Talk:Ibiza/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Citation Needed Tags

Ok guys, citation needed tags should NOT be used in-line. They should either be placed at the end of the problem sentence or the problem paragraph. Placing a tag every THREE WORDS makes the article really difficult to read and the "speculation" in the article isn't taken much further than other articles. This article really looks like the flak of somebody who isn't fond of Ibiza and got just a little bit too emotional. --76.119.81.111 (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, inline cn tags easily pinpoint those areas that need citation. Being shown an entire library to categorize appears quite daunting, but being pointed to a number of books on a table to be categorized to fit with the rest of the library is less so. As well, it allows for different users to cite those items they can, and leave the remainder for others. The very fact that you think it is difficult to read (a sure sign that an article may not yet be ready to read) might make you head out and find some citations for the statements in question. The statement-specific citations should remain until they are cited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, your point has been made, but the cn tags really are difficult to read around. The claims you're asking for citation on should be cited - but they're not so dramatically unbelievable as to require such drastic hobbling of the readability of the article. The poster above is correct: it does look a bit like a temper tantrum. Perhaps a more efficient way to handle this situation would be to place a banner at the top of the section asking for citation on unverified claims and then starting a list on the talk page with your specific concerns? For editing purposes, we're really all capable of adding our own citation tags - I don't think it's necessary to call out each and every instance of uncited material in-line just to make it "easier" for editors to contribute as citations are found. As for casual readers, they'd see the banner and know to take the section's contents with a grain of salt until citations could be inserted as necessary. Does this seem fair? Lekoman (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, no, it does not. If I lead you into a large barn and tell you to paint the barn, you are going to consider that a fairly daunting task. However, if I say instead, please paint those areas where the existing pain has chipped, it becomes a far easier, more approachable task. This is why individual citation tags always serve the end product of a GA or FA article. Claims require citation, so they have been tagged. I am not making this up; this is wiki policy. If the difficult nature of reading past the tags is a pain for some, and makes someone roll up their sleeves and find a citation or two, then it only improves the article. That's what we are aiming for. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I could make a suggestion, instead of the numerous citation needed tags in the tourism section making it near impossible to read, wouldn't it be a lot less messy to add a {{refimprovesect}} tag to the section? I went ahead and did this, rather than had to read "citation needed" every other word. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I noted before, you should feel free to actually seek out the citations. I tend to think that they encourage participation in the project by new readers. With an 'uncited section' tag, they aren't actually sure what needs citation, and don't bother making the effort to find out. It comes down to a simple matter of 'if you are unhappy with the mess, do the actual clean-up, instead of shoving everything into a closet or under the bed'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, and I agree it really needs to be cited, but this makes the article next to impossible to read, and actually hampers with citing the page in my opinion. Rather get into an edit war however and revert the article back and forth, I'd like to offer perhaps to take this to dispute resolution to see what should be done by a neutral 3rd party. I came across the article by accident, clicking on the Random Article link and saw the number of CN tags which surprised me. I'd help cite the article if I knew more on the subject as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To get an extra set of eyes to clarify this, I've requested a third opinion at WP:DISPUTE. Arcayne, you and I are on the same page with regard to the article needing to be cited, just want to have to resolved differently I think. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to work within the DR structure to resolve the issue. As for not really knowing the subject, I am not really sue that its vital to know a lot about Ibiza to cite it. My alternative was to simply remove the uncited material, which would have left the article as less than a skeleton and therefore ripe for AfD. I didn't want that, and I've added citations here and there. I just want to encourage those folk who take time to notice that there are lots of cn tags act on them. With the number of people using/reading WP, there have to be more than a few who can fill in some of the blanks. Pointing to what needs filling in (see the warehouse metaphor I utilized before) makes it easier for them to do so quickly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Extensive {{cn}} tags seems obtrusive and a bit excessive. Considering the general lack of sources, {{refimprove}} or {{original research}} may be appropriate. If the problem comes down to unreferenced sections, there's always {{unreferencedsection}}. Inline tags like {{fact}} should be used for "spot" tagging, or rather for sections that are incompletely referenced and have specific facts/claims needing sourcing. Extensive in-line tags seriously impede readability and indicate that broader problems exist (which should usually be noted with general section and/or article tags). Vassyana (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, would you be opposed at this point to revert back to my edit which had a {{refimprove}} tag on the Tourism section? I'd like to make sure we have an agreement before I do so. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, are you suggesting that the topic of specifying where the citations are needed is not a valid motivation for users to provide them? I am loathe to put the article back into the sorry state it was in (that predates both Wildthing61476 and my input). As I said before, it is my firm belief that the very readability issue increases input into the article by way of contribution. Just as some folk tend to try and pretty up infoboxes for their favorite shows or certain subjects, and editors try to make the article readable by overlooking the desperate need for citation (again, not suggesting such are part of Wildthing's motivation), these decorative measures are not what we strive for as an encyclopedia.

