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)

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)