User talk:Trasamundo

Small request

Hello, Trasamundo, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I was just wondering if you could edit your user page to make one small adjustment, which would be to replace {{editor toc}} with {{editor toc|category=}}? This would have no visible effect except to remove your user page from Category:Editor handbook, which that template normally adds pages to. (If you're interested in how that works, see Template talk:Tlrow#Category magic.) Thanks! $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡Hola, Trasamundo!

De cierto le digo que tomé notas de lo que escribió en Commons.

¿Y qué nos dice de la decisión aquí de mostrar los dos mapas? SamEV (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Empire

Gracias por su respuesta, Trasamundo.

Sí, es cierto. Había un casi-compromiso para mostrar dos mapas. Pero EHT, Cosialscastells, y Jan nunca lo aceptaron, o no por completo. Al final no nos pusimos de acuerdo, todo se tornó confuso (al punto que Pat hasta abogó por el mapa de ahora en cierto momento; no sé con que fin, pero probablemente uno temporario), el semi-compromiso de derrumbó, y bueno, aquí estamos. Yo terminé uniéndome a EHT, Cosialscastells, y Jan en favor de un sólo mapa.

..."este mapa animado no se tiene por qué ser realizado por The Ogre"...

De acuerdo. Tal vez EHT podría hacer ese mapa.

Ahora bien. A mi me pareció una buena idea la del mapa animado desde que The Ogre me informó del plan en Octubre. Sin embargo, siempre he tenido una duda: es probable que el mapa animado no sea compatible con algunos espejos (mirrors) de Wikipedia. Y además está el problema de que cuando alguien imprima el artículo, ¿cual mapa, de los varios en el gif, se va imprimir? ¿O se imprimirán todos? Hay escuelas que usan mucho contenido de Wikipedia... Tal vez estos no son problemas grandes, pero son problemas, creo yo.

Dígame, Trasamundo: ¿cual considera usted como la mejor opción de todas? Olvidando, por el momento, lo que haya acordado con The Ogre, e incluso la opinión de cualquiera que no quiera que se muestre al imperio portugués. ¿Cree usted que un mapa animado de veras es lo mejor, tomando en cuenta los problemitas que acabo de mencionar? Si fuera usted quien manda, si fuera suya la decisión única (inapelable), ¿qué mapa mostraría?

Concerniente a este mapa (versión actualizada, usada en el artículo), sí: pretende ser anacrónico de todo el periodo, toda la historia/duración del imperio español. Y muestra al Imperio Portugués como era en 1580-1640, porque ese fue el periodo de la 'Unión'. O sea, el mapa es anacrónico para el Imperio Español propio. Pero ese anacronismo no se extiende al Imperio Portugués también; sólo se muestra al portugué durante la fase de la Unión, mostrando correctamente, de esa forma, las áreas portuguesas que España sí controló: Cualquier otras áreas que Portugal sólo haya controlado antes o después del 1580 a 1640 no fueron parte del Imperio Español, excepto ciertas áreas que cambiaron de dueño, como la hoy Guinea Ecuatorial, por ejemplo, que era portuguesa, hasta el 1778, cuando la adquirió España.

Ah, pero ahí veo un problema: Terminó siendo española, por lo que se le colorea rojo; pero durante la Unión ¡era portuguesa! Creo que eso se arregla añadiendo otro color — para áreas que luego cambiaron de dueño.

Pero no entiendo porqué usted se opone a los mapas anacrónicos. Sí, mezclan épocas, pero esa es la idea. La simple idea es nada más mostrar todas las áreas que en algún tiempo fueron parte del imperio español: y el hecho de que no corresponden a ningún periodo o año en particular es expresado en el texto que acompaña al mapa. No se está confundiendo al lector; todo está claro, explícito.

Hasta luego. SamEV (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En cuanto al uso de un mapa anacrónico y estático: A lo que te opones no es a que en el aparecen todas las posesiones de España en una misma vista; sinó al hecho de que no están segmentadas, en diferentes colores, para que el lector pueda saber cuales pertenecieron a cual época, ¿verdad? Si es así, yo acepto tu sugerencia de que se segmenten.

Y sí, debemos probar con otros colores que el púrpura para las colonias portuguesas.

"El uso de un mapa anacrónico no excluye el gif animado, y en este mapa animado los territorios tendrían el mismo color puesto que no hay mezcla de época."

Sí lo excluye, Trasamundo. El gif no es más que una sucesión de mapas estáticos, mostrados a unos segundos el uno del otro. Y si ninguno de esos mapas incluye todas las áreas que fueron parte del imperio español a lo largo de toda su historia, entonces no hay mapa anacrónico (total) en el gif. Pero entiendo lo que dices.

