Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Perfect. :-)

On Jan 14, 2008 10:46 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right. There you go.
>
> Joan
>
> 2008/1/15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
> >
> > http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2008 9:33 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, last patch (for now) for catalan.ruleset in 2.1.
> > >
> > > Basically, it's the same as the current ruleset, with no translatable
> > > strings changed, and:
> > >[...]
> >
> > It's almost perfect. You forgot to add " (ocean)" to both Guardamar
> cities. :-)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Miguel Farah
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
>



-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

This transaction appears to have no content
You're right. There you go.

Joan

2008/1/15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 9:33 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, last patch (for now) for catalan.ruleset in 2.1.
> >
> > Basically, it's the same as the current ruleset, with no translatable
> > strings changed, and:
> >[...]
>
> It's almost perfect. You forgot to add " (ocean)" to both Guardamar
> cities. :-)
>
>
> --
> Miguel Farah
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
You're right. There you go.Joan2008/1/15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >On Jan 14, 2008 9:33 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> So, last patch (for now) for catalan.ruleset
 in 2.1.>> Basically, it's the same as the current ruleset, with no translatable> strings changed, and:>[...]It's almost perfect. You forgot to add " (ocean)" to both Guardamar cities. :-)
--Miguel Farah[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: catalan.ruleset
===
--- catalan.ruleset	(revision 14236)
+++ catalan.ruleset	(working copy)
@@ -10,10 +10,12 @@
  "Ramon Berenguer IV",
  "Jaume I",
  "Pere II",
- "Lluis Companys",
+ "Pau Claris",
+ "Francesc Macià",
+ "Lluís Companys",
  "Josep Tarradellas"
 leader_sex="Male", "Male", "Male", "Male",
-   "Male", "Male"
+   "Male", "Male", "Male", "Male"
 flag="catalan"
 flag_alt = "-"
 city_style = "Classical"
@@ -31,28 +33,120 @@
 
 init_government="Despotism"
 init_units=""
-civilwar_nations = "spanish", "portuguese"
+civilwar_nations = "spanish", "french"
 
 ; This city list does not actually correspond to medieval Catalonia,
-; but rather to the "Països Catalans" of modern ethnolinguistic
+; but rather to all lands settled by Catalans, where Catalan is still spoken
+; nowadays. It corresponds to the "Països Catalans" of modern ethnolinguistic
 ; nationalists.
 cities =
-  "Barcelona", "Tarragona", "Lleida", "Girona", "Perpinyà", "Valencia",
-  "Tolosa", "Ripoll", "Vic", "La Seu d'Urgell", "Cardona", "Tortosa",
-  "Montserrat (hills)", "Poblet", "Santes Creus",
-  "Vallbona de les Monges", "Balaguer", "Manresa", "Terrassa",
-  "Sabadell", "Palma de Mallorca", "Eivissa", "Alacant", "Elx",
-  "Castelló de la Plana", "Montblanc (hills)", "Igualada", "Cervera",
-  "Berga", "Dénia", "Reus", "Granollers", "Mataró", "Figueres", "Olot",
-  "Badalona", "Tàrrega", "Amposta", "El Bruc", "Valls",
-  "Vilafranca del Penedés", "Manacor", "Alcúdia", "Sóller", "Artà",
-  "Llucmajor", "Felanitx", "Andratx", "Ciutadella", "Penyiscola",
-  "Sitges", "Vilanova i la Geltrú", "Viella", "L'Alguer", "Perelló",
-  "Torelló", "Sant Cugat", "Portbou (ocean)", "Palafrugell", "Manlleu",
-  "Sallent", "Puigcerdà", "Bellver", "Sant Boi de Llobregat",
-  "Vandellós", "Cornellà", "Tremp", "Palamós", "El Vendrell",
-  "Sant Feliu de Guíxols", "Sant Celoni", "Martorell", "L'Hospitalet",
-  "Mollet del Vallès", "Banyoles", "Blanes", "Lloret de mar (ocean)",
-  "Malgrat de mar (ocean)", "Canet de mar (ocean)", "Molins de Rei",
-  "Pons", "Súria", "Llívia", "La Bisbal d'Empurdà", "Prada", "Elna",
-  "Ceret", "Cadaqués", "Begur", "Olesa de Montserrat (hills)"
+ "Barcelona",
+ "Tarragona",
+ "Lleida",
+ "Girona",
+ "Perpinyà",
+ "València",
+ "Ripoll",
+ "Vic",
+ "La Seu d'Urgell",
+ "Cardona",
+ "Tortosa",
+ "Montserrat (hills)",
+ "Poblet",
+ "Santes Creus",
+ "Vallbona de les Monges",
+ "Balaguer",
+ "Manresa",
+ "Terrassa",
+ "Sabadell",
+ "Palma de Mallorca",
+ "Eivissa",
+ "Alacant",
+ "Elx",
+ "Maó",
+ "Castelló de la Plana",
+ "Montblanc (hills)",
+ "Igualada",
+ "Cervera",
+ "Berga",
+ "Dénia",
+ "Alcoi",
+ "Reus",
+ "Granollers",
+ "Salses",
+ "Mataró",
+ "Figueres",
+ "Xàtiva",
+ "Olot",
+ "Cadaqués",
+ "Badalona",
+ "Tàrrega",
+ "Amposta",
+ "El Bruc",
+ "Valls",
+ "Sant Fruitós de Bages",
+ "Vilafranca del Penedès",
+ "Manacor",
+ "Alcúdia",
+ "Sóller",
+ "Guardamar del Segura (ocean)",
+ "Artà",
+ "Llucmajor",
+ "Felanitx",
+ "Andratx",
+ "Andorra la Vella",
+ "Ciutadella",
+ "Peníscola (hills, ocean)",
+ "Sant Salvador de Guardiola",
+ "Fraga",
+ "Almacelles",
+ "Sitges",
+ "Vilanova i la Geltrú",
+ "Vielha",
+ "L'Alguer",
+ "El Perelló",
+ "Torelló",
+ "Sant Cugat",
+ "Portbou (ocean)",
+ "Palafrugell",
+ "Prada",
+ "Manlleu",
+ "Sallent",
+ "Puigcerdà",
+ "Bellver",
+ "Sant Boi de Llobregat",
+ "Vandellòs",
+ "Cornellà",
+ "Tremp",
+ "Palamós",
+ "El Vendrell",
+ "Sant Feliu de Guíxols",
+ "Sant Celoni",
+ "Martorell",
+ "L'Hospitalet",
+ "Mollet del Vallès",
+ "Banyoles",
+ "Blanes",
+ "Sant Julià de Lòria",
+ "Lloret de mar (ocean)",
+ "Malgrat de mar (ocean)",
+ "Canet de mar (ocean)",
+ "Molins de Rei",
+ "Ponts",
+ "Encamp",
+ "Súria",
+ "Llívia",
+ "La Bisbal d'Empordà",
+ "Elna",
+ "Ceret",
+ "Roses",
+ "Calonge",
+ "Treumal",
+ "Cambrils",
+ "Tossa de Mar (ocean)",

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 14, 2008 9:33 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, last patch (for now) for catalan.ruleset in 2.1.
>
> Basically, it's the same as the current ruleset, with no translatable
> strings changed, and:
>[...]

It's almost perfect. You forgot to add " (ocean)" to both Guardamar cities. :-)


-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

This transaction appears to have no content
So, last patch (for now) for catalan.ruleset in 2.1.

Basically, it's the same as the current ruleset, with no translatable
strings changed, and:
- two more rulers.
- removed "portuguese" from civilwar_nations (they are too far) and added
"french", which actually makes historical sense (several Catalan cities
became French after a war) in the XVII century.
- modified the comment to reflect that it corresponds to lands settled by
Catalans, where Catalan is still spoken today. There is also a historical
basis (of lands ruled by Catalans) but is not limited to the current
definition of Catalonia.
- added a few cities, including some Andorran ones, and removed the Occitan
city of Tolosa.

About "medieval" or not, your call. I'd leave it, since the Middle Ages is
usually considered the time of splendour of the Catalan empire.