The very fact that the article is difficult to read makes people say 'hey, I know where that was said', or better - want to head out and find something to cancel out the need for that citation tag. It breeds better contributors, and increases our number of contributors. I am very uncomfortable at slapping a tag at the top of the article and allowing shoddy work through. I would sooner delete every bit of uncited information first, and help ensure that only that which is cited is reintroduced. As that is a measure of last resort, I would prefer to have readers/contributors motivate themselves to cite the material targeted by the tags. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

With all of the time spent arguing about this, might you have overlooked the principle of "sofixit", Arcayne? Lekoman (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Were I also not working three other articles, holding down a full-time job and attending graduate school, I might have time to seek out sources. Not saying that I am more busy than someone else (clearly you are pretty busy, what with less than 500 edits in almost three years, and none of them added a citation to the Ibiza article), but I am not preventing anyone else (not even you) from adding citations that meet our criteria for inclusion. I've even provided sources where citations might be found. Rather than complaining about the guy who put the bandage on, maybe time might be better spent addressing the actual problem. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've added 3 cites thus far. Might I ask how many you have added recently? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

Tag usage is clearly excessive. Some maturity and common sense would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.170.22 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And citations would be even nicer. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed 49 (!) fact tags and tagged the sections as wholly unreferenced. Tagging every sentence with {{fact}} is ridiculous. Neıl ☎ 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, have you been following the conversation above? I am reverting those removals. As I have said before, cn tags help identify those parts that need citation, whereas a general tag at the top doesn't help to focus effort of any kind on finding citations, since no one will know what needs citation. The alternative to the tags is to simply remove every bit of uncited information, some of it being is said state for over a year or two. I'd prefer to not do that, as it would make the article anorexic. I think the ounce of prevention is more valuable than the pound of cure, but Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information which - in its current state, the Ibiza article is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting you back. Believe it or not, there is a third alternative to spattering fact tags across every third word of the entire article, or removing every sentence. Guess what it is? To extend your metaphor, that would be the half-ton of actually improving something rather than criticising the work of others. In the interim, the plethora of {{cn}} tags make the article unreadable. As there are no sentences cited, specific fact tags are useless. Instead, we use general references-needed boilerplates, such as {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}}. A further point - an article lacking inline references does not immediately make it a random collection of information. Bear in mind it is only in the last 12 months or so that inline referencing has become par for the course. Prior to this, footnote-style referencing was very common; as this article was started in 2002, it wouldn't surprise me that much of this article was created before the craze for inline referencing. Denigrating that work as a "random collection of information" is quite unfair, I think. Neıl ☎ 21:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Golly, Neil, why didn't I think of that? Actually add a citation! Jeepers, what a great idea.

News flash, I've been adding citations. I'm the only one adding credible citations. I'd like to know where the citations are needed. I've noticed that you (as well as everyone else who has complained about the look of the tags) didn't actually add any citations yourself. Maybe if you had, the snipe that I should add them wouldn't ring so hollow. Some people would rather complain about being in a world of crap instead working a shovel. If the cn tags makes one person add an actual citation to replace one, then good. A general tag doesn't identify where the citation is needed. Perhaps you could explain how this reasoning is wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the excessive tags once again. Please obtain consensus before reinserting. Avb 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You aren't a neutral party here, Avb, and you know it. Less than an hour ago, you simply blanked an argument we were having on your discussion page, with a pretty [unpleasant edit summary. I don't need consensus for following policy. Please feel free to seek consensus for removing the cn tags, okay? Or, you could consider recusing yourself as someone stumping my edits to be a nuisance. You aren't neutral here, guy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is beneath my dignity to respond. Avb 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it that way. Neıl ☎ 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, please show me the policy that states every sentence that lacks a reference must be appended with a {{cn}} tag. Your interpretation of policy may not necessarily reflect policy. There appears to be consensus that 40+ cn tags are inappropriate. As an aside, it is now 6 muscular and majestic citations I've added, to the one puny BBC one you added. I am winning! Neıl ☎ 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Three cheers for Neil!!! Avb 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry; that policy is verifiability. I'd also have tossed in WP:CITE, but that's a guideline, and I wasn't sure if you were using a trick question. Aswell, I am keen to discover where you are finding the consensus that my cn tags are inappropriate (you of course are not counting the one-time visiting anons, right?).