"Por último, añadir, que la elaboración y detalle de un mapa, ¿no tendría que ser discutida en la página de commons del mapa a editar, y no repartir dichos planteamientos por las páginas de usuario?"

Ahora que lo dices, creo que sí. :) Nos veremos en Commons, entonces. (Sólo leí la discusión hasta Octubre.) SamEV (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trasamundo, si te referías a esta página de Commons, ya veo que no hay nuevos comentarios en los últimos dos meses.

Creo que nuestra práctica debe ser esta: discutir todos los cambios mayores en Talk:Spanish Empire, mientras que los cambios menores los podemos discutir en las páginas de usuario. A mí me gusta usar las de usuario porque es más fácil enterarse de los mensajes recibidos, debido al sistema que informa automáticamente. SamEV (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spain, Castile, Portugal

I agree with what I think you are saying - please correct me if I am wrong that you are stating:

Spain was a composition of several kingdoms.
Between 1580 and 1640, Portugal was one of these kingdoms.
The relationship between Portugal and Castile was like that of Aragon and Castile.

I fully agree with all of the above. I also understand the following from my reading of sources (again, please let me know which, if any, points you disagree with):

New Spain, New Granada, Peru, Philippines etc belonged to the Kingdom of Castile.
Brazil, Estado da India etc belonged to the Kingdom of Portugal.
Castile and Portugal, and their empires, were always legally separate during the union.
Philip promised at the Cortes in 1580 to keep them separate in actuality too. (As this source says [1] "for the most part, he kept his promises")

Therefore, I suggest, the situation, and the whole dispute, hinges on what we, and historians, mean by "Spain".

If we take (as some historians do) "Spain (1580-1640)" to mean Castile + Aragon + Navarre + Portugal, then we must say that the "Spanish" Empire included the Portuguese colonies.
If we take (as other historians do) "Spain (1580-1640)" to mean Castile + Aragon + Navarre, but NOT Portugal, then the "Spanish" Empire did not include the Portuguese colonies.

And this is how we have the dispute that we do: it's really just a matter of the semantics of "Spain". What do you think? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you too! That's good, I'm glad we are in agreement. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que el "Profesor de Historia de Europa" no le gusta su mapa [2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrick what you are showing basically is contradictory, i just said i don't like my own maps better, but i find Trasamundo's map to be innacurate, also i dont believe the reader will be able to read the captions [[3]] in the sumary part--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Trasamundo, I tried placing your map at Iberian Union and Portuguese Empire, but EuroHistoryTeacher has been repeatedly reverting it. On what basis other than unqualified claims of "inaccuracy", I am not sure, but it is a much better and more realistic map than the current versions. I think we should use it: what do you think? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Duda sobre Brasil español

La línea de Tordesillas otorgó la mayor parte de Brasil a España. De nuevo: la mayor parte. Mírala acá: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Portugal, sin embargo, fué avanzando y avanzando en la Amazonia hasta que al final España le cedió formalmente ese territorio en el siglo 18. Reconociendo que los esfuerzos colonizadores allí no rindieron gran éxito (de eso habla el libro de Kamen en la única página a la que Google da acceso), te recuerdo que sí los hubo. Así pues, además de que le perteneció de jure por siglos (desde Tordesillas hasta el siglo 18), hubo una presencia española en ese suelo. ¿Discrepas? SamEV (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guale, Apalachicola, Nootka, etc

Hello, Trasamundo. I thought your descriptions about the borders of Spanish territories was well done, researched, sourced, and rational. You mentioned a couple things I can probably address. It seemed better to do so on your talk page than on the very-wordy Spanish Empire talk page.

First, regarding Alaska and Oregon, you wrote: Only I have indicated the Spanish effective possession of Nootka, if there are more settlements I would like to know them.

I don't think there were any others. There was an attempt to establish a post at Neah Bay, Washington by Salvador Fidalgo, but it never got past much beyond clearing some ground and the project was abandoned within months. There's some info and sources about it on Fidalgo's WP page. I have never heard of any other Spanish post north of California.

Second, you wrote: As for Spanish Missions in Georgia, I do not have references on the extension of the mission provinces named Guale, Timucua, Apalachee and Apalachicola.

These are very minor issues in the greater scheme of the Spanish Empire's global history, but in case you are curious, here's my understanding, and some sources:

The Timucua and Apalachee mission provinces were within the boundary of the present state of Florida, more or less. The actual border of Spanish control extended just north into present Georgia in a few places, and in others did not quite reach the modern Florida-Georgia border. But the differences are very small and the modern border is basically correct.

