Template talk:Government of CataIonia

Template scope

I don't believe it is fortunante to expand the scope of this template to clash with that of others. True, there's no rule determining that one topic could not be covered throughout several templates, but I'm pretty sure that's only done when there's a real need for it. So far, I find it's rather uncommon to have all the legislative and executive powers in any given administration listed in a single template, mixing together ministries, officials, elections, constituencies, parliamentary groups and even buildings! And the intent seems for that to be done here just for the sake of bringing a lot of articles covering a variety of topics together under a single template (which I don't think is the course of action which is usually taken in Wikipedia). This is specially conflictive when this template is being added to articles where a specific template for that is already used (such as the constituency ones). A template usually tends to be topic-specific, not a mass storage of content. Check templates in Government of the United Kingdom or Parliament of the United Kingdom as an example. Impru20 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: The purpose of navigation templates is to allow easy navigation of related articles. If a reader was reading Barcelona (Parliament of Catalonia constituency) they might be interested in reading articles about other constituencies which is where Template:Autonomous community constituencies in Spain comes in. But the reader might also be interested articles about the politics/government of Catalonia which is where Template:Generalitat de Catalunya comes in.

There are numerous examples of navigational templates including articles on both legislative and executive branch. e.g.

The template did not bring "a lot of articles covering a variety of topics together under a single template" as you falsely claim. The purpose of my edits was to bring all Catalan regional politics articles into one template. Currently there are several small templates which covered Catalan regional politics. Once I had expanded this template I had hoped to redirect these to this template. e.g. Template:Government of Catalonia. That was before you intervened to push your own agenda.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued on you acknowledging that The purpose of my edits was to bring all Catalan regional politics articles into one template right after saying that The template did not bring "a lot of articles covering a variety of topics together under a single template" as you falsely claim. You could maybe explain the difference between these statements?

On your examples:

I think we should discard those making reference to "Politics of (place)" or similarly-named, as the scope of these does not cover just an institution but the location's politics as a whole (unlike the intended purpose for this one).
For the separation into the different branches of government, you'd see that I had indeed re-worked them into the template. No issue with this.
As for elections, it should be noted that just one out of six of the "government of "place" templates do show elections (and then, it only includes a few of them).
The use of Catalan symbology (flags, coat of arms, colours) was excessive. None of your examples (or Wikipedia templates in general) do use so much symbology, you would agree on that.
And then, none of your examples do show electoral constituencies.

You also cite a need for "allowing easy navigation of related articles", but you seemingly missed that a Politics of Catalonia template including most of these information already exists. Then you acknowledge that you intended for redirecting several small Catalan politic-templates into this, so I wonder which was the point of including most information into the current template.

Indeed, there's variety throughout Wikipedia, but surely nothing like what you proposed. It was indeed an amalgamation of various very loosely connected articles into one template, which is not what templates should be for. Impru20 (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: "A variety of topics" (your words) suggests that the topics aren't related or are loosely related (variety means diverse/unlike/unrelated), whereas I was trying to create a template of closely related articles. Turning to your specific points:

1. This is just a technicality which could be overcome by renaming this template Template:Government and politics of Catalonia. I had planned to do this before you intervened.

3. Yes but that does not mean we can't have elections in this template. There is no policy against it. Only Impru20 is against it (Impru20 isn't Wikipedia).

4. They may not use "so much symbology", they do use some e.g. Template:Politics of Australia; Template:Ontario politics; Template:Massachusetts government. You have removed ALL symbology.

5. Yes but that does not mean we can't have electoral constituencies in this template. There is no policy against it. Only Impru20 is against it.

Template:Politics of Catalonia contains some articles in this template but not all. It also serves a different purpose. In common with other politics side bars it contains the incumbents of various political offices. This template does not. In addition, as a side bar can compete for space with infoboxes and tables whereas horizontal navigation template like this avoids this conflict. There is a case for redirecting Template:Politics of Catalonia to this template.

You have strange view of what constitutes "loosely related". All of the contents of this template, before you interfered, were closely related.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Because they are indeed loosely related. You could otherwise explain how an electoral constituency is "closely related" to the Executive Council or to the Palau del Parlament de Catalunya. And how all of these should be brought together into a single template when not even your own examples or practice throughout Wikipedia does this. On the points:

1. Then at least you start acknowledging that, maybe, the initial scope of the template as you intended it was not the most appropiate. "Government and politics of Catalonia" would indeed be an improvement (though if we are going to include the "politics" word into the name, just "Politics of Catalonia" would do the job).

