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).

7) 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.

8) 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. 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)

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)

@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)

FWC world cup champions

Add this information. ~2026-37261-40 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2026

change "The country's national men's football team won the UEFA European Championship in 1964, 2008, 2012 and 2024 and the FIFA World Cup in 2010, and is the first team ever to win three back-to-back major international tournaments." to "The country's national men's football team won the UEFA European Championship in 1964, 2008, 2012 and 2024 and the FIFA World Cup in 2010 and 2026 and is the first team ever to win three back-to-back major international tournaments. this is in the sports sub-tab of culture. Ruinedblade (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Already done Day Creature (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Total population above 100%

Under the demographic section it says: "...people born in Spain accounted for 85.4% of the total population and people born abroad accounted for 20.3% of the total population." That adds up to 105.7% of the total population. Is one of these numbers incorrect? ~2026-41837-42 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Both numbers seem to have been miscalculated, and they have been corrected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 28 July 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)

Ceuta and Melilla

For whatever reason, apart from showing WS under Spanish de jure administration, it also shows Ceuta and Melilla under Moroccan control. The file explicitly mentions the purposeful exclusion of these two cities. ~2026-42520-36 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: This has been amended. It is still hard to see Ceuta and Melilla, because they are small and indicated with very small circles. ～ Misha Vargas (talk | contribs) 19:25, 2 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://en.wikipedia.org/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)