As for adding three citations, good for you -even if I had to shame you into rolling up your sleeves. Actually, I have added three myself since coming to the article, so we are even. But, by all means, keep on going! Whatever you can do to improve the article is welcomed. Even Avb can add citations, if he isn't y'know, adamant about playing snarky cheerleader. Go to it, Avb - I am sure you know how to add a citation, lad (or lassie). Make me proud! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No thanks kiddo, I just happened to be in the mood to remove messy tags that rendered the article unreadable. Avb 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I thought. Why not just ask me to the prom now,instead of stalking my edits? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One would've thought it's obvious I'm stalking Neil. Avb 23:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, huh. I am telling you. I cannot go to prom with you, Avb. My heart belongs to Neil, stalker-boy/girl. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are seven cites on the article. I added six of them. You, therefore, could only have added one. CEASE YOUR LIES. Neıl ☎ 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe put down the 5th espresso and calm the hell down, sport. I stand corrected: one citation and one image (1, 2). I guess you aren't giving me any credit for all the cruft removed, though, are you? Figures. Admin comes to the article, adds a few cites and thumps his chest, acting like he's the best thing since sliced bread. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an editor, too, just like everyone else - what has my having the admin tools have to do with this? That's what we call a non sequitur. Neıl ☎ 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the non-sequitur. Too bad you removed it, - I would have gotten a kick out of removing the cn tag in imaitation of you. :P. The comment wasn't about your being an admn. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

pointless map

Yeah the map in this article is commpletely irrelevant as it shows context in relation to what? two other islands that nobody knows? 121.209.235.20 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you could take a look at some other country and articles, and maybe (more relevantly) the articles for Mallorca and Minorca articles, which show the same sort of protocol. Are suggesting a change? If so, what sort of change would you like to see?

New changes - proposal

I have been working on the referencing of uncited bits for Ibiza and think that some changes would be helpful in creating a larger understanding of Ibiza. I would like to divide history into the subsections of Pre-history, Ancient/medieval history and Modern history (noting the hippy and artistic settlements of the 1960's). Furthermore, I would like to divide the Tourism section into sections discussing the disparate parts of the Nightlife and the World Heritage sites. Lastly, I would advocate an expansion of the Administration section to detail more about the political and local structures of the province. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As per my message one week ago, am planning to make some changes to the article's structure and content. As no one posted any dissent, I will now perform the following:

• replaced island template with autonomous community infobox template, which it and the other Balearics share with other "states" of Spain.
• added books to pop culture references. I will be adding films set in Ibiza - if you know of any, please cite such.
• tweaked the Lead
• subdivided tourism into two sections: nightlife and World Heritage Site. Expect expansion less on music and more on impact of the tourism (with citations); also expect info on traveling there.
  

Stay tuned... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see nothing in what you propose that I disagree with, so I'll just say so if I see something that doesn't sit right with me. I think your initiative is constructive and laudable. __meco (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Work is intruding now with my wiki-addiction, but I will move forward on my proposed changes. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Films set in Ibiza include Kevin and Perry Go Large, It's All Gone Pete Tong, Is Harry on the Boat? and an extended section of Orson Welles' F for Fake, as well as TV reality show There's Something About Miriam. I removed some of the books reasoning that we should only really include those written by notable authors (ie, those with an article) - there are others by novelists with articles (such as Is Harry on the Boat by Colin Butts); what do you think? Neıl ☄ 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that there aren't that many fiction books written using Ibiza as a setting, and simply because an article doesn't currently exist for the author (I made one for Blank) doesn't immediately render it non-notable. The article could stand with more explansion, and your noting of the films is awfully helpful. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of Michael Cretu from the music group Enigma as a resident of Ibiza? Seems strange to mention Jens Gad and not him. Cretu also has a state-of-the art recording studio on the island as does Jens.

