This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article should be merged with the article "Naval Station Rota," which was created due to a false link. Someone needs to clean it up. Also, the stub should be at the end. Make sure you get the part about the Taco Bell in there, as that's a major selling point for Rota.
Then again, only an American would consider Taco Bell a "major selling point." Truly a shame.
Oppose: That is a Spanish version the article. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why Taco Bell is in the body of work. Personally, as an American and as a Wikipedian, I don't think it should be here. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it the only picture that keeps getting removed is the one of a US Warship? Its a joint base but you'd never know that from the images. Justintalk 16:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just take a look at the logo of the base, second picture on the left. It is self-evident when you start reading. Please, stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.38.32 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the spelling error you refer to? And please do not refer to good faith edits as vandalism, I simply made the images smaller to allow the text to flow better and repositioned the infobox. I plan to expand the article and I really don't need a pointless and WP:LAME edit war. And again what is it about that image that you're objecting to, you remove it in preference to leaving a fuzzy and unclear image of ships from such a distance you can't even see that they're warships. Justintalk 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have a picture that could have been taken anywhere, you have of course now violated 3RR. I would hope you would self-revert. 3RR Warning placed here as with a dynamic IP I can't rely on the talk page. Justintalk 21:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've lodged a 3RR complaint. Justintalk 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this new picture and support its insertion. As the article is about a major military location with all the issues that brings, as a BLP issue the photo with a picture of a few people gives a possible undue weight to their importance in the issue and the new picture has none of those issue. Off2riorob (talk) 10:14 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Its a great picture yes but shows nothing of the Naval Station Rota. It could have been taken anywhere. Thats why I would suggest it isn't used. I don't BLP as an issue here. Justintalk 21:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can remove the new picture also for me but the picture with living people in it is a BLP issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this is a BLP issue, that seems an utter Red Herring to me. Its a picture published in the public domain on a US Navy website, so how is it a BLP issue? Justintalk 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP issue for me is that the article is not about them and they are the only living people in the article and their involvment in the issue is being given undue weight by the inclusion of the pic. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is the comment about them, or the image used to make any sort of comment about them (well at least it didn't with the title I uploaded the original with), which policy is actually violated here? What undue weight, where in WP:UNDUE is this actually mentioned? Specifically what policy based argument is it leading to your objection? Justintalk 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight as regards BLP. It is my interpretaion of guidelines, the individuals in the picure in question by the pictures insertion are being given an appearance of imporance beyond their involvement in the subject of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again which part of policy is it violating, all I've heard so far is vague arm waving about undue weight and BLP? Both policies I am very familiar with and I am aware of nothing in those policies that applies. Justintalk 22:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current picture is much better and was taken in the Naval Base, it shows a U.S. vessel which was what you wanted, and last but not least, its not like the former picture was showing the entire base or something like that. I've improved the layout and provided an image showing something identifiable as american instead of a bunch of people and the sea. What's the problem here?
Because as I have politely pointed out, it could have been taken anywhere and shows nothing of the base. You could perhaps assume good faith and address the comment. Justintalk 22:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's no difference with the picture you are obsessed with. You uploaded that picture a few days ago (but it was duplicated and was providently deleted, so you use the original). Now you try to introduce it in this article at all costs. Please, explain why this specific picture showing 4 human beings on a deck (and the inmense sea behind, not precisely the Naval Base) is preferable to any other U.S. vessel in the Rota Naval Base. Especially when those other pictures are better taken, show something identifiable as american and give a better idea of the shipping traffic in the base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.38.32 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the bad faith presumption and note that you've violated 3RR, a self-revert would be a good idea to avoid a block. And also your sizing of images is not good for the article, the layout I proposed was much better. I have explained my reasons for a preference, it shows the base in operation, the other doesn't. Justintalk 22:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the layout you proposed isn't better at all; neither is your picture showing the base. I'm not convinced. Apparently Off2riorob isn't either. Your concern is noted, but it's still 2 to 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.38.32 (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read policy WP:CONSENSUS is about strength of argument and not majority rule. Also Off2riorob comments reflected solely about 1 image but are not policy based. As regards layout WP:MOS would tend to favour the layout I proposed as it doesn't break across sections. And again you've violated 3RR so I suggest you self-revert before you are blocked. Justintalk 23:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
photo under discussion
I saw mention of this disagreement elsewhere and just stopped by out of curiousity. Is this photo at right the one under discussion? It seems to be a legal photo, is reported as released by the U.S. Navy. It is better and/or different than other photos in the naval station article: it shows people, it conveys that a base consists of, or includes people, not just big floating mechanical devices. It conveys that this is a station that can be visited for a photo op sometimes, and more. A naval base is not just the sum of its ships. And the photos of ships show nothing about the place, about the base, the fact that a ship is supposedly leaving the base is very not helpful, with no view of the base whatsoever. The photo of people serves to actually illustrate something about the place.