3. Then there should some purpose for elections being in the template. Most of your own examples (specially the government-topic templates) do not show elections. And while I'm not sure that there's no policy against it (some would surely find arguments for the application of WP:OFFTOPIC), I'm pretty sure there's no policy for it, either. Note that I'm not necessarily opposed to having elections in, but with the template's scope being the "Generalitat of Catalonia" (which is a rather specific topic), elections seem somewhat off.

4. Yeah, "some", with other templates using none at all. At least you acknowledge there was maybe too much symbology in your initial proposal of the template. And in this case there's a Wikipedia guideline on the use of icons and flags. However, the template's scope should be centered first before considered which symbology, if any, should it have.

5. Well yes, and we could also have Catalan literature here as well, but there's no valid reason for us going off-topic (and this is indeed a Wikipedia policy). Your own examples do not have these either, so it looks like both Wikipedia policy and practice are against it.

Of course I know; in fact Template:Politics of Catalonia has some added purposes, as part of a series of similarly-shaped navigation boxes (so, redirecting it here won't be the most appropiate). Yet I just meant to show you how easy was to bring down the argument that all of this "was needed"; if that was the argument, then minor works to that template would have been enough.

As a last reminder, note that you should back up your reasons with something else that "we should do this because Impru20 is not Wikipedia". True. I'm just voicing my disagreement with some of your proposals for the template (and these may have some reason behind it when you've, at the very least, slightly acknowledged that some of these could have a point). Yet you're not Wikipedia either, and so far you seem the only one in favour of this. Calling the kettle black when you yourself are a black pot is not the best course of action, so we should rather kept focused on actual content and stay cool, please. Impru20 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: I don't think we are going to agree on whether the topics are closely related or not. For me they are. From reading everything you've written I think most of your objections rise from the fact this template has "Generalitat de Catalunya" in the title. This can be overcome by renaming it Template:Government and politics of Catalonia as suggested.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: No, please don't try to re-interpret me to override my opinions. Constituencies have nothing to do with everything else, and if there's any doubt on it, your own examples do show that constituencies are not used in these kind of templates. Wikipedia has a policy on it. It's very simple, and this is not overriden by whatever you may think. "Government" would be implicit inside "politics", so renaming it like that would have little sense (and again, your own examples are a show of it). Please, stop trying to apply different criteria for each situation. Impru20 (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: How do constituencies have nothing to do with Catalan politics/government. Catalan regional politicians are elected from these constituencies. These politicians then go on to make up the Parliament and, usually, the Executive Council. They are not WP:OFFTOPIC.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, the examples of other templates are useful to you only when they prove you right, but in the (quite many) instances were they prove you wrong, you ignore them.

Constituencies are an electoral matter. A topic related to elections. They could be within an election-related template. They could maybe be within a Parliament of Catalonia-related template. But arguing that it should be here because it has a connection with elected politicians who in turn have a connection with the Parliament which in turn may have a connection with the Executive Council proves just how loosely related these topics are. There's no direct connection; you had to establish a three-phase bridge (amid conditionals) to jump from the "constituencies" topic to the "Executive Council" topic. It's WP:OFFTOPIC indeed. Impru20 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: I'll repeat myself, the fact the examples I gave don't include constituencies does not mean it's wrong to include them in this template. It's odd that you say that they should be excluded as they are an electoral matter. Some of the examples I gave, e.g. Template:Politics of Australia, include elections. If elections can be included why can't constituencies. The main reason that constituencies aren't included is that in most jurisdictions there are hundreds of constituencies and therefore it would be impractical to include them in government/politics templates. But in this case there are only four constituencies.

This template is about the government/politics of Catalonia. It is not about the Parliament of Catalonia. It is not about Executive Council of Catalonia. Are you arguing that elections and constituencies have nothing to do with government/politics?--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: The fact is that, so far, templates of this nature do not include constituencies. Or are you now denying that all of the examples you gave are not about the government/politics of these places? That in other places there are "hundreds" of constituencies is no justification: there are articles in Wikipedia grouping these constituencies in lists. These could very well be used in these templates, yet they aren't. I gave you an explanation of the looseness of constituencies as a topic in relation to this template. For now, you only argue that these should be included for the sake of it (basically, because there could be a loose connection of topics), but that would go against policy. Templates are not random collections of content, and there are strong arguments for constituencies to be left out from such a template. A different issue is whether you accept them or not. Impru20 (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: I'll repeat: the fact other templates don't include constituencies does not preclude them being included in this template. Electoral constituencies are not "loosely" connected to government/politics - the four constituencies are in Category:Parliament of Catalonia constituencies which is a grand child category of Category:Politics of Catalonia and Template:Autonomous community constituencies in Spain is categorised under Category:Spain politics and government templates.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: And I'll repeat myself again: there's no reason for them to be brought here. Yeah, they're loosely connected to this issue: proof of it is the fact that other templates don't include them. So, if there's no reason to include them, and practice elsewhere throughout Wikipedia is to not include them, why should they? You brought here several examples of other templates to make a point, yet they've proven you otherwise.