About non-official languages

I don't think the compromise edit by Arcayne is a good solution. Adding English in the infobox in the place for official languages with a remark in brackets claiming that in fact it is not official looks quite contradictory. Moreover, it raises several difficult questions (what about other spoken and non-official languages? What is the minimum number of speakers of a certain non-official language that we must require to add it as "non-official but spoken language" in the place for official languages? Should we do the same kind of things in all geographical entries?). Therefore, I propose to remove English from the infobox. Nonetheless, as it might be an interesting encyclopedical information, I suggest to add some comments in the text about widely spoken and non-official languages with the corresponding sources to prove an estimated number of their speakers. --Carles Noguera (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your view, Carles, but English is indeed widely spoken on the island, and not just by the tourists. In order to interact with them, the locals have been forced to learn English. Removing it from the infobox would make it seem as if English is unknown or barely spoken if at all. Unless the template can be altered to note other languages spoken (or, alternatively, the template can be altered to remove the "official" part, instead denoting the official language with an asterisk, which I think would be far more efficient), I don't see a way around the inclusion of English as one of the widely spoken languages in the Balearics and specifically on Ibiza. In point of fact, Catalån isn't technically the language, but rather a "dialectal variation -- called Eivissenc or Ibicenco. The same language is spoken on Formentera."(http://travel.nytimes.com/frommers/travel/guides/europe/spain/balearic-islands/ibiza/frm_ibiza_0159010001.html 1) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In case you needed some citations noting the presence (and likely encroaching dominance) of English, I I did a quick search for "Ibiza" and "spoken English", which yielded the following results: (2, 3, 4, 5, 6). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I know all of that. I never wanted to discuss facts with you, since you are right from beginning. My point is just a formal one: not nice to put something in the official languages field and then write that in fact it is not. In my opinion (partially agreeing with you), we have two reasonable solutions: (1) add a new field in the template for "other widely spoken languages", which could be also useful in many other geographical entries, or (2) instead of putting English in the infobox, put it on the main text. I don't know how to operate with templates in order to have there a new field. So, if we think that the first option is better, some technical help would be needed. What do you think? --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I lived in Ibiza for four years. Regarding languages, Catalan language is by far the most widely spoken language on the island. Islanders speak speak Catalan to eachother, not Spanish. I know this because I speak Spanish and don't understand much of Catalan. Ibicenco is spoken by the older generation and is much closer to Catalan than Spanish. Most young people don't speak Ibicenco. English may be spoken in San Antonio, but not much English is spoken fluently throughout the rest of the island, except in a valley called the Morna Valley (where a lot of Brits live). Santa Eularia has a large German population and San Jose has a large French population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindoors (talk • contribs) 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's splendid that we now have someone who lives there year 'round (I've only been there twice - once in party season and once in winter). While I recognize that not everyone on the island speaks English (and you'd have to be daft to go to a foreign country and expect them to know your language), more than enough do to make mentioning it notable, so long as it isn't categorized as a primary language. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The anon 76. inadvertantly added all the languages spoken in Ibiza (yes, all of them), and it proceeded to cock up the infobox. I am sure the anon didn't mean to do it, and since we cannot find a specific citation which states with authority whick non Spanish languages are spoken, I am thinking to add a "See below" in place of the non Spanish languages, and placing the People section.

Now, you might be asking, 'what People section?', to which I will answer, the one we are going to be adding shortly. Take a look at the articles for the other Balearics, Mallorca and Menorca. Note how they have pretty well-developed sections. We are going to develop our own out somewhat. Go, team. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK did that. I couldn't find a referance for russian but its also widely used too. The island is just soo international it really doesnt do it right not to show how really polylingual it is

75.57.197.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the deal on "Spanish" in Spain:

the Spanish Constitution of 1978 uses the term [castellano] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) to define the official language of the whole Spanish State, as opposed to [las demás lenguas españolas] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (lit. the other Spanish languages). Article III reads as follows:

“ [El castellano es la lengua española oficial del Estado. (…) Las demás lenguas españolas serán también oficiales en las respectivas Comunidades Autónomas…] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)

Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. (…) The other Spanish languages shall also be official in their respective Autonomous Communities…

”