I don't understand what is the BLP issue about it. I just added the pic to the Alan Solomont article, too. There, it could perhaps be cropped to be more focused upon Solomont, but actually the whole picture is better i think, as showing a whole scene. Is there an allegation that the ambassador doesn't want his photo displayed? Is there an allegation that the navy staff people don't want their image shown? Honestly i don't understand what are the possible issues. If there is not some more clear reasoning about why caution is needed in some way, then I think the photo should be accepted for this article about Naval Station Rota. If there are issues about the use of the photo in the Alan Solomont article that can be stated here or at its Talk page, too.
I should perhaps say that i usually work on articles about historic houses and other sites, and I usually avoid having any people in my photos that i take and upload, unless they are far away and not recognizable. That has to do with my inability / unwillingness to seek strangers' permissions for recognizable likenesses to be published. Here, though, I am understanding/assuming the permission was granted effectively by the Navy's choice to publish the photo.
So, if it is simple voting going on (not the best way to make decisions), currently i would say keep this photo in, and then it is 2:2 in !votes. :) --doncram (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point, however the picture above isn't technically good and it shows nothing special about the base or personnel assigned there. Here you've some images depicting people who does serve at Rota (I'd rather have one of the two first pictures):
Navy personnel pass in review during Naval Station Rota's 50th anniversary ceremony.
The joint U.S.-Spanish Color Guard aboard Naval Station, Rota, parades the colors during the Change of Command and Marine Corps Security Force Europe.
Sailors, Marines and Airmen assigned to U.S. Naval Station Rota during a pass in review.
A Spanish marine participates in a joint security training at Naval Station Rota.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.98 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues at all with the new picture. Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would happily use some of those, though I agree with Doncram, a VIP visitor would be a good one to include as well. I'm still waiting for clarification on whatever BLP issue there supposedly is, as all of those pictures include images of people? Justintalk 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They look pretty much as unidentifiable military personnel. As I have said more than once my issue with BLP is the undue weight being given to the living subjects appearance in a military environment. It's not a big issue, its a fair enough request and comment imo and you clearly have pictures that don't appear at all problematic. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What BLP issue? Aside from vague statements about undue weight, which I really don't understand, you have not explained what the issue is. I am asking you politely to explain what the problem is. Justintalk 15:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issues concerning the poor quality of the image aside, the problem is that it depicts an identifiable personality not directly related to the article, giving undue weight to him (in other words: there's no reason to include mr. Alan Solomont in this article). The many alternative pictures don't, whilst showing more of the base and the life in there (such as parades, exercises and the 50th anniversary, for instance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.98 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
US Ambassador visiting an important joint facility isn't giving undue weight. I've no problems with using alternative images, I want to know what the issue raised by Off2riorob is. Some of the images you've suggested have identifiable individuals and at least one identifies a specific officer. If there is an issue which I'm unaware off I would like to know about it. I don't think it is an unreasonable request. Justintalk 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The creative punctuation of: "The protests against the base are considered controversial amongst local residents, with some opposed to the protests, because the base provides jobs and businesses benefit from money derived from the Spanish and U.S. military; as well as those in agreement with the protestors' aims." Makes one wonder what is meant by the text tacked onto the end after the semi-colon - whatever it is, it isn't an independent clause so wonder what it is referring to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Naval Station Rota, Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
.jpg)
_at_Naval_Station_Rota,_Spain.jpg)
