Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina

Middletown Times Herald

Hello,

looks like a User:Ssilvers has made a number of changes to my references, including systematically re-naming Middletown Times Herald to Times Herald-Record. Could you explain please? --Dd1495 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The name of the newspaper in Middletown is the Times Herald-Record, and it has its own article here on Wikipedia. Just click on the blue link to see it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, now I'm not sure. The Middletown Times Herald might be one of the predecessors of the Times Herald-Record, but maybe not. Feel free to change it back, if you don't think the link identifies the correct publication. However, please correct your reference format to always include the name of the author (if available), the title of the article and the page number, like this: <ref>Name of Author. [https://www.newspapers.com/image/40201060 ''Title of Article"], ''Middletown Times Herald'', p. ___, 27 July 1933, accessed 8 January 2017</ref> Please write out all dates with the name of the month and the full year, like this: 8 January 2017. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

hello, User:Ssilvers. You might not be sure, but I am. Moreover, anyone can check for himself/herself by following the link I have inserted into the reference - for this very purpose. If one did not pay the newspapers.com subscription fee to see the entire page, there are other ways – e.g. using the search function available at their website – to see see at least part of the article.

Since without checking you distorted a correct reference, could you please go to every wrong change you made and revert it back to the original version? Please do not expect me to go into the tedious work of correcting your „corrections”. Otherwise I will simply revert the entire edit you made and invite you to introduce your corrections again – this time the correct corrections, I mean. Hope my request is pretty reasonable, isn’t it? --Dd1495 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow! I put it back the way you have it, but I believe that the paper is probably a precursor to Times Herald-Record, and if so, that would be a better link. I'm not sure why you've chosen to be unpleasant, but see WP:CONSENSUS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Margt T. Flynn

Hello again, User:Ssilvers. I have seen you changed the name of the first Cortina’s wife's mother from „Margt T. Flynn” to „Margaret T. Flynn”. I suppose that again – like it was in case of the Herald – you did not follow the link I have put so that everyone willing to might check at a single mouse-click. The version which appears in the original document quoted is „Margt T. Flynn”. I am not sure what „Margt” stands for: Margaret, Margot, Marguerite, Marguerete or anything else. Could I please ask on what basis you changed my original version to „Margaret”? If there is no evidence which corroborates your suggestion that her name was „Margaret”, could you please note that all claims in WP should be referenced and that WP does not allow own research, let alone guessing; in such case I will be grateful if you revert your „correction” to the original version. Many thanks, --Dd1495 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

there is more than a week gone and you have not corrected your arbitrary distortion of the original version. Have reverted back to "Margt" as in source. Please do not change it to any other version unless you can reference your claim. --Dd1495 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hartford-born Marion

Hello User:Ssilvers, it is me again. You have changed „Hartford-born Marion” to „Hartford, Connecticut-born Marion”. I am not a native English speaker so my sense of what sounds well is not something to be trusted, but ... are you sure that in terms of syntax your change is actually an improvement? Doesn’t „Hartford, Connecticut-born Marion” sound a bit clumsy? I realise your intention was probably to make sure this very Hartford does not get confused with other Hartfords, but the distinction was in place already as I have made an internal link to the correct Hartford, which clarified the whole thing anyway. My impression is that with your chage we are sacrificing syntax for pin-point accuracy. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. There is more than one Hartford in the US, but this one refers to Hartford, Connecticut. I thought it was clearer to bring the full location up into the readable portion. So, yes, I suggested sacrificing some elegance for clarity. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