Also, you will surely understand templates are not the same thing as categories, do you? Yes, the constituencies are a child category of these because they've a loose connection to them. Enough of a connection to merit them being within such categories (so that they're not uncategorized articles, because you'll obviously understand that they must be categorized somewhere, right?), but not enough to merit them being within a template together with a miriad of articles that a single user finds like they should be brought together. And seeing how you do not bring any more arguments so as to why they should be brought together, I don't know why we keep this discussion ongoing. We're only going around in circles. Impru20 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: It seems being blocked twice hasn't changed your temperament. You have taken WP:OWNERSHIP all Spanish electoral constituencies articles and heaven have mercy of anyone who disagrees with you. There may be many editors who are impressed by your number of edits but those who have scratched beneath your surface have seen you for your true self: a stubborn bully who believes that he can do no wrong. You represent the worst of Wikipedia - long established editors who are a law unto themselves.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your personal appreciations on me are entirely unrelated to the issue at hand. The blocks you mention came not as an issue of "temperament", but as an issue of undue handlings of the 3RR rule on my part which I already acknowledged and apologized for. On your OWNERSHIP claim, I should remind you that 1) this is not how "ownership" is identified. One user consistently editing some articles and/or reverting some edits does not turn it into an OWNERSHIP issue; the editor in question must actually meet some requirements—i.e. those in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR—that show an specific and consistent ownership behaviour; and 2) this is not the way OWNERSHIP is addressed. WP:OWNERSHIP should be identified while preserving civility, and should not be used as a personal attack on others. Our arguments here have been throughly explained, so I'd encourage you not to move this into WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL territory. I'll be withdrawing from this discussion until (and if) other users offer their input here. Impru20 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translating Conseller as just Minister is inaccurate and misleading

About this reversion (Overwhelming majority of English language sources just say minister)

Please @Obi2canibe: provide that "overwhelming majority" of sources, other than the one you are using from the Catalan News Agency, which is a news agency owned by the Catalan government and no neutral.

Catalonia does not have "Ministers", it has Consellers. Translating it as just ministers is inaccurate and misleading. And while it is probably not the most appropriate term, most international sources call them "regional ministers". Let's see a brief example:

Or "regional councillors" [11]

In addition, you also reverted these other edits [12] [13][14] [15] claiming "English language sources say minister", but:

List of Ministers of Justice of Catalonia. There are only two sources in English, both are from the Catalan News Agency.
List of Ministers of Culture of Catalonia. No source in English.
List of Ministers of Economy and Finance of Catalonia Again, there are only two sources in English, both are from the Catalan News Agency.
List of Ministers of Education of Catalonia Again, there are only two sources in English, both are from the Catalan News Agency.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BallenaBlanca: It's very disappointing that you are spending so much of your time trying to undermine Catalan articles. Imagine how much what you could achieve if you spent this time making positive contributions.

Turing to the issue at hand. Whilst the articles in question may not provide sufficient sources at the moment, a quick Google search shows that overwhelming majority of English language sources use "minister", not "regional minister" or "counsellor":

Catalan minsiter - 35,000 results;
Catalan regional minister - 9,500 results; and
Catalan counsellor - 200 results.

The English language version of Catalonia's statute of autonomy refers to "minister", not "regional minister" or "counsellor".

The English language version of the Catalan government website refers to "minister", not "regional minister" or "counsellor".--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Please, remember WP:TPYES: Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page. This comment of yours, apart from off topic, is also violating WP:AGF: “It's very disappointing that you are spending so much of your time trying to undermine Catalan articles. Imagine how much what you could achieve if you spent this time making positive contributions.”

In the same way that I ask you to comply with WP:AGF, I will also assume it from you.

