This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
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
Council composition is a standard political term. See for example: 1, 2, 3 from UK, 4 and 5 from Canada, 6 from UNESCO etc. Political composition or composition by party are perfectly fine alternatives also used in sources. Council status is way too vague (could mean is the council on recess among other things.) Valenciano (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, regarding Impru's argument that "note that similar wordings are used in multiple regional/general election articles" I'm not sure which ones, but we do find:
Let's see: you first proposed a change to "Composition" in this article. You subsequently proposed a change to "Party strength" in the 2023 election article. I then proposed a change to "Council status" in both, to which you replied by changing it to "Seats at dissolution" in this article and to "Number of seats held" in 2023. I reverted you, to which you have replied by again changing the section title, this time to "Council composition by party" ([1][2]). There is slightly any consistency between any of your five proposals. Further, every time your edits were contested you replied by making a new, different proposal for each article, which added to the confusion. And your reasonings have changed over time as well: firstly, the issue was that a city council "was not a parliament" to justify the removal of "parliamentary" (an argument which I accepted, and to which I replied with a compromise solution which you have basically ignored). Then, it was that you deemed "Council status" as too vague (despite you yourself having proposed much vaguer alternatives, such as "Composition" or "Party strength").
I'd love to have a constructive discussion on the issue, but I think you should first make your own mind up on what are you actually seeking here, because I'm entirely puzzled. To me and to outside viewers, it would seem as if you are merely seeking a change for the sake of it, rather than seeking for the most fitting proposal. What's the exact issue here? Impru20talk21:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the reference to other countries, please note that articles for each country have their own internal consistency and do not (nor should necessarily do) match each other's structure. Impru20talk21:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parliamentary status is wrong as is council status which could refer to anything: is the council active is it on recess etc. My suggested wordings were all attempts at compromise, but you threw them all out. Council composition is a perfectly fine term used in countless sources and is the one used most widely across Wikipedia in multiple articles created by multiple editors. I am also extremely puzzled at why you are resisting such a widely used term used in many sources and existing articles? Valenciano (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But wait, earlier you were arguing for consistency across articles, now you're saying we shouldn't have consistency? Composition and variants such as current composition are the most widely used term across Wikipedia. We even find it in Spanish articles such as Basque_Government#Current_composition. Anyway, this isn't a question of "structure", this is a question of having a wording widely understood instead of vague or incorrect ones like "parliamentary status" or "council status." Valenciano (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your wordings were chaotic from the very beginning even before I intervened, so those can hardly be "compromise" at anything. At first you did not have any issue with the word "status" (reflected by the fact that you did not edit it out from the main text in your initial edits), only seemingly finding it "problematic" once I first reverted you. Again, it's not clear at all to me what is the purpose of your change, since you have made five proposals under different arguments. Plus, none of your edits follow consistency when compared to other articles. None. Even when you resorted to "composition" in your latest edits, you did not follow the same structure as neither of the other countries' articles you linked, so the consistency argument is out of the question for you to use as a justification.
I have called for consistency within the same country. We cannot achieve consistency across all countries because each one uses a different structure and methods. Just as you just linked those articles that (you think) support your view, I could link dozens more either using different expressions for that section or just having none at all. Plus, we go back to point 1: you are not even proposing a wording that is consistent with none of the countries you have linked.
I am not strictly opposing "council composition" as section title, I see it as equally valid as "council status". The issue is that you only seem to be changing the section title just for the sake of changing it, without sticking to any predetermined wording, nor without actually thinking carefully the reasoning behind your edits or your own arguments for it. I could have easily compromised to "council composition" had you sticked to it all along, but since it's unclear whether your next edit will bring about another new, creative solution, I don't think we should make changes out of a whimp (note WP:BROKE). Impru20talk22:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing chaotic about the wordings, you're beginning to creep into personal attack territory here and I'd respectfully ask you to stay on the question of the wording. My first edit changed "parliamentary status" to "composition" and yes, that does follow consistency as shown above, since multiple articles use "composition" or close variants involving composition (current composition etc.) indeed it seems to be the most widely used term across Wikipedia, as well as being a term used in multiple reliable sources. So can you tell me again what your objection is now to changing to "council composition" ? And yes, it is broke, since council status has several meanings, few of which are commonly understood as the political composition. Valenciano (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Five wordings, mixed within each row of edits. It is not a personal attack to point out that your edits were unconsistent among themselves and that you have not stuck to your initial arguments, thus bringing chaos to the whole situation since you are not making it clear what is exactly your intent; it's a mere expression of facts, evidence of which has been linked earlier in this discussion (however, suggesting there are personal attacks without having none can be considered as a PA itself).
No, your first edits (one at 2019, and another one at 2023, before I intervened) were to "composition" and to "party strength". Your new proposals (after my first edits) were "Seats at dissolution" and "Number of seats held" (the word "composition" which you so strongly defend now was nowhere to be found in this second row of editing). You then re-added it in the third row of editing.