which is better: „Hartford-born Marion” or „Hartford, Connecticut-born Marion”? Dd1495 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think this needs to be an issue. Living in New England I'm possibly biased but both concerns can easily be spanned by the use of: "...[[Hartford, Connecticut|Hartford]]-born Marion..." disambiguation is inherent in the link while preserving conciseness and readability. This also complies with WP:WIAN. In English, "Hartford" without further context nearly always refers to Hartford, CT. It is unlikely one of the many other Hartfords will be misunderstood as being the Hartford in question since the CT city has a population an order of magnitude larger than next-most-populous Hartford or even the total populations of all the other Hartfords together. There is, in other words, little risk of confusion.
• Piped link for clarification, but 'Hartford-born Marion' for readibility, though both are a bit 'dense', but i cannot think of clearer text. Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Summoned by bot. Easy fix with piped link to 'Hartford, Connecticut|Hartford', removing 'Hartford-born'. Meatsgains (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Just reword it. The "Foo-born" construction is awkward, archaic, and cutesy. Try "Marion, born in Hartford, Connecticut, ..." (or just Hartford, if it's already clear we're talking about events in Connecticut – do not assume that non-American readers know where Hartford is, especially since there's more than one place by this name, including much older ones in England).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

cleanup tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Speedily closing as a bogus RfC. WP:RFCs exist to garner site-wide attention to resolving a controversy, not to manufacture a pseudo-controversy about being offended that someone tagged "your" article. The issues raised have not been resolved, and the RfC opener's objections do not make sense. If 30+ citations are missing details then they are missing details. If that includes titles, that's important citation information. The time spent to launch this pseudo-RfC would have been better spent on (and might have been sufficient for) resolving the flagged problems. The English language usage in the article does need some work, so the {{Copyedit}} template does apply and is being used correctly per its documentation. It just maybe also needs a template for incomplete citations. Or better yet, just complete the citations. PS: As WP:CS1 suggests, use something like |author=<!--staff writer--> to indicate an unsigned article; this way no one thinks the data should be there but is missing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

The cleanup tag is incorrect for a number of reasons, namely (original template text bolded): „This article requires copy editing...” – no explanation why; more detailed info refers to footnotes and is treated below „...and many of its citations...” – not true, out of 117 footnotes in total some 30 might be missing few elements of a perfect reference - „...are incomplete, missing author...” – not true, in none of the newspaper sources referred there is an author signed under the newspaper piece referred - „...title...” – in few cases (probably 5) there is a title of the original newspaper piece missing, in other cases newpspaper news referred is bundled with other news under common standard column headings - „...and other information” – I do not know what this refers to.

Putting this tag is an example of blatant abuse of tagging practice. Minor flaws in references are flagged at the top of the entry, warning users that the article suffers from serious problems. The tag is also misplaced; if applied at all, it should be on top of the footnote section. Most likely the bot which placed the tag has been triggered on demand by the User:Ssilvers, who had already impaired the article by making „corrections” which in fact were damages and who refused to correct some of them.

When I started to contribute to WP some 3 years ago I did not bother about referencing, and all of my entries got tagged. I have re-written almost all of them, and now most are fully referenced. But what is the purpose of bothering, if fully referenced articles with minor shortcomings compared to the declared perfect format get the yellow-colored tag anyway, glaring there at the very top of the page and warning anyone reading that there is a serious problem? If tags are meant to discourage users from contributing and from improving their contributions, indeed this is the perfect way to go.