As a recent registered inhabitant of Spain I can tell you that when you use an ATM you MUST choose one the 6 or so languages on the screen - NONE of which are Spanish (And rarely English in Madrid even)75.57.197.130 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that the Spanish Consitution says this, but I feel that it's being misrepresented here in it's direct translation. The terms castellano and español are pretty much synonomous most of the time in the Spanish language. It is not saying that Spanish is not the official language and Castilian is, but rather it's using castellano in constrast to the other independent languages spoken in Spain such as Basque, Catalan, Galician, and any other language within Spain that each autonomous community makes official. In English, the term Castilian and Spanish are usually used differently and not the exact same way as in Spanish. Castilian usually refers to the variety of Spanish spoken in the historical region of Castile, or the modern day north and central Spain. And of course the ATM wouldn't have you choose "Spanish" because it's not in the English language. There is no other info box in any Spanish city or region that lists "Castilian" as the official language because in English, the common term for the language is Spanish and not Castilian. They are the same language, but one is just an article on just one variation. They do not speak Castilian Spanish (dialect) in southern Spain. Kman543210 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an article called Names given to the Spanish language that explains in more detail the naming convention of the Spanish language. The Real Academia Español is the governing body of the Spanish language and actually addresses the terminology in Spanish as well. I'm including the quote from them as well as an English translation, but even they say that español should be used when speaking of the language and that castellano should be reserved for either the dialect spoken in Castile or when contrasting it with other languages of Spain. But remember that this is the English wikipedia, and in English "Spanish" is the most common term when referring to the language spoken in Spain and Latin America:

Para designar la lengua común de España y de muchas naciones de América, y que también se habla como propia en otras partes del mundo, son válidos los términos castellano y español. La polémica sobre cuál de estas denominaciones resulta más apropiada está hoy superada. [...] Aun siendo sinónimo de español, resulta preferible reservar el término castellano para referirse al dialecto románico nacido en el Reino de Castilla durante la Edad Media, o al dialecto del español que se habla actualmente en esa región. To name the common language from Spain and many other American nations, used as own as well in other parts of the World, both the terms Castilian and Spanish are valid. The debate on which one of those designations is more appropriate is nowadays overcome. [...] Even being a synonym of español, it is preferable to keep the term Castilian to refer to the romanic dialect born in the Kingdom of Castile during the Middle Ages, or to the Spanish dialect nowadays spoken in that region.

— Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas, 2005

Kman543210 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New language section

Regarding: While Catalan and Spanish are the official languages of Ibiza, a "dialectal variation [of Catalan]...called Eivissenc or Ibicenco is more readily spoken by both the residents and those of Formentera."[6] Additionally, because of the influence of tourism (see below) and expatriates living in or maintaining residences on the island other, atypical languages, such as English, German and Russian are also spoken. Polylinguality is the norm, not the exception. Arcayne, I think you misunderstood my edit summary. I only wrote in the summary that maybe we should paraphrase the quoted material, but I did not. All I did was add a wiki link to "Eivissec" to link to Balearic article so that the reader can learn about the different Balearic Island dialects that are spoken there. The other thing that I did was "[of Catalan]" in single brackets to clarify that Eivissec and Ibicenco are dialects of Catalan and not Spanish. Putting it in single brackets is a way to indicate to the reader that it is not part of the original quote. This is necessary for clarification, as the reader needs to know as to which language they're a variation. I also changed "expats" to "expatriates" because it's usually better to spell a word out completely rather than abbreviating it. I seriously have never seen the word "expats" and had to think about it before I realized that it was an abbreviation, but this part was not in quotes, so it was not part of the quoted material. Kman543210 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can accept the spelling out of expatriate, as an abbreviation, while common with some, might not be with most. However, I still am uncomfortable with inserting - even in brackets - the Catalan Spanish, as it isn't obvious that they are speaking of that and not Castillan Spanish. I am not sure what to do, as I think the direct quote strengthens the statement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

When I first read it, the only reason that I was able to guess that it was Catalan is that I speak Spanish and have a knowledge of Catalan, but I still had to look it up (hence the reason I added the appropriate link and clarifying statement). The previous statement says that Catalan and Spanish are the official languages, so the following sentence doesn't make clear which language Eivissec is a dialect of. I really think clarification here is important. As for direct quote, I shan't paraphrase it unless we get additional feedback, but I am not sure how direct quotes make it stronger. Usually that is done when there is controversy surrounding certain statements, but I see no controversy about the dialects spoken in Ibiza. Inserting something in single brackets is an acceptable way to clarify a quote just like the ellipsis dots that were added. Kman543210 (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This sentence about languages spoken induces to error. It seems eivissenc is a third language (other than catalan and spanish). The reality is that people speak a catalan dialect called eivissenc and because of that, catalan is the official language. Spanish is also official. Furthermore, I wouldn't use a general newspaper from thousand miles away to reference a linguistic fact. I would rather use specifical linguistic books such as http://www.librarything.com/work/4912193 or VILLANGÓMEZ LLOBET, Marià. Curs d'iniciació a la llengua: Normes gramaticals, Lectures eivissenques i formentereres. Institut d'estudis eivissencs. Eivissa, 1978. ISBN 84-00-04357-X. You have more information (in catalan) at ca:Eivissenc. Paucabot (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Eivissa is not an autonomous community

