Talk:2023 Spanish government formation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyedit tag[edit]

Hi Impru20 (talk · contribs), I have copyedited the first few sections to indicate the kind of changes I meant with the addition of the maintenance tag. I am happy to do the whole article myself when I get an opportunity, but in the meantime the maintenance tag is useful to 1) let other editors know their copyediting eyes are useful, and 2) to bring the article to the attention of the Guild of Copy Editors, which is relatively active and in fact has a improvement drive month scheduled for September. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jdcooper (talk · contribs), I have reverted some of your changes (see edit summary for reasons, but basically you have changed some sentences that were taken from previous GA reviews + changes to text that was literally taken from the legal source provided). My fear with your tag is that your "copyedit requirements" were basically a matter of personal preference (which is ok and I don't object to the remainder of your changes, but I do not agree that such changes require a copyedit tag as if the current version is wrong and in need of improvements without even explaining what those are). Cheers. Impru20talk 16:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The changes you reverted to the legal quotations appear to be purely about gendered pronouns. Since Spanish doesn't have neutral singular pronouns, I don't see how you can consider your version of those legal sources to be "literal" translations, unless you are claiming that the legal wording of the original Spanish text consciously and deliberately erases the possibility of a female Prime Minister, rather than generalising to male pronouns out of grammatical tradition. Do you genuinely believe that your source is implying that the Prime Minister has to be male? Jdcooper (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plus, your attitude to the {{copyedit}} tag effectively defines it out of useful existence. If you are not comfortable with alerting any other editors to the article's problems, I guess I'll get round to it myself when I can. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me but: have you actually read the sources before accusing me of this? Please, check the official English translation of the Constitution (it is sourced in the article). Check Article 99. It is not my translation, I copy-pasted the official translation. The current Spanish Constitution dates of 1978. Yes, it is written from a male perspective that leaves a lot to be desired, but since it is a literal quote it is quite weird for others to attempt rewrite what the official text actually states (and now complain to me about it. That's what the text says, that's what the source says, it's not my version, it's not my fault!).
I'm absolutely comfortable with alerting any other editors to the article's problems. My concerns come more about the fact of what those "problems" are and if those are actually "problems" or "personal preferences" in disguise (which would not require a WP tag). After reading your response, in which you have made absolutely clear that you did not read the actual sources provided, these concerns are further reinforced. Cheers. Impru20talk 08:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I checked the source after writing my response, it seemed incredible to me that it was such an official source. Highly problematic and uncomfortable! But of course I acknowledge it is nothing to do with you, sorry for that misunderstanding.
Though I don't think its fair to frame concerns about the quality of English (eg. removing ambiguity, natural English style etc) as my "personal preference". I would have thought that should be the preference of English Wikipedia in general. Jdcooper (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So well, after seeing the result of the "copyedit" ([1]), it is indeed shown that an overwhelming majority of the changes are changes of expression and style that depend more on personal preferences than on actual "ambiguity, natural English, etc". Nothing wrong with it, but it is confirmed that the copyedit tag was absurd all along. We didn't need such a tag for this. Cheers. Impru20talk 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the last paragraph of 2023 Spanish government formation § Second investiture attempt? Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]