Let's make things clear: I am trying to adjust the contents of the pages correctly, in what I see is incorrect, inaccurate, confusing or even misleading, with the aim of building and improving our encyclopedia WP: HERE.

So let's leave these comments aside and let's focus on the topic.

"A quick Google search" does not meet verifiability criteria WP: RS, there it enters all kinds of non-verifiable sources. By the way, you are confusing filtering verifiable sources with cherry picking [16], comment that also violates WP:AGF.

In addition, you are not using the keywords correctly for the search. They do not have to appear together necessarily. A very little example: you are leaving out expressions like regional health minister “Catalan Foreign Affairs counsellor” etc.

Even if your search was correct (which is not), look for example at the content of the first entry in your search "Catalan minister": the regional digital policy and public administration chief” Or the fourth entry “A former Catalan regional government minister” (…) “former regional premier Carles Puigdemont” And this check should be done with all.

The translations of the Government of Catalonia are not a neutral source and are inaccurate. This is a minister (ministro) in Spain [17] and this is a consejero (conseller in Catalan) [18] that is what there is in Catalonia, belonging to its Consejería autonómica [19]

A "Catalan Minister" can also be a person who occupies or has held the position of Minister of the Government of Spain, that is, a person born in Catalonia and chosen to lead a Ministry, which has nothing to do with a Catalan conseller nor Catalan Consejería autonómica. An example: Josep Borrell is the current Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Pedro Sanchez's Government, and he is Catalan ...

We have to be precise and make things clear for all kinds of readers, especially the lay readers, who are the majority, so IMHO there is no doubt that regional minister is the correct term because just minister is broader, inaccurate and even misleading. And notice "my good faith", because I am accepting regional "minister" instead of councillor, which would be even more adjusted.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BallenaBlanca: You have been causing disruption to numerous Catalan articles and pushing your own WP:POV. This edit was bordering on vandalism. This edit where you removed Catalonia but left three other Spanish regions which used the same unverifibale source shows how anti-Catalan you are. Your latest game, trying to delegitimise Catalonia by changing minister to "regional minister", follows in this vein. You have lost the right to WP:AGF. I will continue to call you out. I make no apology for this.

The term "minister" isn't reserved for national governments. They are used by sub-national governments all over the world. No reader will be confused by describing members of Catalonia's government as "ministers" instead of "regional ministers" or "counsellors".

Google searches are routinely used in discussions on content issues and using them to make a point is legitimate. WP:COMMONNAME specifically states search engines may help determine the most frequently used name. There are limitations to search engines but they are better than cherry picking sources to push your own POV. I have used simple terms in order to maximise returns. Using precise terms reduces the number of sources (e.g. Catalan Foreign Affairs counsellor only returns nine results). My Google searches were right and you saying that they're not does not mean that they aren't.

You're assertion that Catalan government sources aren't neutral only shows how biased you are and that you are here to push your own WP:POV, not build and improve the encyclopedia as you falsely claim.

You make a fair point that "Catalan minister" may refer to ministers of Catalan origin who are ministers of other governments, such as the Spanish government. But the Google search I provided produces results for ministers of Catalonia. Nine of the first ten results in the Catalan minister search relate to Clara Ponsati who was a minister of Catalonia. The tenth relates to Jordi Puigneró, another minister of Catalonia.

WP:NCGAL states that "When writing articles on government bodies or offices with native titles not in English, an English translation should be favored, except when reliable sources in the English language commonly use the native title". The English translation of the Spanish constitution states that the Spanish government shall consist of a president, a vice-president and ministers. But here in Wikipedia we don't say that Pedro Sanchez is President of Spain, we say that he is Prime Minister of Spain because that is the term used most frequently by English language sources. I have shown with the Google results that the most frequently used term for members of Catalonia's government is "minister". I have also provided you with the English translations which use the term "minister".--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Please, again, remember WP:TPYES. And also notice WP:TPNO. You are casting aspersions and making personal attacks and assuming bad faith on my part openly. I left you a message in your talk page, this is no place to talk about it [20]. You have to focus on the content of the page and how to improve it.

You are not listening to what I have explained about your quick search in Google and our policy about WP:RS, please read it again.

Also, I do not understand how you can consider that adjusting the term correctly to regional ("regional minister" instead of "minister") is "delegitimizing" Catalonia (!?). The only explanation I find is that you consider that Catalonia is not a region (of Spain). That is a very important concept error on your part.