Cheers,

Joan


2008/1/8, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> Daniel Markstedt wrote:
> > Very enlightening discussion. Thanks everyone.
> >
> Yeah, it was kinda fun spending several hours learning something entirely
> new to me
>
> There are a lot of parallels to arguments over Romans and Greeks and Kurds
> and Armenians, among others.
>
>
> > I propose keeping the Catalan nation in its current "Països Catalans"
> > form while removing it from the 'medieval' group, leaving it simply
> > "European".
> >
> Investigation showed the Catalans *were* medieval, the cities listed (with
> one exception) are properly from the medieval areas.  The "Països
> Catalans"
> are merely an attempt to reunite the culturally related areas.
>
> (Being of Scottish ancestry, and in communication with Scottish 2nd and
> 3rd
> cousins, I understand and sympathize.)
>
> The silly idea that the label "Crown of ..." is more important is
> confusing
> heraldic precedence with reality.  The Aragonese princess was a child
> bride,
> the dominate dynasty was Catalan, the capital was Catalan.
>
> Aragonese culture wasn't the primary culture that was spread, and the
> present language distribution demonstrates the reality
>
> We've seen this before with Greeks.  Alexander the Great wasn't Greek
> (unless you subscribe to the theory that all French and Spanish are
> actually Italian because the language root is the same).  He *conquered*
> the Greeks.  The Empire was officially Macedonian.
>
> But the era is called Hellenic, because the Hellenic culture was spread.
>
> In a truly civilization spanning game, it's helpful to pay more attention
> to scientific archaeological and anthropological analysis instead of
> partisan bickering that the existence of Catalan is somehow insulting to
> the Spanish
>
>
> > Creating a 'cultural' group is a great idea - I'd like to introduce it
> > in 2.2 where we will have a lot more of this kind of nation in the
> > default ruleset.
> >
> Good idea.  But I'd add it in addition to the medieval, etc.  After all,
> it's just a group label.
>
>
>
So, last patch (for now) for catalan.ruleset in 2.1.Basically, it's the same as the current ruleset, with no translatable strings changed, and:- two more rulers.- removed "portuguese" from civilwar_nations (they are too far) and added "french", which actually makes historical sense (several Catalan cities became French after a war) in the XVII century.
- modified the comment to reflect that it corresponds to lands settled by Catalans, where Catalan is still spoken today. There is also a historical basis (of lands ruled by Catalans) but is not limited to the current definition of Catalonia.
- added a few cities, including some Andorran ones, and removed the Occitan city of Tolosa.About "medieval" or not, your call. I'd leave it, since the Middle Ages is usually considered the time of splendour of the Catalan empire.
Cheers,    Joan2008/1/8, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001
 >Daniel Markstedt wrote:> Very enlightening discussion. Thanks everyone.>Yeah, it was kinda fun spending several hours learning something entirelynew to meThere are a lot of parallels to arguments over Romans and Greeks and Kurds
and Armenians, among others.> I propose keeping the Catalan nation in its current "Països Catalans"> form while removing it from the 'medieval' group, leaving it simply> "European".
>Investigation showed the Catalans *were* medieval, the cities listed (withone exception) are properly from the medieval areas.  The "Països Catalans"are merely an attempt to reunite the culturally related areas.
(Being of Scottish ancestry, and in communication with Scottish 2nd and 3rdcousins, I understand and sympathize.)The silly idea that the label "Crown of ..." is more important is confusing
heraldic precedence with reality.  The Aragonese princess was a child bride,the dominate d

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 8, 2008 7:42 AM, Daniel Markstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Very enlightening discussion. Thanks everyone.
>
> I propose keeping the Catalan nation in its current "Països Catalans"
> form while removing it from the 'medieval' group, leaving it simply
> "European".
>
> Creating a 'cultural' group is a great idea - I'd like to introduce it
> in 2.2 where we will have a lot more of this kind of nation in the
> default ruleset.

I concur. Your "cultural" group name is better than my "political" idea.

-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 6, 2008 8:04 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
> I have also noticed that one of the cities in the catalan list is not really
> Catalan. Tolosa (Toulouse, in its French name) was Occitan. Occitans and
> Catalans were traditional allies, and there were lots of ties between the
> two nations, but they never had the same ruler. In fact, Vielha is another
> city of Occitan culture, but it has been administratively Catalan for
> centuries, and now Catalan, Spanish and Occitan are spoken there. So, Vielha
> stays.

I concur.

>
> By the way, Occitania is another nation worth including in Freeciv: full of
> legends about the Holy Grail; where troubadours flourished and spread the
> Occitan poems all over Europe, ...

How this never occured to me, I'll never understand. Joan, you're
brighter than me.

Let's work on it! When we're done, I'll make a campaign playing Occitania and
Catalunya against the evil French! :-D

-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 6, 2008 1:44 PM, William Allen Simpson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I understand. But... if we were to keep catalan.ruleset as medieval,
> > it would necessarily refer to the Principality of Catalonia, so the only
> > cities it could contain would be the ones from Catalonia proper,
> > Catalonia Nord and perhaps the Franja Ponent (see my previous post).
>
> (heavy sigh) No, apparently you don't understand.  We don't distinguish
> between the Roman Republic and Empire, in our current rulesets.

Yeah, I understand. The point is that the current catalan.ruleset contains
cities that are not catalan (as in "part of Catalunya") and have never been
so (cities from the Kingdom/Region/Autonomy of Valencia, etc.). They're
there because they would form part of the "Països Catalans" that some
catalan nationalists advocate.


>[...]
> Apparently, Valencians, Majorcans, Andorrans et alia "became" Catalan.  And

Not exactly. Catalans resettled Valencia and the Balearic Islands. So it's
more like catalans became valencians and majorcans.

> still speak something recognizably Catalan many hundreds of years later.
> Not even the Roman Empire can claim that!
>
> Those cities belong.

Not really... the disctintion between Catalonia and the concept of
Països Catalans
needs to be made.

-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 6, 2008 2:27 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
> >
> Right, let's forget about present-day politics or the whole thing will get
> really complicated. History is what it is. Let's leave it like that.
>
> If everybody agrees, I'll add a couple Andorran cities to the ruleset. That
> was a good idea.

Did you see my proposed Andorran city list?

-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 6, 2008 1:17 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> We basically agree. I think the key here is the definition of "medieval" and
> "catalan". As I understand, "medieval" in Freeciv is used for "a nation that
> existed at some time, but isn't independent nowadays". Since there isn't a
> "cultural" category (after all, culture and language is what all these
> cities have in common), "medieval" is the closest we have.
>
>  And, indeed, during the Middle Ages these cities formed a nation (at least
> culturally, and, to some degree, also politically). Sure, there are a few
> cities in the ruleset that are not Catalan, but the King of the Crown of
> Aragon, who happened to live in Barcelona, ruled them. And the language
> spoken there is Catalan or some variant of it (I don't like the word
> "dialect" because it implies some hierarchy among different variants)


Er... that's kinda the point of contention: what exactly does catalan.ruleset
represent? The Counties/Principality/Region/Autonomy of Catalonia, the
crown of Aragon, or the Països Catalans?

It's an important question to determine, because the ruleset name and
the first few definition point towards the first, the "medieval" moniker
points to the second, and the city list (as currently exists) points to
the third, explicitly so.

The city list would be pretty useful for a ruleset for the Crown of
Aragon, provided that cities from Aragon (Kingdom/Region/Autonomy)
are added (Huesca, Zaragoza, Teruel, Sos, Jaca, etcétera).


BTW, I had an idea that might be good or might be utter crap. Joan
rightly states that grouping the current catalan ruleset as "fictional",
as I proposed, is too drastic. So, how about creating a new category,
"political" or something like that, for rulesets that describe
non-independent countries that some people/parties want to create?
Països Catalans would be a natural fit for this, as would be a kurdistan
ruleset.


-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

And from the point of view of someone who actually has to put up with
this kind of historical distortions on a regular basis, it's
refreshing to see that dispassionate persons with the will to
understand facts can see through all the troll's propaganda.

