|WikiProject Wikipedia||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Reference works|
Is Spanish wikipedia written in Mexican spanish or Spain style Spanish~??
- Mexican Spanish is only one variety of the Latin American Spanishes, and standard written Spanish prose doesn't seem to be particularly different in the Hispanophone world. Nevertheless, the question is interesting, information from the corresponding Spanish article:
Los artículos se nombran según el uso más común del español y, en su redacción, se tratan de evitar localismos para que cualquier hispanohablante pueda entenderlos sin dificultad. (I don't know Spanish perfectly, but an estimated rough translation would be:) The articles are named according to the usage most common in Spanish, and in editing, it's attempted to avoid "localisms" so that each Spanish speaker may understand them without difficulty.
As a digression, the Portuguese Wikipedia appears to follow local standards indiscriminately and varyingly depending on who happened to wrote the section: Portuguese articles can contain small variations of writing, as European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese have minor variations in vocabulary and usage. Articles can contain written characteristics of one or the other variant depending on who wrote the article.
- It seems to me they do it the same way that the English Wikipedia is done. Eran of Arcadia 16:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
A few excerpts that explain why the tag was put in place:
Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia
An article, whose name is the Dictators of Wikipedia, is too biased to be considered a serios reference. It's not fair to state that people are "not happy" if you don't include the reasons why the Spanish Wikipedia has adopted some policies which are more strict than other languages. Also, is there a published statistical study of how many people have left the Spanish wiki because of this? I'm sorry to tell you that the number of articles does not necessarily reflect the level of satisfaction with the Wikipedia (unless, as I said before, a study is made and published by a reputable source). Just my two cents. --Forgotten736 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is more neutral now. The "best" attempts for criticism on es.wp are things such Dictadores de Wikipedia... Neutrality of an article is it not the same that neutrality of their source, moreover, that link is clairly marked as an oppositor site. Bye. Lin linao 14:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Article has been semi-protected for two days due to Colbert-related vandalism. P.S. Jimbo was right, we do watch Colbert.--Jersey Devil 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Criticism section by Antur lacks logic
The criticism section by Antur is incoherent. What is the logic of saying that Spanish wikipedia bans bots for the creation of stubs when 40% of the articles are stubs? It seems that the policy has failed to achieve the aimed quality. Yet, having 40% of stub index is presented in this article as a success.--tequendamia 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is not incoherent, it is just incomplete. It fails to mention that in spite of the informal policy against the massive creation of stubs, many users are creating semi-automatically thousands of stubs of cities and towns via template substitution. ---- Fernando Estel · (Talk: here- commons- es) 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"Who will put END to Spanish administrators arbitrarity???" & "Is that O.K.or it's WP:COI?" sections removed
I am removing this thread and endorse the removal of the previous thread. They not directed towards making edits to the article on the Spanish Wikipedia. Talkpages should not contain extended discussion (even on-topic) discussing the merits of the article subject. This is not the place to discuss conduct issues on es.wiki - that should be done as part of the appropriate dispute resolution process on that wiki. Please restrict yourselves in future to discussing the content of the article and potential additions/removals/changes in its content. Protracted discussions about users' conduct on es.wiki will be removed. WjBscribe 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thaks. They're posting links to yet-to-be processed arbitration cases, as if there was already a final veredict. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 19:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Help deleting an article?
I came across a completely fabricated article - that seems to have existed since 2007. It's a girl who uses Brooke Hogan's discography and life as her own. She isn't even related to them and lives in Lima, Peru. It's just aggravating to me that I can't figure out how to delete it on there (it must be completely different than on here and uaing babelfish to translate the page doesn't help.)
As of yesterday, the Spanish Wiki has surpassed again the Portuguese Wiki in terms of number of articles. And, in one month time, we will get our 500,000th article, not just 400,000. --Schumi4ever (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
What sources say
I have seen that Ecemaml has made some changes stating in the edition that " Sources do not say that". I am willing to believe that he has not properly read the sources. Just in case allow me to be more explicit:
- Quote from El Periódico: "Manuel Arias Maldonado, profesor de Ciencias Políticas de la Universidad de Málaga, ha comparado cientos de entradas en las tres variantes de la enciclopedia hecha por y para internautas. Tal como él lo ve, no hay color. «España y Latinoamérica están subdesarrolladas cultural y tecnológicamente respecto a Alemania y el mundo anglosajón."
- This justifies "hundreds" instead of Ecemaml version "some".
- On the question of the difference of qualifying it as "cumbersome, imprecise" or "more cumbersome and imprecise", the second wording is confusing as can lead to the reader to believe that the study claims the German or the English of cumbersome and imprecise, which is not clear. (as a matter of fact on the German it says he has "una generalizada "reputación de rigor". And according to another quote of EL Periodico:
- "Y, por tanto, la Wikipedia en español es imprecisa y confusa porque los hispanohablantes son confusos e imprecisos."
The problem is mainly that the El Periódico's journalist has done its own interpretation of the original report.
When it comes to the number of analized articles, the report talks about El análisis es cualitativo antes que cuantitativo; se ha basado en el análisis detallado de series de páginas. If you count them, the mentioned articles are simply dozens of them. With regard to the conclusions, it's what is said (always comparing between wikipedias.):
|“||Si atendemos, precisamente, a la comparación entre distintas versiones de la enciclopedia, encontramos una mayor seriedad en la alemana, la máxima diversidad en la anglosajona y una menor fiabilidad en la española. Todo esto es matizable: ninguna versión es por completo fiable; todas son más o menos diversas; ninguna es sistemática. Es verdad, con todo, que las mejores páginas son anglosajonas o alemanas; y que la española recurre más que la alemana a la traducción –a menudo deficiente- de la anglosajona. Sorprende también la escasez de páginas que alberga la Wikipedia española (o hispana), por debajo incluso de la polaca. Se acaba de recordar también que la versión española tiende a ser más farragosa o imprecisa. Es posible reconocer en esta debilidad relativa de la Wikipedia española el déficit cultural característico de la sociedad –o sociedades- sobre la que se asienta.||”|
Spanish wikipedia or Wikipedia in Spanish
The term that is used in Spanish to describe the so called "Spanish wikipedia" is "Wikipedia en español". The reason is to make the difference between the adjective refering to a origin of Spain and that which tells the language it is in.
I think the right term would be then "Wikipedia in Spanish" since it is not a Spanish project but a project in Spanish. What you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0bi0 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)