Then, you say "status" is vague. But it happens that "status" has six meanings, whereas "composition" has seventeen. As I said earlier, I see "composition" and "status" as equally valid, but your argument for "status" being broke because of it being "vague" does not sustain itself. It is actually a more precise word than "composition". Impru20talk22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Composition in this context has a very clear meaning, which is why it is used in multiple reliable sources and thus is the most commonly used term in our articles. Wikipedia goes on reliable sources and "status" is not a commonly used term at all for what we're speaking about. I've just ploughed through 7 pages of google without finding a single example which matches what you think it means. Furthermore, since you reverted bothmy first two additions of "composition" you'll excuse me if I had doubts on your desire to compromise on it and thus sought to find a compromise wording, which you also rejected for whatever reason. Now, I'll ask again, what is your objection to the term used by multiple reliable sources in this case? Valenciano (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've made my opinion about "composition" very clear, so I'll not repeat it again. The issue here is that every one of your edits and arguments seems aimed at counterprograming myself rather than seek any sort of "compromise". In the first edit of myself you link, I proposed a compromise solution after you made two unconsistent and rather puzzling edits (remember that your stated issue back then was the word "parliamentary". You did not make any issue about "status" until later). In my second edit, I basically stuck to the previous compromise solution, since I tend to be consistent with myself. My opinion has been the same all along. You made five proposals, with five different reasonings behind them, whose only common trait was making the change just for the sake of making the change, changing them every time I replied to you. You spoke about other articles, but none of your solutions stick to the wording used in any of those articles. You now speak about Google as well, in an apparent attempt of bringing yet another new, creative argument into the fray. Seriously, this is puzzling. Stick to one proposal with a proper justification if you really want a compromise or just let the issue go away, as this does not seem to be constructive. Impru20talk23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on "composition" is not one shared by multiple reliable sources and it is those that count for terminology. I am still waiting for an explanation of why you oppose a term used in WP:RS? The google point relates to that: I couldn't find a single example of a source using "council status" in the way you are using it. You even stated yourself that the section refers to the composition of the council.
I've already said that composition will be the best one, since it's the most widely used, but you seem to be blocking and reverting that for the sake of it (sorry if I'm wrong about that, but that's how it looks) which was why I tried to find alternatives. Therefore, my proposal is "council composition" in line with multiple other articles. Council status is too vague, not a commonly used term and therefore is WP:BROKE. I'm open to other suggested wordings if you find that unacceptable. Yes, it would be good to find a compromise which is clearer, thanks. Valenciano (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "opposing" it, so stop bringing that fallacy here. My opinion on "composition" is that I see it and "status" as equally acceptable (something I've stated multiple times already) and that I could have easily compromised on it had you actually shown it was your true intent from the beginning. I have said this already in this discussion. As of currently, the looks of this is that you seem to have stuck to the word "composition" to counterprogram myself, and that as soon as I accept it you will find something else to stop a compromise from being reached. This is why I'm actively asking for you to stick to one version and its justification, since it's non-sensical to keep arguing on ever changing arguments. Please, make your mind up.
PS. As a matter of fact, WP:BROKE is not meant to be used like that (I mean, when you say "is WP:BROKE", you are actually supporting that essay's premise, which calls for not fixing something which is not broke).
PS2. The Google search argument is really absurd and I cannot comprehend it. This is a section heading, not an article title. Section heading are not written according to "Google searches", and turning that into something of an undisputable argument is basically out of the question.
PS3. It's one o'clock in the morning in Spain. Are you so seriously concerned with such an absurd issue like one section wording to conduct such a massive Google searching + article searching + ever-changing arguments at this hour of the night? Please, go to sleep and we will retake this discussion tomorrow. Good night. Impru20talk23:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Impru, seriously, things like accusing me of "counterprogram"ming and "true intent" are getting into WP:ASPERSIONS and that's exactly what I meant earlier when I asked you to avoid steering into personal attack territory. "Composition" is a term used by multiple sources and across multiple existing articles to describe exactly what we're talking about here. When it comes to the question of what is the best terminology then WP:RS every time. You haven't disputed that and have even agreed that the section in question refers to the composition of the council (!)
Actually no, WP:BROKE says: "if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." In this case, clearer wording than "council status" (which could refer to a council being inactive, on recess etc) does improve the Wiki.
Now when I have said several times that my preferred wording is "composition" and told you exactly why, but simultaneously asked you if you have an objection to that to suggest an alternative wording to either "status" or "composition" it's unhelpful for you to refuse to do so. PS I'm neither on Spanish time zone nor working what you might call "regular hours", but good night until tomorrow. Valenciano (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
God, this is going on in circles.
I've already told you how you have changed your own arguments once I intervened and how you did not stick to the same version but rather kept changing them over and over again. You keep steering the discussion into attempting to depict this as some sort of personal attack on you while simultaneously keeping repeating that I oppose "composition", when I've told you three times in a row that I don't, and that my issue here is that I don't know whether if I agree to it you'd come up with a sixth or seventh version of the section heading and justify with other new, creative arguments. I'm just asking for guarantees that a compromise solution will really be a compromise solution and not just another excuse for changing the heading once again, seeing the precedent.
If you want a compromise, I can see "council composition" as a nice solution if that's the whole issue all along. I am really not going to discuss this beyond that nor repeat myself over and over again. Cheers. Impru20talk06:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a definitive yes, then yes, I'll proceed with the change (so easy to solve without needing to go around in circles like this... Cheers!) Impru20talk07:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