Miguel's excellent summary of Iberian history should be taught in all
schools. From that solid base, we may have had slight disagreements on
Freeciv concepts and rules, but the discussion was honest and
intelligent. You made my day.

Joan


On 1/8/08, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> Daniel Markstedt wrote:
> > Very enlightening discussion. Thanks everyone.
> >
> Yeah, it was kinda fun spending several hours learning something entirely
> new to me
>
> There are a lot of parallels to arguments over Romans and Greeks and Kurds
> and Armenians, among others.
>
>
> > I propose keeping the Catalan nation in its current "Països Catalans"
> > form while removing it from the 'medieval' group, leaving it simply
> > "European".
> >
> Investigation showed the Catalans *were* medieval, the cities listed (with
> one exception) are properly from the medieval areas.  The "Països Catalans"
> are merely an attempt to reunite the culturally related areas.
>
> (Being of Scottish ancestry, and in communication with Scottish 2nd and 3rd
> cousins, I understand and sympathize.)
>
> The silly idea that the label "Crown of ..." is more important is confusing
> heraldic precedence with reality.  The Aragonese princess was a child bride,
> the dominate dynasty was Catalan, the capital was Catalan.
>
> Aragonese culture wasn't the primary culture that was spread, and the
> present language distribution demonstrates the reality
>
> We've seen this before with Greeks.  Alexander the Great wasn't Greek
> (unless you subscribe to the theory that all French and Spanish are
> actually Italian because the language root is the same).  He *conquered*
> the Greeks.  The Empire was officially Macedonian.
>
> But the era is called Hellenic, because the Hellenic culture was spread.
>
> In a truly civilization spanning game, it's helpful to pay more attention
> to scientific archaeological and anthropological analysis instead of
> partisan bickering that the existence of Catalan is somehow insulting to
> the Spanish
>
>
> > Creating a 'cultural' group is a great idea - I'd like to introduce it
> > in 2.2 where we will have a lot more of this kind of nation in the
> > default ruleset.
> >
> Good idea.  But I'd add it in addition to the medieval, etc.  After all,
> it's just a group label.
>
>
>



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Daniel Markstedt wrote:
> Very enlightening discussion. Thanks everyone.
> 
Yeah, it was kinda fun spending several hours learning something entirely
new to me

There are a lot of parallels to arguments over Romans and Greeks and Kurds
and Armenians, among others.


> I propose keeping the Catalan nation in its current "Països Catalans"
> form while removing it from the 'medieval' group, leaving it simply
> "European".
> 
Investigation showed the Catalans *were* medieval, the cities listed (with
one exception) are properly from the medieval areas.  The "Països Catalans"
are merely an attempt to reunite the culturally related areas.

(Being of Scottish ancestry, and in communication with Scottish 2nd and 3rd
cousins, I understand and sympathize.)

The silly idea that the label "Crown of ..." is more important is confusing
heraldic precedence with reality.  The Aragonese princess was a child bride,
the dominate dynasty was Catalan, the capital was Catalan.

Aragonese culture wasn't the primary culture that was spread, and the
present language distribution demonstrates the reality

We've seen this before with Greeks.  Alexander the Great wasn't Greek
(unless you subscribe to the theory that all French and Spanish are
actually Italian because the language root is the same).  He *conquered*
the Greeks.  The Empire was officially Macedonian.

But the era is called Hellenic, because the Hellenic culture was spread.

In a truly civilization spanning game, it's helpful to pay more attention
to scientific archaeological and anthropological analysis instead of
partisan bickering that the existence of Catalan is somehow insulting to
the Spanish


> Creating a 'cultural' group is a great idea - I'd like to introduce it
> in 2.2 where we will have a lot more of this kind of nation in the
> default ruleset.
> 
Good idea.  But I'd add it in addition to the medieval, etc.  After all,
it's just a group label.



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Daniel Markstedt]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Very enlightening discussion. Thanks everyone.

I propose keeping the Catalan nation in its current "Països Catalans"
form while removing it from the 'medieval' group, leaving it simply
"European".

Creating a 'cultural' group is a great idea - I'd like to introduce it
in 2.2 where we will have a lot more of this kind of nation in the
default ruleset.

Will be happy to review any new nations threwn in my direction. :)

Best,
 ~Daniel



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Yes, it's fascinating how Andorrans manage to navigate the balance of power
and remain independent. They have two heads of state (the co-princes): one
still is the Bishop of Urgell, and the other is the President of France
(Nicolas Sarkozy, now), as successor of the kings of France, who succeeded
the Counts of Foix.

They are the largest country in the world whose head of state is a priest
(that may change, though, if Huckabee wins the U.S. presidency B-)).

I'll try to write a ruleset for Andorra.

I have also noticed that one of the cities in the catalan list is not really
Catalan. Tolosa (Toulouse, in its French name) was Occitan. Occitans and
Catalans were traditional allies, and there were lots of ties between the
two nations, but they never had the same ruler. In fact, Vielha is another
city of Occitan culture, but it has been administratively Catalan for
centuries, and now Catalan, Spanish and Occitan are spoken there. So, Vielha
stays.

By the way, Occitania is another nation worth including in Freeciv: full of
legends about the Holy Grail; where troubadours flourished and spread the
Occitan poems all over Europe, ...

BTW, thanks everybody for a great discussion.

Joan

2008/1/6, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> Joan Creus wrote:
> > ... yes, there is no reason not to have Andorran cities in the
> > ruleset, although Andorra has always been independent, as far as I know.
> > They speak Catalan because it's what was spoken in their area, not
> because
> > any one conquered or settled them.
> >
> To be honest, on this side of the pond, we only know that Andorra is one
> of
> the few remaining micro-states over there.  But they do seem to have been
> both conquered and settled repeatedly (long ago).
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Andorra they speak
> Catalan because they were conquered back in 8th century, were ruled by
> catalans (the Count of Urgell, Bishop of Urgell, the Lord of Caboet), and
> were briefly annexed to the Crown of Aragon twice, in 1396 and 1512.
>
> It's interesting that many of the local toponyms are Iberian-Basque.
>
>
>

Yes, it's fascinating how Andorrans manage to navigate the balance of power and remain independent. They have two heads of state (the co-princes): one still is the Bishop of Urgell, and the other is the President of France (Nicolas Sarkozy, now), as successor of the kings of France, who succeeded the Counts of Foix.
They are the largest country in the world whose head of state is a priest (that may change, though, if Huckabee wins the U.S. presidency B-)).I'll try to write a ruleset for Andorra.I have also noticed that one of the cities in the catalan list is not really Catalan. Tolosa (Toulouse, in its French name) was Occitan. Occitans and Catalans were traditional allies, and there were lots of ties between the two nations, but they never had the same ruler. In fact, Vielha is another city of Occitan culture, but it has been administratively Catalan for centuries, and now Catalan, Spanish and Occitan are spoken there. So, Vielha stays.
By the way, Occitania is another nation worth including in Freeciv: full of legends about the Holy Grail; where troubadours flourished and spread the Occitan poems all over Europe, ...BTW, thanks everybody for a great discussion.
Joan2008/1/6, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >Joan Creus wrote:> ... yes, there is no reason not to have Andorran cities in the
> ruleset, although Andorra has always been independent, as far as I know.> They speak Catalan because it's what was spoken in their area, not because> any one conquered or settled them.>
To be honest, on this side of the pond, we only know that Andorra is one ofthe few remaining micro-states over there.  But they do seem to have beenboth conquered and settled repeatedly (long ago).According to 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Andorra they speakCatalan because they were conquered back in 8th century, were ruled bycatalans (the Count of Urgell, Bishop of Urgell, the Lord of Caboet), and
were briefly annexed to the Crown of Aragon twice, in 1396 and 1512.It's interesting that many of the local toponyms are Iberian-Basque.
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Joan Creus wrote:
> ... yes, there is no reason not to have Andorran cities in the
> ruleset, although Andorra has always been independent, as far as I know.
> They speak Catalan because it's what was spoken in their area, not because
> any one conquered or settled them.
> 
To be honest, on this side of the pond, we only know that Andorra is one of
the few remaining micro-states over there.  But they do seem to have been
both conquered and settled repeatedly (long ago).

