo D. Flores 15:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's subjective, but aesthetics have to be a consideration. Also, your version wasn't more compact. The width of the box is determined by the width of the image, which you didn't change. I'm not totally against changing my design, but your change just didn't make it better, IMHO. How about making a draft here? — Chameleon 19:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I forgot that every user may have different font settings. In my setting, it was more compact. In your version, the text was wider than the image, because it was a large font (Verdana) and mostly because of the indentation. The nested tables can be adjusted better (while the indentation of a list cannot, unless we use HTML and lots of style settings). I'll paste a draft here tomorrow if I can. --Pablo D. Flores 01:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Colours

(copied form Talk:Spanish alphabet)I'm colour-blind, so I don't see colours the same way as most people, but strangely I am often objectively correct. I mean, my girlfriend says that my box is mauve or violet too. I suppose that you'd agree with her that the photo of the keys is blue. I think you're both wrong. The box is rgb(88%, 88%, 98%), which means that there is almost the maximum amount of blue, and equal amounts of red and green. So, it's blue. The photo of the keys is more like rgb(67%, 79%, 96%), which makes it a bluish cyan. I don't know whether this is a colour-perception thing or a computer-screen thing. Maybe I should make the box cyan; it might go with the green. — Chameleon 18:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have to consider the fact that we don't have the same number of receptors for each colour. The box is defenitely violet, and the keyboard has a blue tint.

I would defenitely prefer to change the ugly green in the Info box for languages in Spanish language (familycolor=lawngreen), but there's already a color system, and some "very flexible" people not willing to change it... -Mariano 10:36, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

What hav you dan to may buitifal calars?!? Well, I have to admit it goes better with the language-box's green colour. But its a pitty to loose that vanderfal violet. Use it somewhere else, don't let it extinguish!! (I shouldn't edit in my sleep...) -Mariano 07:02, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Oh dear, was that some accent? Hmm, anyway, feel free to edit the box colours if you like. :) — Chameleon 08:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nah, never mind. Had to complain though. What, you've never been to India? Mmm, maybe I shouldn't have written that, now I will be prosecuted for racism or something like that! Thanks God for Wiki-tolerance. -Mariano 09:22, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Image and text

Picture and text of caption are misleading. In modern Spanish is "Don Quijote" with "j" - "jota" [1] (in English). The template is about spanish language. Not for the literary work in english. --IM-yb (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, no image is better. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Spanish

By any useful definition of dialect, Judeo-Spanish is clearly not a dialect of Spanish. Unlike the dialects proper, Judeo-Spanish does not exchange innovations with the dialects of Spanish, it lost contact with the written standard 5 centuries ago, and does not even use the Latin script! The differences between Judeo-Spanish and Spanish are not only big, but also very difficult to fit in a general discussion of Spanish dialects. I don't think any serious source deals with it as a dialect, in fact Judeo-Spanish is more of a convenient grouping of linguistic varieties quite apart from each other. By the way, Ladino is just the name of some of these varieties, the name is rejected by many native speakers, check Talk:Judeo-Spanish. In short, the connection between Judeo-Spanish and Spanish is historical, since they parted ways forever in the 15th century. --Jotamar (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also opposed to lumping in Judeo-Spanish with the regular Spanish dialects. The differences between Judeo-Spanish and the rest of Spanish are tremendous. Most Spanish-related pages on Wikipedia just don't treat it the same, as do most other sources on Spanish, and courses teaching Spanish as a second language usually make little mention of Judeo-Spanish. At the same time, I'm also slightly uncomfortable with including Judeo-Spanish in the history section, since some readers might interpret that as implying Judeo-Spanish is just a preservation of pre-1492 Spanish and not a group of living, changing varieties. But that doesn't mean that I know of any better solutions. Erinius (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make any sense for a page about a language to be put under the History section. If there is a page about the history of Judeo-Spanish, so be it, add it, but as it stands, it does not belong under History. As such, I am placing it under the Interlanguage section. It fits better alongside Portuñol (Portuguese + Spanish) as being Hebrew + Spanish than it does alongside historical pages. Danachos (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]