Talk:Granada

source: copyright free http://texts01.archive.org

---

I've changed [[Sierra Nevada]] to [[Sierra Nevada (Spain)|Sierra Nevada]], taking a cue from the Geography section of the Spain article. nknight 15:06 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

When I first converted the images to thumbnails (in an attempt to make the page neater) my layout wasn't great. The insertion of the heading "Photos of the city" was, though, a bit redundant. (It's pretty obvious they're photos.) I've removed the heading and used a table to tidy-up the layout. Gary Jones 18:01, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think this article should be split into Grenada, the city, and Kingdom of Grenada, the Moorish state. What do you all think?--24.147.128.141 23:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nasrid/Granada

the following exchange began at Wetman's Talkpage:

Hi Wetman... I see you've moved Nasrid into Granada. Well, there was a certainly a better list of Nasrid rulers in the city page than the dynasty page, and both were decidedly stubby, so it certainly made sense as a move. But in the long run, I think we need separate articles on the two... The city page needs to grow quite a lot, and the Nasrids are relevant to quite a bit more than the city. At least, that's what I think (though I'm not going to do anything about it, for lack of time, just now); I just wondered if you had principled reasons for putting the two together, beyond the current thinness of both? seglea 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

uhuh, I missed the comment above, which gives some background. Long term there probably needs to be a page on Granada (kingdom), which Nasrid might well redirect to. seglea

...Or, since the Sultanate of Granada segued without a change of dynasty into the Kingdom of Granada, eventually a complete History of Granada might be broken out from Granada, leaving a capsule outline in its place. The historical city was not separate from its supporting hinterland in the way that New York City can be discussed separately from New York State. As a modern city with relics of its past, Granada is beginning to be described in this article; as a historical territory, its size, history, culture etc. all belong at History until that subsection breaks off naturally because it's just too big (ca 38kb?) Otherwise we'd be trying to discuss the History of Attica separate from Athens etc etc. Modern suburbanites, conected by highways and television, don't fully understand what a city was historically. Does everyone see what I mean? Any harm?--Wetman 00:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly no harm for now in my view. But if we look at where the links come from, I think that there will probably be separable clusters that are really about the Sultanate/Kingdom, and clusters that are really about the modern city, and eventually these will need to be separate pages. (For example, I did some work on the Nasrid page because I was writing pages about places in the Alpujarras and needed links to it). The history of the Sultanate/Kingdom sits slightly uneasily within a page about the modern city, just because it was a wider entity. And within the history cluster, I suspect that the links to the Nasrid era may be a separate cluster from those to history since the reconquista. I'm not proposing any action for now, just trying to get a sense of where we might be trying to end up. seglea 18:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone trying to work on pages on this region, the Andalucian Statistical Institute has some very useful pages on each municipality - see links on pages for, e.g. La Taha - though you need to read Spanish to get more than the basic numbers out of them. seglea

I think, when a History of Granada is written, there should be a capsule of it at this article, with a Main article... heading. And that the History of Granada is not like the History of Paris, the growth and planning of a city, but more like the History of Athens. No more than that. Over and out. --Wetman 22:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)