Talk:Cisplatina

Shouldn't it be 1821-1828?

The article states that Brazil took over the province in 1821; why does the lead and box say 1815?MayerG (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Area code"

This term is generally used with telephone numbers. It is not used as a grammatical term; the grammatical term is prefix. My edit corrects this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.209.187 (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the name "cisplatine" really reflect an annexationist desire?

There seems to be a logical leap that because the territory was named the "Near Plata", this implies the desire of the Portuguese/Brazilians to annex the "Far Plata", in other words Argentina. "Cis" and "trans" have been used in other contexts in the past (ie: Trans and Cis-Alpine Gaul, Trans-Jordan) without this implication. It seems the author is reading too much into the names, unless of course this can be corroborated by legitimate sources.

The ambitions of Carlota Joaquina are very well known, and not a secret to anyone. As the sister of Ferdinand VII, who was imprisoned by Napoleon, she pretended to rule in the Americas as regent. Cambalachero (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves

I think is not informative to say Portuguese Empire in this context of Cisplatine. By 1815, the Portuguese Empire became, de jure, a United Kingdom, in wich Brazil had the same, if not major, status as Portugal. De facto, since 1808, the whole Monarchy and thousands of the Portuguese Nobility was living in Brazil, where was the capital of this United Kingdom (Rio de Janeiro). I replaced most of the Portuguese references for "Luso-Brazilian" or the name of the U.K. Some might say it is not important, but I really don't see how could someone put so much emphasis in Portugal if the whole action is extremly conected with the Kingdom of Brazil while the Kingdom of Portugal had little to do with it. 177.182.212.130 (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cisplatina Province

I request that this article is named Cisplatina Province and not just Cisplatina. This is the common naming convention for all provinces in Latin America, whether current or former. Compare, sorted by country:

• Córdoba Province, Argentina,
• Cordillera Province, Bolivia,
• Santiago Province, Chile,
• Cartago Province, Costa Rica,
• Granma Province, Cuba,
• Santiago Province, Dominican Republic,
• Bolívar Province, Ecuador,
• Panamá Province, Panamá,
• Bolívar Province, Peru,
• Barcelona Province, Venezuela

... LatinoLatino (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And as you will notice, all those provinces have names that exist elsewhere, thus making it necessary for the additon of "province". This is the one and only cisplatina. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not true, just one example: Cisplatina is the name for several streets in Brazil. It is just the convention to use Foo District, if something is a district, Foo Department if something is a department and Foo Province, if something is a province. Cisplatina was a province, so the name would be Cisplatina Province, even if there would be no single other entity called Cisplatina. This is a precise and concise name. If the type identifier is left aside, people may wonder what is special about this thing, that it is not named like all the other entities. There are maybe ~500 entities that are called province (provincia) in Latin America, and not naming Cisplatina that way is confusing. You may notice that the other entities are not called "Foo (province)", so the type name is not only used to disambiguate, but also to clearly display what kind of entity that article is about. LatinoLatino (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

really? then explain to me why almost all the U.S. are just single named? why many mexican states are single named? the only major name use for cisplatina is this article, street names pay no heed. Should we change George Washington to George Washington (person) because there are streets named after him? I would ask that you stop just changing things for the sake of changing them, you really present no contribution. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you see how you move the target of the discussion. First you claimed that there are no other things called "Cisplatina", now you compare the case with George Washington. But the person was not a province. I didn't call for adding a disambiguator, but for the straightforward application of the naming convention for tall provinces in Latin America, which is to call the articles "Foo Province". LatinoLatino (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As the province of Córdoba has been mentioned, I may point that all the provinces of Argentina follow the same pattern of adding "province" at the end. Both the ones that may be used elsewhere, as Cordoba, and the ones whose name is unique, as Entre Ríos. Perhaps the discussion should not be about the name of this specific article, but about all the Brazilian provinces and if it is justified or not to follow a pattern like this. Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And another thing, to discuss the renaming of an article it is better to follow the instructions included at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This will bring in more editors to give their opinion, not just the few who already watchlist this article. Cambalachero (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)