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Andorra they speak
Catalan because they were conquered back in 8th century, were ruled by
catalans (the Count of Urgell, Bishop of Urgell, the Lord of Caboet), and
were briefly annexed to the Crown of Aragon twice, in 1396 and 1512.

It's interesting that many of the local toponyms are Iberian-Basque.



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I understand. But... if we were to keep catalan.ruleset as medieval,
> it would necessarily refer to the Principality of Catalonia, so the only
> cities it could contain would be the ones from Catalonia proper,
> Catalonia Nord and perhaps the Franja Ponent (see my previous post).

(heavy sigh) No, apparently you don't understand.  We don't distinguish
between the Roman Republic and Empire, in our current rulesets.


> Valencia and Majorca were never part of the principality, nor were
> colonies in the strict sense, so they can't be included if this is the
> criteria to be used (nor Andorra, an independent entity).
> 
There's no specific guideline, but we don't include Egyptian cities in the
Roman.ruleset, even though they conquered Egypt, because the Egyptian people
didn't become Roman citizens.

We don't include the Philippine cities in American.ruleset, even though they
conquered the Philippines, because the Philippines never "became" American.

Apparently, Valencians, Majorcans, Andorrans et alia "became" Catalan.  And
still speak something recognizably Catalan many hundreds of years later.
Not even the Roman Empire can claim that!

Those cities belong.



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

2008/1/6, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > And then's the Sardinian city of Alghero (L'Alguer), which was resettled
> in
> > the 14th century by catalans.
> >
> Cool.  Try what I did for Illyrian, adding dates and alternative names:
>
>"Scodra (hills, plains, river, !ocean)", ;-400 42:04N 19:30E
>; |Scutari|Shkodra|Shkoder
>
> (If I were doing it today, I'd make that 3 lines instead, for
> readability.)


That looks pretty cool. Is the syntax documented in the wiki?

> Finally, Andorra (a catalan speaking country), doesn't have any cities
> > represented in the ruleset (Andorra la Vella, Sant Julià de Lòria,
> Encamp
> > and Soldeu could be added).
> >
> Under our rules, sounds like they should!  They must have been controlled
> or colonized by Catalans in the past.  As mentioned earlier, it's OK for
> the same city to be in multiple nations.  Dates of founding and
> alternative
> names would be good here, too.
>
> If somebody adds Andorran, can have it as a civil-war nation for Catalan.


That's fun. There's a joke  that says that, in order to gain independence,
Catalonia should declare war on Andorra, and then surrender. With such
brilliant strategists, it's no wonder we are not independent any more. More
seriously, yes, there is no reason not to have Andorran cities in the
ruleset, although Andorra has always been independent, as far as I know.
They speak Catalan because it's what was spoken in their area, not because
any one conquered or settled them.

An Andorran ruleset would be quite short of cities (Andorra is really
small), but it could be done.

> According to catalan nationalists, in order for a city or county or
> whatever
> > to be a part of the Països Catalans, it must be a catalan-speaking area.
> >
> Well, this isn't a political organization.  We're more interested in using
> historical information to make the game itself interesting!  We should
> include formerly catalan-speaking areas, too, not only modern ones
>
> Right, let's forget about present-day politics or the whole thing will get
really complicated. History is what it is. Let's leave it like that.

If everybody agrees, I'll add a couple Andorran cities to the ruleset. That
was a good idea.

Joan

2008/1/6, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And then's the Sardinian city of Alghero (L'Alguer), which was resettled in> the 14th century by catalans.>Cool.  Try what I did for Illyrian, adding dates and alternative names:   "Scodra (hills, plains, river, !ocean)", ;-400 42:04N 19:30E
   ; |Scutari|Shkodra|Shkoder(If I were doing it today, I'd make that 3 lines instead, for readability.)That looks pretty cool. Is the syntax documented in the wiki?
> Finally, Andorra (a catalan speaking country), doesn't have any cities> represented in the ruleset (Andorra la Vella, Sant Julià de Lòria, Encamp> and Soldeu could be added).>Under our rules, sounds like they should!  They must have been controlled
or colonized by Catalans in the past.  As mentioned earlier, it's OK forthe same city to be in multiple nations.  Dates of founding and alternativenames would be good here, too.If somebody adds Andorran, can have it as a civil-war nation for Catalan.
That's fun. There's a joke  that says that, in order to gain independence, Catalonia should declare war on Andorra, and then surrender. With such brilliant strategists, it's no wonder we are not independent any more. More seriously, yes, there is no reason not to have Andorran cities in the ruleset, although Andorra has always been independent, as far as I know. They speak Catalan because it's what was spoken in their area, not because any one conquered or settled them.
An Andorran ruleset would be quite short of cities (Andorra is really small), but it could be done.
> According to catalan nationalists, in order for a city or county or whatever> to be a part of the Països Catalans, it must be a catalan-speaking area.>Well, this isn't a political organization.  We're more interested in using
historical information to make the game itself interesting!  We shouldinclude formerly catalan-speaking areas, too, not only modern onesRight, let's forget about present-day politics or the whole thing will get really complicated. History is what it is. Let's leave it like that.
If everybody agrees, I'll add a couple Andorran cities to the ruleset. That was a good idea.Joan
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

We basically agree. I think the key here is the definition of "medieval" and
"catalan". As I understand, "medieval" in Freeciv is used for "a nation that
existed at some time, but isn't independent nowadays". Since there isn't a
"cultural" category (after all, culture and language is what all these
cities have in common), "medieval" is the closest we have.

 And, indeed, during the Middle Ages these cities formed a nation (at least
culturally, and, to some degree, also politically). Sure, there are a few
cities in the ruleset that are not Catalan, but the King of the Crown of
Aragon, who happened to live in Barcelona, ruled them. And the language
spoken there is Catalan or some variant of it (I don't like the word
"dialect" because it implies some hierarchy among different variants)

Joan

2008/1/6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> On Jan 6, 2008 12:47 PM, William Allen Simpson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
> >
> > William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > > Which ones?  Do they speak Catalan?  How did they end up speaking
> > > Catalan without ever being part of Catalonia?  Autonomous colonies?
> > >
> > To clarify my question, our current rule is:
> >
> >An _ancient_ or _medieval_ nation may list any city that it at some
> >point controlled.
> >
> > For the purposes of this ticket, I opine that it is OK for historically
> > Catalan-speaking cities to be included, as former Catalan colonies,
> > whether founded under the Principality or a larger Empire ("Crown").
>
> I understand. But... if we were to keep catalan.ruleset as medieval,
> it would necessarily refer to the Principality of Catalonia, so the only
> cities it could contain would be the ones from Catalonia proper,
> Catalonia Nord and perhaps the Franja Ponent (see my previous post).
> Valencia and Majorca were never part of the principality, nor were
> colonies in the strict sense, so they can't be included if this is the
> criteria to be used (nor Andorra, an independent entity).
>
> --
> Miguel Farah
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>

We basically agree. I think the key here is the definition of "medieval" and "catalan". As I understand, "medieval" in Freeciv is used for "a nation that existed at some time, but isn't independent nowadays". Since there isn't a "cultural" category (after all, culture and language is what all these cities have in common), "medieval" is the closest we have.
 And, indeed, during the Middle Ages these cities formed a nation (at least culturally, and, to some degree, also politically). Sure, there are a few cities in the ruleset that are not Catalan, but the King of the Crown of Aragon, who happened to live in Barcelona, ruled them. And the language spoken there is Catalan or some variant of it (I don't like the word "dialect" because it implies some hierarchy among different variants)
Joan2008/1/6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >On Jan 6, 2008 12:47 PM, William Allen Simpson<
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >>> William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > Which ones?  Do they speak Catalan?  How did they end up speaking> > Catalan without ever being part of Catalonia?  Autonomous colonies?> >> To clarify my question, our current rule is:
>>An _ancient_ or _medieval_ nation may list any city that it at some>point controlled.>> For the purposes of this ticket, I opine that it is OK for historically> Catalan-speaking cities to be included, as former Catalan colonies,
> whether founded under the Principality or a larger Empire ("Crown").I understand. But... if we were to keep catalan.ruleset as medieval,it would necessarily refer to the Principality of Catalonia, so the only
cities it could contain would be the ones from Catalonia proper,Catalonia Nord and perhaps the Franja Ponent (see my previous post).Valencia and Majorca were never part of the principality, nor werecolonies in the strict sense, so they can't be included if this is the
criteria to be used (nor Andorra, an independent entity).--Miguel Farah[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And then's the Sardinian city of Alghero (L'Alguer), which was resettled in
> the 14th century by catalans.
> 
Cool.  Try what I did for Illyrian, adding dates and alternative names:

   "Scodra (hills, plains, river, !ocean)", ;-400 42:04N 19:30E
   ; |Scutari|Shkodra|Shkoder

(If I were doing it today, I'd make that 3 lines instead, for readability.)