According to the current Spanish constitution Eivissa nowadays belongs to the autonomous community Balearic Islands together with the remaining islands. You will find the corresponding sources in these articles and in Autonomous communities of Spain as well. Cheers, --Carles Noguera (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Cnoguera, and there was nothing bold about this removal. Ibiza is an island that is part of the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands. Even that article specifically states: "The main islands of the autonomous community are Majorca (Mallorca in Catalan), Minorca (Menorca), Ibiza (Eivissa), and Formentera..." Autonomous communities are very specific political entities in Spain as defined by the Spanish Constitution. Kman543210 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I concede the point. It needed citation, and such has been provided. Thanks, Carles and Kman. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, anon 66.99etc has issue with the way that I rephrased the lead, thinking that my edit still called Ibiza an autonomous collective. Wasn't sure how he/she arrived at that, but maybe someone else can pipe up with constructive assistance? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And the infobox for autonomous community should be left alone. As Ibiza is part of the Balearic Islands AC, we should be using that infobox. As it is, that box has been in use for months. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is crystal clear. There is no room for error. Arcayne's guess, "I think each island is an autonomous community" is without foundation.75.58.41.230 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

The other Balearic Islands (see Majorca and Minorca) use the islands infobox. Why should we use the autonomous community infobox for Ibiza when it is not? --Carles Noguera (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That is one of the reasons why I reverted Arcayne's change from islands infobox to AC infobox (diff). Here's another reason: it introduced factual errors by ascribing figures and other info for the entire AC to Ibiza alone. Now that his infobox change has been reverted, he should follow WP:BRD which he generally holds to with great enthusiasm. So, Arcayne, feel free to build a consensus for your original change now that it has been reverted. So far I see three editors against and one in favor; only the latter (you) has not provided a valid reason. Avb 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, Avb, you know enough about consensus to know that two opinions (the anon is an identified troll stalking my edits) to one is not enough to upset a consensus in place for months. Now, despite the apparent disdain - and your seeming appearance whenever there is a fight to be had, but you can't seem to be found when actual work here needs to be done (funny, that) - I am willing to be convinced. Now, maybe explain why the info cannot be fixed, instead of scrapping it for the less informational island template.

Note that I've reverted your reinsertion of the island template. The way it works is that you build a consensus for change. The current state is that the AC is the consensus version. Feel free to argue (politely) for a new one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that islands infoboxes have been designed for islands, while autonomous communities infoboxes are to be used in autonomous communities entries. Using it in Eivissa introduces errors (8 seats represent the island in the Spanish Parliament, which is not the case, they represent the whole Balearic Islands) and misunderstandings (for instance, it may lead to believe that Francesc Antich is the president of Ibiza, when he is the president of the whole Balearic Islands). --Carles Noguera (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but is there a reason that the info cannot be corrected? List the seats that Ibiza does have in the larger AC, and note the Mayor (even though Antich is the president of Ibiza - and Mallorca, Menorca and the other forty-some islands of the chain) As Ibiza is a part of an autonomous community, should it not use the same template that identifies it as part of one? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think there's no way we can save the template as it is so especifically designed for autonomous communities. There are more issues. It shows the area and the ranking of the territory in the list of automonous communities (notice that now it is written that Ibiza is the 17th, and it links to List_of_Spanish_autonomous_communities_by_area). The same happens with the population. --Carles Noguera (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, exactly my point - Arcayne introduced factual errors by ascribing figures and other info for the entire AC to Ibiza alone. He really should have self-reverted as soon as he discovered that Ibiza is not an autonomous community. Avb 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Let me think on that for a little while. I have some meetings. I'll address this in approx. two hours. Thanks for the thoughful, polite responses, Carles :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Though I had asked a couple of people about the substituting of the infobox before making the change, I spent some time during the past two hours looking for examples of island articles using non-island templates. I couldn't find any. It is apparent that the folk I consulted weren't aware of that, and so, it appears that using a different infobox template was the wrong change. Please feel free to change it to the island template, Carles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine! We have a new consensus. :) --Carles Noguera (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We already had one (with only the author of the disputed change defending it). The difference is that the consensus now appears to be unanimous. We do not need Arcayne's blessing before we can declare a consensus. Avb 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Golly, we found a polite solution, and you didn't end up blocked. Maybe grow up just a wee bit, okay? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)