See the most valuable verifiable sources (European Commission, European Parliament, Assembly of European Regions) and how when referring to "ministers" of the regions of the European countries (Catalonia is not a country, is a region in Spain, which belongs to the European Union) make the distinction and call them "regional ministers". It is more adjusted and avoids interpretation errors. And a source from the Government of Spain, to put the counterpoint to the translations of the Generalitat of Catalonia per WP:NPOV:

European Commission [21] This is an example of the correct use of a search engine, that is, all results correspond to a verifiable source.
European Commission [22]
European Commission [23]
European Commission [24]
European Parliament [25]
European Commission [26]
European Commission [27]
Assembly of European Regions [28]
Spain Health system review [29]

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 04:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BallenaBlanca: I do understand WP:RS. It is you who is failing to understand how Wikipedia works. We don't pass judgement on whether something is right or wrong. We simply include what WP:RS say. That is why both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL, the two relevant policies, say that we should use the most common name used by WP:RS. I have shown the most common name but you are instead cherry picking sources to suit your own WP:POV.

Using "ministers" instead of "regional ministers" or "counsellors" does not mean Wikipedia is saying that Catalonia is sovereign state or supports its independence. It simply means that is the most common term used by WP:RS.

I'm not sure why you've provided all of the above links from the European Commission. They are irrelevant to this discussion. They are mostly talking about Italian ministers, not about Catalan ministers or even about Catalonia. BTW, here are some links from the EC which refer to "ministers", not "regional ministers", of Catalonia - (A, B, C, D).--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I provided show that the most accurate form is regional minister, no matter to which country the region belongs. What we have are verifiable sources that refer to minister or regional minister, the first ambiguous and imprecise, the second accurate and more adjusted, and your claim "Overwhelming majority of English language sources just say minister" is not true. By WP:IRS we have to choose the most accurate verifiable sources.

This page Ester Capella, created by you, is a clear example of ambiguity. It is not possible to understand, you are mixing positions of the Spanish Government with positions of the Government of the Generalitat de Catalunya and the result is that it is not known if he is minister or counseller (reginal minister).

This is an encyclopedia and we have to be precise. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BallenaBlanca: You are using sources that don't mention the subject to change the contents of the subject. This is classic WP:SYNTHESIS and as a result you are violating one of Wikipedia's core cotent policies.

You are right that we need to choose sources with a reputation for accuracy checking and if you check the Google search I provided you will see that includes a myriad of reputable sources including Al Jazeera, Associated Press, BBC News, Channel 4 News, Deutsche Welle, EFE, El Pais, The Guardian, The Independent, The Scotsman, Sky News and Daily Telegraph.

You keep saying that readers will be confused but you have not explained why they will be confused. Why would anyone think that Ester Capella was a minister in the Spanish government?--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTHESIS??? Please, see again:

You are mixing concepts contiuosly.

On Esther Capela, your wrote "serving until January 2016 when she became a member of the Congress of Deputies. She was appointed Minister of Justice in June 2018.":

Esther Capela
"when she became a member of the Congress of Deputies.	She was appointed Minister of Justice in June 2018."
--> The Congress of Deputies belongs to the government of Spain	--> The Minister of Justice is Dolores Delgado Ester Capela is a councilor (a regional minister)

I'm listening to you and looking for an agreement at a mid-point, I am admitting that they are called "ministers" instead of "counselors", although the latter would be a more appropriate transalation. They are named "counselors" in several sources ([40], [41], [42] ...) and in Wikipedia itself (Felip Puig, Dolors Bassa, Francesc Xavier Hernández Cardona ...). But i fwe refer to them as "minister", we must be precise to avoid ambiguities, we must specify that they are "regional ministers", so as not to confuse them with the "ministers", as is clearly happening in the case of Ester Capela.

Even if your claiming "Overwhelming majority of English language sources just say minister" was true, which you have not been able to demonstrate, is not the number that matters, but we must choose the most appropriate verifiable sources for the context Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Context matters and in an encyclopedia, it is clear that regional minister avoids ambiguities. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BallenaBlanca: The WP:SYNTHESIS was you trying to use sources which didn't mention Catalonia to justify your point. Do you deny that on 20 June don't relate to Catalonia?

The specific issue you identified with the lede in Ester Capella can easily be corrected by changing it to:

Ester Capella i Farré (born 3 April 1963) is a Catalan lawyer, politician and the current Minister of Justice of Catalonia. She was previously a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain and Senate of Spain.