> Finally, Andorra (a catalan speaking country), doesn't have any cities
> represented in the ruleset (Andorra la Vella, Sant Julià de Lòria, Encamp
> and Soldeu could be added).
> 
Under our rules, sounds like they should!  They must have been controlled
or colonized by Catalans in the past.  As mentioned earlier, it's OK for
the same city to be in multiple nations.  Dates of founding and alternative
names would be good here, too.

If somebody adds Andorran, can have it as a civil-war nation for Catalan.


> According to catalan nationalists, in order for a city or county or whatever
> to be a part of the Països Catalans, it must be a catalan-speaking area.
> 
Well, this isn't a political organization.  We're more interested in using
historical information to make the game itself interesting!  We should
include formerly catalan-speaking areas, too, not only modern ones



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

2008/1/6, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yeah, but the city list in the ruleset DOES contain cities
> > that have never been part of the Principality of Catalonia, or
> > the Region of Catalonia or the current Autonomy.
>
> Which ones?  Do they speak Catalan?  How did they end up speaking
> Catalan without ever being part of Catalonia?  Autonomous colonies?


You might call it like that. There is an ambiguity here. Catalans settled
the kingdoms of Valencia and the Balearic Islands, so people there ended up
speaking Catalan. However, they were considered different territories
(although, they had the same king).

> Option 3: create an aragonese ruleset for the CROWN of Aragon.
> >
> I'm against this for the reasons stated in my previous message.
>
> An Aragonese ruleset for the landlocked kingdom might be OK.
>
>
A Crown of Aragon ruleset would be politically accurate. I'm not against it
being created, although I wouldn't do it. It shouldn't replace
catalan.ruleset, of course. They are different things.

As for the Catalan ruleset, I would leave it like it is. I don't like any of
Miguel's options: restricting to just cities inside present-day Catalonia
cripples a pretty cool ruleset, and forgets a rich history of Mediterranean
expansion. If Catalonia alone becomes independent in the future, this will
be a must for the nation to be considered "modern". In the meantime, there
is no reason for it. As William says, the English ruleset could perfectly
have Boston, Philadelphia (and even Bombay). The cities listed have all been
at some time ruled by a king who spoke Catalan.

As for changing the classification to "fictional", I think that it is too
drastic. Fictional is for "literary", "joke" or "impossible" nations: like
martians, antarctic penguins, or the old Middle-Earth nations. Political
questions aside, there are strong cultural ties between this list of cities.
Heck, there is even an Internet top level domain (.cat) for sites related to
Catalan culture, and it's used in Catalonia, València, Majorca, Southern
France (AKA Northern Catalonia), ... And there are a few people who think
all these territories should become an independent state.

Cheers,

Joan

2008/1/6, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yeah, but the city list in the ruleset DOES contain cities> that have never been part of the Principality of Catalonia, or> the Region of Catalonia or the current Autonomy.Which ones?  Do they speak Catalan?  How did they end up speaking
Catalan without ever being part of Catalonia?  Autonomous colonies?You might call it like that. There is an ambiguity here. Catalans settled the kingdoms of Valencia and the Balearic Islands, so people there ended up speaking Catalan. However, they were considered different territories (although, they had the same king).
> Option 3: create an aragonese ruleset for the CROWN of Aragon.>
I'm against this for the reasons stated in my previous message.An Aragonese ruleset for the landlocked kingdom might be OK.A Crown of Aragon ruleset would be politically accurate. I'm not against it being created, although I wouldn't do it. It shouldn't replace 
catalan.ruleset, of course. They are different things.As for the Catalan ruleset, I would leave it like it is. I don't like any of Miguel's options: restricting to just cities inside present-day Catalonia cripples a pretty cool ruleset, and forgets a rich history of Mediterranean expansion. If Catalonia alone becomes independent in the future, this will be a must for the nation to be considered "modern". In the meantime, there is no reason for it. As William says, the English ruleset could perfectly have Boston, Philadelphia (and even Bombay). The cities listed have all been at some time ruled by a king who spoke Catalan.
As for changing the classification to "fictional", I think that it is too drastic. Fictional is for "literary", "joke" or "impossible" nations: like martians, antarctic penguins, or the old Middle-Earth nations. Political questions aside, there are strong cultural ties between this list of cities. Heck, there is even an Internet top level domain (.cat) for sites related to Catalan culture, and it's used in Catalonia, València, Majorca, Southern France (AKA Northern Catalonia), ... And there are a few people who think all these territories should become an independent state.
Cheers,Joan
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 6, 2008 12:47 PM, William Allen Simpson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > Which ones?  Do they speak Catalan?  How did they end up speaking
> > Catalan without ever being part of Catalonia?  Autonomous colonies?
> >
> To clarify my question, our current rule is:
>
>An _ancient_ or _medieval_ nation may list any city that it at some
>point controlled.
>
> For the purposes of this ticket, I opine that it is OK for historically
> Catalan-speaking cities to be included, as former Catalan colonies,
> whether founded under the Principality or a larger Empire ("Crown").

I understand. But... if we were to keep catalan.ruleset as medieval,
it would necessarily refer to the Principality of Catalonia, so the only
cities it could contain would be the ones from Catalonia proper,
Catalonia Nord and perhaps the Franja Ponent (see my previous post).
Valencia and Majorca were never part of the principality, nor were
colonies in the strict sense, so they can't be included if this is the
criteria to be used (nor Andorra, an independent entity).

-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 6, 2008 11:53 AM, William Allen Simpson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yeah, but the city list in the ruleset DOES contain cities
> > that have never been part of the Principality of Catalonia, or
> > the Region of Catalonia or the current Autonomy.
>
> Which ones?  Do they speak Catalan?  How did they end up speaking
> Catalan without ever being part of Catalonia?  Autonomous colonies?

All the cities in the current catalan.ruleset are catalan-speaking.

There are cities from Catalonia "proper": Barcelona, Girona, Tarragona, Vic,
Granollers, etc.

There are cities from Valencia (Valencia, Alacant, Elx, etc.) and the Balearic
Islands (Palma de Majorca, Eivissa, etc.). After those regions/kingdoms/etc.
were reconquered from the muslim, they were repopulated with catalans, who
brought their language with them.

There are cities from the "Franja Ponent" (Fraga, etc.), a small strip from
present-day Aragon that speaks catalan. Besides, the frontier between the
principality and the Kingdom moved in historical times - Fraga used to be
catalan, for example.

There are cities from Catalunya Nord (Perpinyá, etc.) the area of Catalonia
taken by the french in 1659 that is still rightfully claimed to be a part of
Catalonia proper.

And then's the Sardinian city of Alghero (L'Alguer), which was resettled in
the 14th century by catalans.

Finally, Andorra (a catalan speaking country), doesn't have any cities
represented in the ruleset (Andorra la Vella, Sant Julià de Lòria, Encamp
and Soldeu could be added).

According to catalan nationalists, in order for a city or county or whatever
to be a part of the Països Catalans, it must be a catalan-speaking area.