{{rfc|bio}} should the cleanup tag be in or out? Dd1495 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Hmm. Well, the page is fantastically written, but it does need some final touches to get close to being good quality, for example more complete reference details, a more complete lead to meet WP:LEAD, and headings more standardized in relation to other biographies, possibly with the use of subheadings. I suppose the cleanup marker could be turned into several warnings instead, or into something similar above individual sections. I myself don't think the cleanup marker is necessary for a page like this where it is fairly well-along, but at the same time, I respect that if another editor added it, they felt a valid need to do so. Yvarta (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Yvarta and others: I only reviewed a small part of the article carefully, because I am interested in only one aspect of the article. In that part, copy editing was needed, and the references were incomplete, while several contained rambling explanations, instead of clear references. There were also MOS problems. For example, hyphens were used where ndashes were needed, NY was used instead of "New York", and I corrected several typos that I noticed. I also think that the article is overwritten in places, containing sentences like this about tangential matters: "The Torres Díez de la Cortina relatives made their name developing the bull-breeding business and gained acknowledgement in the late 19th century." Here are the changes that I made, just on a brief look at the article. If another editor other than Dd1495 takes a look and feels that these problems do not affect the article generally, I am happy for the tag to be removed. The purpose of the tag is to attract a good copy-editor, and Dd1495 even states above that they are aware that references are missing information. I agree that the article could be polished up easily, and I am sorry that Dd1495 is so defensive about it. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Tag should Stay in I read through the article and it seemed to me completely fine. I tried to look at policy over at wikipedia:clean up, there seems to be no problem in adding this tag to well-written articles. The footnotes are a different matter, they look pretty messy. Publishers of the books are not noted, I expect them as part of a proper citation. One says "during own search please note that the name appeared in contemporary press in a variety of spelling versions" - I think this should be rephrased removing the mention of the wikipedia article author's own search. The use of FamilySearch seems to be a case of Original Research, it's definitely not a third party source. :/ I find it very strange to find citations like "Albuquerque Daily Citizen 07.05.98" In this case after looking at the scanned newspaper I was able to find the title "Don Carlos' Manifesto: Calls upon his followers in this country to join him at once" in this case I find it correct that the citation was wrong and needed "clean up", inclusion of headline, and author wherever possible.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 05:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Updated from "comment" to "The Tag should Stay in" as better descriptor of my judgement.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Tag is entirely permissible. Dd1495, forgive the bluntness, but I think you're being a bit thin-skinned here, and taking a simple editorial call far too personally. This is a well-written, well-formatted article, and you are to be commended on the general quality of work, but it's not a perfect article--and I tend to agree it probably isn't yet GA, if I were pressed to put a label on it. As others have pointed out, there are portions that could use some copy editing--particularly with regard to syntax and other minor grammatical errors. I also tend to agree with Ssilvers' judgement that the article is just ever-so-slightly "overwritten", as he puts it, and could use some very lite tweaking in that regard. In any event, I think you are greatly over-estimating just how big of a scarlet letter the tag represents; neither readers nor your fellow editors are going to miss the fact that the article is generally well written. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

cleanup tag 4 years later

Hello, it is now 4 years and the tag, supposed “to attract a good copy-editor”, has attracted no-one. Following such a long wait I have bravely decided to polish the article myself. Sure my linguistic skills are not sufficient to make it look like written by a native language speaker, but still hope the improvements are worth removal of the tag. Here go the details:

Lead

• I have added some more information to produce a “more complete lead”, as suggested in the discusison
• I did not want to pack too many details in the lead, as the person in question is not a world-famous personality who deserves detailed treatment, and is known due to one reason: his language-teaching innovations. As in Spain he is known for anothe reason (and his linguistic venture is largely unknown there) I have added also a sentence on his standing in the Spanish public discourse. Hope the lead looks better now

Headings

• have changed headings of particular sections to provide some more structured overview. I would love to get it more time-aligned, but I think it is better to structure the entire entry focusing on 3 topics (soldiering during the war, political representation in America, linguistic business) than trying to get it structured purely chronologically with all sorts of things mixed up

Non-encyclopedic tone

• as suggested, have removed clumsy phrasing (“during own research...”, “most likely”, “this is not entirely impossible”, “which rendered...”, “perhaps the first...”, “it seems...”, “certainly” etc)

Tangential matters

• have removed info on distant relatives, considered tangential, e.g. on bull-breaders
• have re-written some sentences so that they sound somewhat less pompous (“made their name as...”, “proved rather successful” etc )

Messy referencing

• following above comments have cut out references to FamilySearch
• have re-edited press references like the one about Albuquerque Daily Citizen (no author) to fit the WP standards
• this has not been mentioned in discusison, but I have changed all “07.04.89” and similar to “07.04.1898” etc.

if no objections, will remove the tag in few weeks. rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

hello everyone, month gone and no objections raised. Removing the tag. Thanks for earlier advice, --Dd1495 (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)rgds,