Talk:Antoni Arabí

Discussion about Balearic Islands in box

I already told about Palma, Majorca before. Even though is not wrong, is not 100% right too. The page here is called Palma, Majorca. Majorca (Mallorca, no difference), is a PROVINCE. The "de" suffix only proves what we use in Brazil, nothing more than posession. Palma BELONGS to the Province of Majorca, right? Okay.

Balearic Islands is a Spanish region, that's 100% true. But in the vast majority of these pages, the storyline or the intro was already saying that for us. If some people don't know where Artà is, probably they'll click in the wikilink to see it, know more about it. There's no big point to add the region in the box. Italy has regions, Brazil has regions, Argentina has regions, and the vast majority of the pages does not contain it in box.

And "how about actual users would perceive them"? Well, I think @Walter Görlitz:, an actual user, already gave you this answer, and I'm giving you nearly the same. And I'm the imprudent one? I'm here for FOUR YEARS, following ALL THE GUIDELINES, and you call me imprudent? I only standardized every pages you took it out of their (correct) standard, mate. It's not only my opinion, a LOT of other users think the same way. But, if you want that much to create a discussion, go to WT:FOOTY and start a thread about this. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 02:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and like yourself, User:Walter Görlitz refuses to engage in an individualized analysis when it comes to geographic matters. So with regard to Antoni Arabí i Serra, who is now a politician and member of the People's Party of the Balearic Islands, the infobox, which is supposed to provide info about the subject at a glance, you've taken out the crucial bit about where he's from-- the Balearic Islands. It's true that you could find out elsewhere he's from the Balearic Islands. Indeed it's true you could find his hometown elsewhere. Indeed you could find he's from Spain elsewhere. But the Balearic Islands relates to *who he is now.* Without engaging in this sort of individualized inquiry, you do not increase the usefulness of Wikipedia, you decrease in the name of "consistency." You might as well not have any infoboxes at all.RangerRichard (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote, MYS, and you didn't read what *you* wrote. Arabi i Serra *was* a footballer, and *now* he's a politician, so the infobox serves two purposes, or at least it *should be* serving two purposes. Likewise, you've pointed to a guideline, and guidelines can be followed when it makes sense to do so, and need not be followed when it does not make sense to do so. Indeed, as it indicates in the guideline itself, it is a suggested format. None of the Canadian, American or UK players' infoboxes follow this "suggested" format, as I'm sure you know. Perhaps Spanish footballers' infoboxes generally should, but in this case, where the biography is of a *former* footballer and a *current* political operative, that's a good reason not to follow the infobox for footballers, as he's more than a footballer. Again, reading the whole article, and considering the whole context, is necessary here as elsewhere-- otherwise, it would be a rule, not "suggested," and not merely "guidelines."RangerRichard (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about his time as a footballer, that's why we are using the Infobox FOOTBALL BIOGRAPHY. Football. Biography. It makes perfect sense to follow the guidelines when we are talking about a FOOTBALL person (at least he was). For politicians, the Template:Infobox officeholder exists. MYS77 ^✉ 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You say that, MYS, and that may indeed be the context within which the infobox was developed. However, people are complicated creatures, and Arabi i Serra has had a complicated life, both within and without the world of football. The infobox itself, at least as it appears to *users,* and as you've said, we should look at thinks from the point of view of *users,* appears to apply to his whole life (it reads merely "personal information"), not merely the time he was a footballer. An important part of his life as been spent as a Balearic politician. I'm sorry this creates an inconsistency for you and your friends. It remains encyclopedic in the context of this man's life, who has had a full life. It is useful in that context, in terms of the geographic data that should be available at a glance inside the infobox, not information that should require reading the entire article. I don't know about Brazil, but in the United States, sportspeople often go on to politics, and this is apparently the case in Spain as well. While the suggestion of "officeholder" is a great one, I have no data that he's actually won political office, so none of those would yet apply. To treat them only as sportspeople would be an obvious mistake in an encyclopedic context.RangerRichard (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My friend, I know nothing about his life. It appears "personal information", but the infobox was designed for footballers, not for politicians, right? In Brazil some people do go to politics, like the great Romário, and guess what? TWO INFOBOXES! If he's your friend, I don't know, but I'm trying to work in the right way here. As I pointed you, a Infobox for politicians exist here, and you should add it to the page, before or after the football Infobox. But, as he was a football person, we should respect the guidelines. I'll kindly ask you to do that, as Balearic Islands already appears at the very beginning of the storyline. The Officeholder infobox is also applied for any political reasons, as far as I know (not so sure of it). Thank you. MYS77 ^✉ 02:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Personal Information" is personal information, full stop. It does not appear to the world as anything other than that, even if you know it to be the "footballer box." If and when he becomes an "officerholder," let's agree to add that box.RangerRichard (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You does not seem to take any other options, while THREE users went against your edits. You wrote down there in the page that he is active in the People's party. If you go into the article, it says it is a political party! Thus, he is (not 100%, but he is) an "officeholer", with his "office" being an "activist" in the People's Party (Spain) (yes, a more specific link exists). If you don't want to add this infobox, don't do this. But please, I'll ask again, RESPECT THE GUIDELINE. MYS77 ^✉ 