-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Which ones?  Do they speak Catalan?  How did they end up speaking
> Catalan without ever being part of Catalonia?  Autonomous colonies?
> 
To clarify my question, our current rule is:

   An _ancient_ or _medieval_ nation may list any city that it at some
   point controlled.

For the purposes of this ticket, I opine that it is OK for historically
Catalan-speaking cities to be included, as former Catalan colonies,
whether founded under the Principality or a larger Empire ("Crown").

We don't distinguish the Roman Republic from the Empire.  These are
cultural and political identity, as opposed to indigenous population or
"nation".  Heck, it's hard to show that there was a "Greek" nation!
They were city-states.

For example, our Greek ruleset includes some cities that were actually
very distant colonies.  Likewise, our Roman ruleset (such as Londinium).

The same cities are included in other rulesets, such as Illyrian or
English or British, sometimes with different derivations of the name.

The same cities appear in multiple rulesets: for example, Edinburgh in
both British and Scottish.

The code prevents the identical city appearing twice.  A couple of years
ago, I'd suggested automatically checking/converting the name between
different variants as different nations build/conquer, but that hasn't
made it into the code yet.

For some odd reason, neither British nor English include colonies such as
Boston or Philadelphia  But under our current rules, they could!



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yeah, but the city list in the ruleset DOES contain cities
> that have never been part of the Principality of Catalonia, or
> the Region of Catalonia or the current Autonomy. 

Which ones?  Do they speak Catalan?  How did they end up speaking
Catalan without ever being part of Catalonia?  Autonomous colonies?


> Option 3: create an aragonese ruleset for the CROWN of Aragon.
> 
I'm against this for the reasons stated in my previous message.

An Aragonese ruleset for the landlocked kingdom might be OK.



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Joan Creus wrote:
> So, what does the ruleset mean, historically?: the part of the Crown of
> Aragon settled by Catalan-speaking people (the three maritime kingdoms:
> Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands), who have thus the same
> cultural background. If we added Aragonese cities (and cities like Naples,
> Athens, and so on), we could have a perfectly valid "Crown of Aragon"
> ruleset, that would reflect the possessions of these kings (who, again, were
> based in Catalonia). Nothing against that.
> 
The Crown of a Aragon was more of a loose empire than a nation.  I'm against
that for the same reason that we don't include all of Greece, Persia, Egypt,
etc. in the Romans.  And wouldn't include all of Greece, Persia, Egypt, etc.
in Macedonian (even though Philip of Macedon conquered them all).  And we
shouldn't include Baghdad in American, either :-)

If somebody puts together Aragonese and Castellan, let's keep them to the
actual Aragonese and Castellan cultural areas.



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Yeah, but the city list in the ruleset DOES contain cities
that have never been part of the Principality of Catalonia, or
the Region of Catalonia or the current Autonomy. There's even
a comment stating:

; This city list does not actually correspond to medieval Catalonia,
; but rather to the "Països Catalans" of modern ethnolinguistic
; nationalists.


So, what do we do?

Option 1: restrict the ruleset to Catalonia itself -> cities like Alacant,
Elx, Palma de Mallorca, L'Alguer, et cetera, should be removed.

Option 2: accept outright that the ruleset corresponds to the
Països Catalans option. The only change needed would be replace
"medieval" with "fictional". Let's not forget that there aren't any
aragonese NON-catalan-speaking cities in the list.

Option 3: create an aragonese ruleset for the CROWN of Aragon.

Options 2 and 3 are compatible, and -if it were for me-, I'd implement
both.


On Jan 6, 2008 11:22 AM, William Allen Simpson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> Our replies crossed paths.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The current catalan.ruleset does NOT represent the medieval counties of
> > Catalonia or the Crown of Aragon. Instead, it represents the "Països
> > Catalans", a non-existing nation that some catalans want to create,
> > seceding from Spain, and taking all the areas that are catalan-speaking:
> > Catalonia, Valencia (either most or all of it), a strip of the current
> > Aragon autonomy, the Balearic islands, the strip of Catalonia dominated
> > by France (almost all of the Pyrénées-Orientales department), Andorra
> > and the Sardinian city of Alghero.
> >
> According to the self determination of the populace, an _existing_ nation.
> And the ruleset specifically states the city list is modern.
>
>
> > So, he is right in stating that this is NOT a medieval nation (a ruleset
> > for the Crown of Aragon would be). Instead, it should be marked as
> > fictional or, at most, modern.
> >
> You mean the "Principality of Catalonia", the "Crown of Aragon" was later.
>
> Actually, having cities from different eras in more than one nation is
> fairly typical in our rulesets.
>
> English are listed as Medieval, and British as Modern, but there's lots of
> current cities in both.  And a fair number are actually Scottish
>
> Greeks are listed as Ancient, and Hellenic as Modern, but there's lots of
> current cities in both.  And a fair number are actually Macedonian
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Freeciv-dev mailing list
> Freeciv-dev@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
>



-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Our replies crossed paths.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The current catalan.ruleset does NOT represent the medieval counties of
> Catalonia or the Crown of Aragon. Instead, it represents the "Països
> Catalans", a non-existing nation that some catalans want to create,
> seceding from Spain, and taking all the areas that are catalan-speaking:
> Catalonia, Valencia (either most or all of it), a strip of the current
> Aragon autonomy, the Balearic islands, the strip of Catalonia dominated
> by France (almost all of the Pyrénées-Orientales department), Andorra
> and the Sardinian city of Alghero.
> 
According to the self determination of the populace, an _existing_ nation.
And the ruleset specifically states the city list is modern.


> So, he is right in stating that this is NOT a medieval nation (a ruleset
> for the Crown of Aragon would be). Instead, it should be marked as
> fictional or, at most, modern.
> 
You mean the "Principality of Catalonia", the "Crown of Aragon" was later.

Actually, having cities from different eras in more than one nation is
fairly typical in our rulesets.

English are listed as Medieval, and British as Modern, but there's lots of
current cities in both.  And a fair number are actually Scottish

Greeks are listed as Ancient, and Hellenic as Modern, but there's lots of
current cities in both.  And a fair number are actually Macedonian



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Trolling indeed, and it's not strange for Spanish radical nationalists to
deny Catalonia's nationhood. Having its own dinasty and laws for hundreds of
years, and speaking a different language even today doesn't seem to be
enough.

In fact, the wikipedia article he quotes is quite enlightening. "Countries",
in the Middle Ages, were not what we think of nowadays. With poor
communications and a weak central power, nations (as we think of them now)
were just being built. The frontiers we see in the maps are mostly what
certain dinasties ruled. It was common for a king to rule over different
nations.

What he calls the Crown of Aragon was a real thing. It started when Ramiro
II, King of Aragon, who had no male son and wanted to retire, agreed with
Ramon Berenguer IV (of Freeciv fame) to give him the hand of his
one-year-old daughter (wow!) and his kingdom. From then on, Ramon
Berenguer's Dinasty were kings of Aragon and Counts of Barcelona. The kings
lived mainly in Barcelona and Montblanc (both Catalan cities), and they had
to respect the laws of both Aragon and Catalonia. The Aragonese people
didn't speak Catalan, so they probably translated the king's name into their
language (as is their prerrogative).

When the empire expanded (notably into the Balearic Islands and the Kingdom
of Valencia), the new lands were settled by Catalan-speaking people. The
internal organization of the kingdom was confederacy-like. Majorca,
Valencia, Aragon and Catalonia were considered separate kingdoms under the
same Crown. The wikipedia states that it was a "Maritime Empire", so it's
easy to guess that the weight of the empire was not in landlocked Aragon,
although it bore its name.

As for the names of the kings, Jaume I (who is in the ruleset), and who, by
the way, would celebrate his 800th birthday this year, wrote his
autobiography.  As you can
see in the wikipedia, it is written in Catalan, and the name is Jacme (which
is ancient Catalan for "James").