Born in 1968 in La Seu d'Urgell, Capella studied law at the University of Barcelona before becoming a lawyer. She was a municipal councillor in Barcelona from 2007 and 2011 and was appointed to the Senate of Spain in January 2013, serving until January 2016 when she became a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. She was appointed Minister of Justice of Catalonia in June 2018.

We don't need to synthesise an artificial term.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's as if you say that using a definition of a dictionary is WP:SYNTHESIS.

In the European Commission sources I provided there are references to other autonomous communities of Spain, such as the government of Navarra [43]. It is enough, there are no differences, all the autonomous communities in Spain have the same status. See Political divisions of Spain and Autonomous communities of Spain. and the explanations in the source from the European Commission [44].

So far, you have not shown that it is an "artificial term" (!?) nor your claim that "Overwhelming majority of English language sources just say minister". What we are seeing is that minister, regional minister or counselor are employed in verifiable sources and that the most adjusted term to avoid ambiguities are regional minister or counselor.

The problem here is the concept error on which your arguments and edits are based: that calling them regional minister "delegitimises Catalonia" [45]: Your latest game, trying to delegitimise Catalonia by changing minister to "regional minister". This is a biased view, not admissible in Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BallenaBlanca: I'm afraid you are just repeating yourself. You have failed to understand the basics of how Wikipedia works. Using a source that doesn't mention the subject is WP:SYNTHESIS. Therefore, using a dictionary to justify your position is synthesis. We have to use WP:RS that specifically mention Catalan ministers. It doesn't matter that sources treat other Spanish regions differently. It is not our job to correct inconsistencies in sources.

Let's get back to basics. Do you understand that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are the rules that editors need to follow? Do you understand that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL are the relevant policies in this case?--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BallenaBlanca: @Obi2canibe: Just spotted this and saw there is a clear deadlock on the name to be used, so I am putting my two cents. WP:NCGAL provides the answer:

Use official names in article titles, unless an agency is almost always known by an acronym or different title.
When writing articles on government bodies or offices with native titles not in English, an English translation should be favored, except when reliable sources in the English language commonly use the native title.

The official name here would be "conseller / consellera de [name of department in native language here]". As it is a native name not in English, the English translation should be favoured, unless English-language sources use the native title most commonly. As this is not the case for "conseller", then the official translation should be used. Here, it would be Minister. Note that it is not uncommon for sub-national governments to dub their cabinet members as "ministers" (Bavaria does, for instance).

I also find it important to highlight that NCGAL does not defer to COMMONNAME, and the use of "minister" does not come as a result of the application of COMMONNAME here. Note how other naming conventions do start out by establishing that the preferred name is the one "most used in reliable English-language sources". NCGAL does this only when it comes to legislation, but not when it comes to government departments, agencies and officials (the only exception being situations where the native name (i.e. untranslated) is most commonly used in ERS) or elections and referendums. Impru20^talk 23:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: Thanks for the third opinion. @BallenaBlanca: - using "minister" does not mean that Wikipedia considers Catalonia to be a separate country or that it supports Catalan independence. We are just following established polices and guidelines without passing judgement. As both Impru20 and I have stated, many sub-national governments use "minister" without any complaints that they support secession in those areas. (e.g. Australian provinces e.g., Canadian provinces e.g., German states e.g., Indian states e.g, UK devolved governments e.g.).--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, Impru20, your explanations are very clear and convincing, so I agree. Thanks for your input. Thanks also to you Obi2canibe for your kind, polite and calm tone, focused on the content.

We can be satisfied, we are moving forward. :-)

Fixed this issue, there is another one related to this that need revision. Impru20, if I am not misinterpreting your explanations here Talk:President of the Generalitat of Catalonia#Requested move 27 June 2018, it seems necessary to modify several titles and names of templates, replacing "Catalonia" with "the Government of Catalonia", as for example:

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have some doubt with these, as "of the Government of Catalonia" does not seem to be a part of the official name of these departments unlike the President or the Vice President. Also note that most of these articles you link are lists, so they would actually abide under MOS:LIST and WP:NCLIST, the latter of which being a different naming convention than WP:NCGAL. The most notable difference with NCGAL is that titles for lists are "not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject" (which makes sense, considering that throughout history many of the department's names have changed). I see some issues with many of these as the names seem to be unnecessarily long for a list. Impru20^talk 09:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: Thank you very much for your explanations. I fully trust your criteria. I accept what you say. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BallenaBlanca: Thank you. We are indeed moving forward.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]