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to add a box, do so by all means. It seems as if the text mentions he's involved in politics twice now (?) without adding any substantive information, but I'm not engaging in additional edits in that regard. Your interpretation of the "guidelines" is that we must prevent "too much" information from overloading infoboxes. Okay, well, I don't so much see "Balearic Islands" or even "Palma de Mallorca" (the official name of the city, FYI; and no, Majorca is not a province as you suggest, it's merely the name of the island where it is located-- indeed my interest in geography has led me to the infoboxes here, and I must say improvements are possible as quite often non-official, superseded placenames from the Franco era often appear in the infoboxes, much to my surprise) being in that category, as far as respecting the guidelines go, at least in the context of this article, nor do I generally believe that "too much" is an encyclopedic category. If you however think adding a *new* infobox that will repeat for a *third time* information that appears in the text twice already is helpful, I am surely not going to stop you. But I must say this surely seems like "too much" to me, and rather distracting, and certainly not helpful to users, but that's just my opinion. So be my guest. I, however, do not think I have enough information to fill an infobox as an officeholder for him, because as you note, he's "not 100%," in the sense that he's, well, not an officeholder. But if you have other information, that's great. Otherwise, would it be asking too much for you to turn off your CAPS? RangerRichard (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, and this has nothing to do with nothing, but Spain doesn't have "regions," it has "autonomous communities," much in the same way Canada has provinces, the United States has states, and the UK is composed of four constituent "countries." As I'm sure you know, for footballers from those three nations, the "guidelines" are not followed, and states, provinces and countries (England, Wales, etc.) are routinely included. It may well be the case, as you argue, that including autonomous communities for Spanish footballers is "too much." My view is that is possibly the case, particularly for Barcelona, Madrid, Seville, etc. It's possible it might not be "too much" otherwise (in fact, it might be "just right," to use a Goldilocks metaphor), and thus we're in the land of how the guidelines are interpreted for places other than Spain. Here, as we've mentioned, we're beyond the "footballer" guidelines in any event and the infobox is already doing double duty. I'm very glad we've had these discussions because it has clarified for me what "respecting" the guidelines means in these and similar contexts. It does not mean following "rules" mechanically; indeed, that's clear from the way in which footballers from different countries (and to say nothing of Spaniards in other sports) are treated. That would be misusing the guidelines.RangerRichard (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• A U.S. state and a Canadian province (provinces and territories of Canada) are radically different things. A state is an independent body while a province assumes central control. American states are joined together in a union and, from what I understand, may leave at any time with a vote of some sort. A province separating requires the agreement of all provinces. Provinces do have powers over their own health care, education, social welfare and transportation between provinces. They don't have the right to tax individuals but rely on sales taxes and transfer payments for their income. As for the United Kingdom, it's the nation and they have countries as recognized by FIFA. That's not the case in Spain. I have no idea about Spain's makeup on a political level, but your clear misunderstanding of the basic differences between a state and a province would likely apply to that concept as well. --208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The four objects have one salient geo-political feature in common: They are second-order geopolitical units. Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States being different countries with different histories, many things about their second-order geopolitical units are dissimilar yet for some purposes they are similar. Most importantly, including the name of a province or state (or some other sort of sub-national unit) specifies where in a nation a particular town is, and often has the effect of differentiating two or more towns that have the same or similar names. It's that geographic function that's key here. No one is attempting to write a treatise on the constitutional histories of various Western democracies. As I have indicated elsewhere, I think it's odd, when it comes to footballers, that the infoboxes are arranged in such a way that folks are able to see at glance where Saskatoon or Seattle is, but if it's Santpedor in Spain, including a sub-national unit in an infobox is termed both "inconsistent" (though ... obviously not) and a form of untenable nationalism. It's none of those things. At worst, we get ... extra-clarity for North America and ... obscurity for the most obscure of Spanish towns. That's my working definition of inconsistent. YMMV. RangerRichard (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm pretty sure every American school child every school day recites that the country is indeed "one nation, indivisible." Oh, plus I think there was a war or something. A little skirmish. You might want to check on that. But if you'd like to talk some more about American federalism, let's keep it off this page as it's obviously not relevant. RangerRichard (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

MSY, by others, I presume you mean Walter and his anonymous alter-ego. At any rate, I would suggest you await the ongoing discussion on Wikiproject Footbal on this topic that is currently going on (though in my estimation, this is *beyond* football for the reasons we've discussed). Take a look there. Meantime, I'll revert your change so it's back to it's original form as that is taking place. Then we can take another look. Thanks so much! RangerRichard (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently BASING myself in the discussion on WT:FOOTY, my friend. Another user already said this was (and is) unnecessary, as more than one told you the same thing on Talk:Pep Guardiola. Will you create discussions until someone accepts your point? Please, read, understand, and accept the point of the majority. MYS77 ^✉ 10:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)