So, the ruleset (in its original form, I haven't made any significant
changes to it) tries to reflect a very real (and powerful) medieval nation.
After the dynastic union with Castille in 1479, the four kingdoms kept their
own laws and institutions, and it wasn't until the XVIII century and the
Spanish succession war that these laws and institutions were revoked. In
fact, the Wikipedia
lists1714
as the date of birth of Spain.

So, what does the ruleset mean, historically?: the part of the Crown of
Aragon settled by Catalan-speaking people (the three maritime kingdoms:
Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands), who have thus the same
cultural background. If we added Aragonese cities (and cities like Naples,
Athens, and so on), we could have a perfectly valid "Crown of Aragon"
ruleset, that would reflect the possessions of these kings (who, again, were
based in Catalonia). Nothing against that.

The present ruleset reflects a territory with a similar culture and
language. As for territorial claims, this is quite another story. The desire
for independence from Spain exists in very different degrees in each of the
territories, so it's not likely that this ruleset will become "modern"
without any changes.

Cheers,

  Joan

2008/1/6, Daniel Markstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> While we're on the topic, I'd like to discuss this:
> http://forum.freeciv.org/viewtopic.php?t=4216
>
> The poster is mainly trolling, but he brings up the legit question of
> whether the Catalonia described in our ruleset existed in the middle
> ages or not. From Freeciv's nations policy: "a nation listed as
> ancient or medieval should have
> had an independent dynasty or state in ancient or medieval times
> respectively" (
>
> http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv/trunk/doc/README.nations?rev=14172&view=auto
> )
>
> I'm not well versed in Iberian history, so please educate me on the issue.
> :)
>
> ~Daniel
>
>
>

Trolling indeed, and it's not strange for Spanish radical nationalists to deny Catalonia's nationhood. Having its own dinasty and laws for hundreds of years, and speaking a different language even today doesn't seem to be enough.
In fact, the wikipedia article he quotes is quite enlightening. "Countries", in the Middle Ages, were not what we think of nowadays. With poor communications and a weak central power, nations (as we think of them now) were just being built. The frontiers we see in the maps are mostly what certain dinasties ruled. It was common for a king to rule over different nations.
What he calls the Crown of Aragon was a real thing. It started when Ramiro II, King of Aragon, who had no male son and wanted to retire, agreed with Ramon Berenguer IV (of Freeciv fame) to give him the hand of his one-year-old daughter (wow!) and his ki

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Daniel Markstedt wrote:
> ... the legit question of
> whether the Catalonia described in our ruleset existed in the middle
> ages or not. ...
> 
The exact boundaries and title changed from time to time.  This article has
been around for a couple of years, and survived a couple of edit wars:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia

Apparently, it didn't merge with Aragon until 1137 CE, the result of
"wedding" a two-year-old princess.  That tells us there were separate
dynasties, meeting our criteria.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Statute_of_Autonomy

In September 2005, the Parliament of Catalonia approved the definition of
Catalonia as a nation in the preamble of the new Statute of Autonomy,
approved in referendum on June 18, 2006.  This meets our other criteria.

On this side of the pond, the idea that Freeciv (spanning all of history)
should reflect historically tiny adjustments of boundaries and titles
(lasting about 2 game turns) is fairly amusing.  There is no question that
the region, language, and culture called (in English) Catalan existed for
many centuries (and still exists).

I agree with your reply:

   If you miss the Castellans and Aragonese in Freeciv, feel free to write
   the nationsets and draw the flags and submit to the issue tracking system.



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 5, 2008 10:21 PM, Daniel Markstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> While we're on the topic, I'd like to discuss this:
> http://forum.freeciv.org/viewtopic.php?t=4216
>
> The poster is mainly trolling, but he brings up the legit question of
> whether the Catalonia described in our ruleset existed in the middle
> ages or not. From Freeciv's nations policy: "a nation listed as
> ancient or medieval should have
> had an independent dynasty or state in ancient or medieval times
> respectively" (
> http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv/trunk/doc/README.nations?rev=14172&view=auto
> )
>
> I'm not well versed in Iberian history, so please educate me on the issue. :)


Indeed, Daniel, the poster is mostly trolling (if he dislikes so much
the ruleset, he could simply erase that file from his installation and
be done with it, instead of uninstalling the whole game).

He's confusing several key points in the "history" he mentions to
downplay Catalonia.

Quick recap of Iberian history from 711 onwards:

The Visigoth kingdom is overrun by the muslim invaders, who decided the
Iberian Peninsula is a great place to live. Many locals actually join
them, preferring them over the visigoth ruling class.

Years later, the extreme north, not fully conquered, sees the formation
of the first christian kingdom (in the west side): Asturias, which
begins the process of reconquering the peninsula. Asturias begat Galicia
and León, which begat Portugal and Castilla. As the centuries move
forward, Castilla becomes the dominant kingdom and absorbs all except
for Portugal.


On the east side, the Carolingian Empire created the Spanish March to
contain the muslims. Over time, this March developed into several
independent kingdoms and counties. Aragon was one of those kingdoms,
which grew by absorbing other smaller fiefs (Ribagorza, Sobrarbe, etc.)
and to the south, retaking muslim lands. What today is called Catalonia
began as a series of independent counties (Ausona, Gerona, Besalú,
Conflent, Barcelona, etc.) which ended up united under the rule of the
Count of Barcelona.

Later, a dynastic union joined the Counties of Catalonia (by now
Principality of Catalonia) and the Kingdom of Aragon, forming the CROWN
of Aragon, which expanded southwards, conquering and creating the
Kingdom of Valencia and the Kingdom of Majorca (taken from the muslims),
and eastwards, taking Sicily, Naples and Sardinia (and others).

The KINGDOM of Aragon was a single realm within the CROWN of Aragon. The
capital city of the crown was Barcelona. The Crown was joined in 1479 in
a PERSONAL union with the Crown of Castilla. Only later the separate
Crowns were fused together into a single Crown (the crown of Spain).

It's important to note that the Crown, as the maritime empire it was,
was only loosely connected between its different realms - it worked more
like a confederacy of kingdoms.


Now, for some specific claims of the troll:

- Catalonia wasn't a "province" of Aragon (the kingdom) - it was an
independent realm within the Crown.

- "Jaume" is the catalan form of "Jaime" (James), so for catalan
speakers "Rei [King] Jaume I" is correct.

- Ramon Berenguer IV was the Count of Barcelona who, by marriage to
Petronila, son of the King of Aragon, became the first King of the Crown
of Aragon [1] - but he was catalan first and foremost.

- Both Peter/Pedro/Pere II [2] and James/Jaime/Jaume I were kings of the
Crown of Aragon, so they qualify as Counts of Barcelona as well.


[1] Actually, he was just "prince" - I'm simplifying a bit here.
[2] "Pere II" refers to Peter III of Aragon (known as Peter II of Barcelona),
who conquered Sicily.

All that said, there is one point that the guy does have, even if he's a
bit confused.

The current catalan.ruleset does NOT represent the medieval counties of
Catalonia or the Crown of Aragon. Instead, it represents the "Països
Catalans", a non-existing nation that some catalans want to create,
seceding from Spain, and taking all the areas that are catalan-speaking:
Catalonia, Valencia (either most or all of it), a strip of the current
Aragon autonomy, the Balearic islands, the strip of Catalonia dominated
by France (almost all of the Pyrénées-Orientales department), Andorra
and the Sardinian city of Alghero.

So, he is right in stating that this is NOT a medieval nation (a ruleset
for the Crown of Aragon would be). Instead, it should be marked as
fictional or, at most, modern.

Oh, and let's remove the portuguese nation from civilwar_nations while
we're at it.


Some references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Aragon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa%C3%AFsos_Catalans


-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Daniel Markstedt]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

While we're on the topic, I'd like to discuss this:
http://forum.freeciv.org/viewtopic.php?t=4216

The poster is mainly trolling, but he brings up the legit question of
whether the Catalonia described in our ruleset existed in the middle
ages or not. From Freeciv's nations policy: "a nation listed as
ancient or medieval should have
had an independent dynasty or state in ancient or medieval times
respectively" (
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv/trunk/doc/README.nations?rev=14172&view=auto
)

I'm not well versed in Iberian history, so please educate me on the issue. :)

 ~Daniel



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On Jan 5, 2008 4:38 PM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You call that being negative? No way! On the contrary, it's great to get
> good feedback, particularly from the original author of the ruleset.