Apalachicola was a mission province in name only. It was never under Spanish control and no missions were ever built there. It was supposed to encompass the proto-Creek towns of the lower Chattahoochee River, reaching north to a cluster of towns near present-day Columbus, Georgia. A few Spanish expeditions made a show of force there, but the mission province was never established. A few missions were established just north of Apalachee province (just barely north of the modern Florida-Georgia boundary). Apparently these are sometimes said to be Apalachicola missions, but they were few, short-lived, and far from the core of the Chattahoochee River towns--more related to the Apalachee and Timucua provinces.

The Guale province was established on the coastal islands of modern Georgia, north to the Savannah River (present border of Georgia and South Carolina).

I don't have time to cite sources very well, but here are some Google Book links.

On the mission provinces of Florida:

The Timucua, p. 98, or its main page The Timucua. Page 98 has a map (but without explicit borders). Pages 98-99 define the provinces in some detail. "Mocama" is mentioned--it was a "district" of the Timucua province along the southern Georgia coast. It is often singled out because it is sometimes included as part of the Guale province. That book has a lot more info and maps. Page 102 has a map of western Timucuan missions.

The Spanish Frontier in North America, p. 102 describes the Guale mission province's geography. The other provinces are described on the following pages. There's a map of missions on page 101. The main page is The Spanish Frontier in North America.

I'd give more sources and more specific links to maps and such, but lack the time. In short, I think it is accurate to show Spanish territory as that of the present state of Florida. If desired, a coastal strip along the Georgia coast could be included too. Pfly (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and for the information, I also have found references about the Spanish presence on the coast of Georgia. [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. Trasamundo (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patagonia

Hola, te paso un enlace detallando el proceso colonial español de la Patagonia [13].--Dunkedun (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Como te pasas de maleducado, te he demostrado que tu mapa está lleno de errores y ni tan siquiera respetas el cartel. Adiós.--Dunkedun (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's brief existence on Wikipedia and immediate joining in on two "hot" topics in the Spanish imperial space (wars of independence and this map) is suspicious. It may just be coincidence but he seems to have the same interest list as El "Profesor" de la Historia de Europa. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem edit

You might want to revert this edit [14] - I don't want to fall foul of the 3RR rule. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, sobre el mapa..

Creo que el mapa que has subido sobre el imperio español tendría que ser un mapa un poco mas claro y grande, algo así: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/BlankMap-World-large-noborders.png Por si te sirve de algo: Colonización de las Indias Orientales Españolas: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/portugal_colonial_dominions.jpg Colonización de America en 1784 por encyclopedia Britannica incluye la Patagonia: http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/64/2064-004-0A19D73E.gif

Un saludo. Datiusnerva (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hola

Gracias por responder, aunque el caso de la patagonia no es diferente al de los británicos en el norte de Canada. + Mapas orientativos (por si te sirven de algo):

Publisher: Times Books/HarperCollins Pulishers Spanish America by 1620 http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/cbig/by1620.jpg

Publisher: Times Books/HarperCollins Publishers: Spanish America by 1779 http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/big/by1779.jpg

Publisher: Penguin Atlas UK Viceroyalty of Peru 1650 http://www.historyonmaps.com/BWSamples/big/PeruBrasil.jpg

El mapa que has creado es buenísimo! Pero yo opino que tiene demasiados colores y resulta un poco confuso Saludos! Datiusnerva (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Empire

The socks are back. I reverted three times though so don't want to get myself blocked... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Map

Looks great. One immediate comment - I'm not sure St Helena was ever a Portuguese territory. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I'm aware of its use as a way-station, I just didn't think it is viewed as part of the Portuguese "Empire" per se, ie as Portuguese "territory". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olá

Olá Trasamundo. De facto, não estou propriamente activo na wikipédia, ando cheio de trabalho e as edições no último mês foram mais uma espécie de intervalo. O mapa está bom. E as tuas respostas e fontes há muito que desfizeram as minhas dúvidas sobre esta questão. E o meu problema com os mapas e algumas das redacções anteriores, no fim de contas, devia-se as tentativas, não necessariamente malévolas, de impôr uma visão simplistas dos processos históricos que nos interessam. É pena não conseguires fazer um mapa animado - confesso a minha incapacidade técnica para o conseguir... Já agora, para quando a generalização do uso do teu novo mapa em todas as wikipédias (a começar pela espanhola)? O teu mapa é de longe muito melhor que todos os outros e, além da correcção propriamente histórica, tem também um elevado nível de correcção geográfica. É que, mesmo sem discutir a questão da "integração" entre os reinos ibéricos e suas colónias, as áreas coloniais tinham erros gigantesco, como por exemplo no do Brasil. Saudações! The Ogre (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]