Actually, I wasn't the original author - I did a lot of work on it, though.

> Guardamar is Guardamar del Segura, one of the four traditional extreme
> points where the Catalan language is spoken (along with Salses, Fraga and
> Maó, with permission from l'Alguer). I didn't even know there was a
> Guardamar in la Safor, but I will add it.

Cool. You forgot to add " (ocean)" to both, though.

>[...]
> I will add both "hills" and "ocean" for Peníscola. Yes, only hills is
> justified by the name, but I can't resist having "ocean" for a place like
> that.

You know what? Me neither. Peníscola is a special place. :-)

And, while we're at it, let's add some more cities as well:

Roses
Calonge
Treumal
Cambrils
Tossa de Mar (ocean)
Solsona
Agramunt

What do you think?

-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Joan Creus]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

This transaction appears to have no content
You call that being negative? No way! On the contrary, it's great to get
good feedback, particularly from the original author of the ruleset.

Guardamar is Guardamar del Segura, one of the four traditional extreme
points where the Catalan language is spoken (along with Salses, Fraga and
Maó, with permission from l'Alguer). I didn't even know there was a
Guardamar in la Safor, but I will add it.

Sant Fruitós natives never use "de Bages" to refer to their own town (I
know, I'm one), but you're right, we should have the whole name. I will do
the same with "Guardiola" (Sant Salvador de Guardiola, actually).

As for the geographical features, I didn't know about this criterion. It
makes sense, though. I didn't feel much comfortable with geographical
indications just for a few cities.

I will add both "hills" and "ocean" for Peníscola. Yes, only hills is
justified by the name, but I can't resist having "ocean" for a place like
that.

So, here you are, version two.

Joan

2008/1/5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> Thanks, Joan, for improving on the ruleset I worked on quite some time
> ago. Adding Pau Claris, Salses and Fraga were nice touches, I think.
>
> Now, I hate to be negative, BUT... IIRC, the geographic features (hills,
> ocean, etc.) were supposed to be added when the city name explicitly
> states it, so a city name like Montserrat (meaning "Serrated Mount") can
> get the " (hills)" designation, but Barcelona can't have " (ocean)" even
> if the real-life city is coastal. At least, that's the criteria I used
> back then.
>
> So, I think the added geographical features added to Amposta, Barcelona,
> Begur, Blanes, Cadaqués, Lleida, Maó (newly added), Palma de Mallorca,
> Tarragona and València have to be removed.
>
> By the way, the first time around, we forgot to add " (hills)" to
> Peníscola (it's name derives from "peña", meaning "bouldery hill").
>
> I'd complete the name of newly added Sant Fruitós: Sant Fruitós de
> Bages.
>
> I'm not sure whether the newly added city name of Guardamar refers to
> Guardamar de la Safor or to Guardamar del Segura. Let's add both! :-) In
> both cases, the " (ocean)" designation is warranted, and the latter
> might deserve the " (river)" designation as well.
>
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 11:29 AM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
> >
> > This transaction appears to have no content
> >
> > The catalan ruleset has a few typos in city names. In the attached
> patch, I
> > have fixed them, added a few more cities, and added a couple new (long
> dead)
> > rulers for good measure. No translatable string has been changed, for
> > inclusion in 2.1.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joan
>
>
> --
> Miguel Farah
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
You call that being negative? No way! On the contrary, it's great to get good feedback, particularly from the original author of the ruleset.Guardamar is Guardamar del Segura, one of the four traditional extreme points where the Catalan language is spoken (along with Salses, Fraga and Maó, with permission from l'Alguer). I didn't even know there was a Guardamar in la Safor, but I will add it.
Sant Fruitós natives never use "de Bages" to refer to their own town (I know, I'm one), but you're right, we should have the whole name. I will do the same with "Guardiola" (Sant Salvador de Guardiola, actually).
As for the geographical features, I didn't know about this criterion. It makes sense, though. I didn't feel much comfortable with geographical indications just for a few cities. I will add both "hills" and "ocean" for Peníscola. Yes, only hills is justified by the name, but I can't resist having "ocean" for a place like that.
So, here you are, version two.Joan2008/1/5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >Thanks, Joan, for improving on the ruleset I worked on quite some timeago. Adding Pau Claris, Salses and Fraga were nice touches, I think.Now, I hate to be negative, BUT... IIRC, the geographic features (hills,
ocean, etc.) were supposed to be added when the city name explicitlystates it, so a city name like Montserrat (meaning "Serrated Mount") canget the " (hills)" designation, but Barcelona can't have " (ocean)" even
if the real-life city is coastal. At least, that's the criteria I usedback then.So, I think the added geographical features added to Amposta, Barcelona,Begur, Blanes, Cadaqués, Lleida, Maó (newly added), Palma de Mallorca,
Tarragona and València have to be removed.By the way, the first time around, we forgot to add " (hills)" toPeníscola (it's name derives from "peña", meaning "bouldery hill").
I'd complete the name of newly added Sant Fruitós: Sant Fruitós deBages.I'm not sure whether the newly added city name of Guardamar refers toGuardamar de la Safor o

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[Daniel Markstedt]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

On 1/5/08, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ... IIRC, the geographic features (hills,
> > ocean, etc.) were supposed to be added when the city name explicitly
> > states it, so a city name like Montserrat (meaning "Serrated Mount") can
> > get the " (hills)" designation, but Barcelona can't have " (ocean)" even
> > if the real-life city is coastal. At least, that's the criteria I used
> > back then.
> >
> I've been using real-life criteria elsewhere, that's OK.  There are very
> few cities with geographic features in their names.
>

Some nations have a lot of this kind of city names, though only native
speakers would probably notice. It's a nice touch, still.

I embrace both standards, anyway, as long as either is applied
constantly throughout one nation.

 ~Daniel



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[William Allen Simpson]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ... IIRC, the geographic features (hills,
> ocean, etc.) were supposed to be added when the city name explicitly
> states it, so a city name like Montserrat (meaning "Serrated Mount") can
> get the " (hills)" designation, but Barcelona can't have " (ocean)" even
> if the real-life city is coastal. At least, that's the criteria I used
> back then.
> 
I've been using real-life criteria elsewhere, that's OK.  There are very
few cities with geographic features in their names.



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#40001) Update to catalan.ruleset for 2.1

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >

Thanks, Joan, for improving on the ruleset I worked on quite some time
ago. Adding Pau Claris, Salses and Fraga were nice touches, I think.

Now, I hate to be negative, BUT... IIRC, the geographic features (hills,
ocean, etc.) were supposed to be added when the city name explicitly
states it, so a city name like Montserrat (meaning "Serrated Mount") can
get the " (hills)" designation, but Barcelona can't have " (ocean)" even
if the real-life city is coastal. At least, that's the criteria I used
back then.

So, I think the added geographical features added to Amposta, Barcelona,
Begur, Blanes, Cadaqués, Lleida, Maó (newly added), Palma de Mallorca,
Tarragona and València have to be removed.

By the way, the first time around, we forgot to add " (hills)" to
Peníscola (it's name derives from "peña", meaning "bouldery hill").

I'd complete the name of newly added Sant Fruitós: Sant Fruitós de
Bages.

I'm not sure whether the newly added city name of Guardamar refers to
Guardamar de la Safor or to Guardamar del Segura. Let's add both! :-) In
both cases, the " (ocean)" designation is warranted, and the latter
might deserve the " (river)" designation as well.



On Jan 4, 2008 11:29 AM, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40001 >
>
> This transaction appears to have no content
>
> The catalan ruleset has a few typos in city names. In the attached patch, I
> have fixed them, added a few more cities, and added a couple new (long dead)
> rulers for good measure. No translatable string has been changed, for
> inclusion in 2.1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joan


-- 
Miguel Farah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev