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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries 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.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catalonia and Catalonia-related topics 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.CataloniaWikipedia:WikiProject CataloniaTemplate:WikiProject CataloniaCatalonia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Maybe, but as of now there's no hint that Spain does not control Catalonia (specially after peacefully taking over the Mossos d'Esquadra. The Catalan Republic has now no police force or means to enforce its authority). We shall see how this evolves, but as of now it must be assumed the election will be held as normal. Impru20 (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do the main pro-independence parties boycott or accept the elections? As they were not called by Puigdemont, but by Rajoy based on art. 155 of the Spanish constitution, accepting the elections (and those organising it) can be read as accepting the Spanish legal order continues to be effective in Catalonia, in other words accepting Catalonia is de facto (still) not independent from Spain.----Bancki (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I am confused. I recently added two columns to the polls table (see result here) indicating the aggregate votes in favor of pro-independence parties vs. pro-status-quo parties. IMHO this is what a lot of people are interested about when reading this article. My edit was immediately reverted by User:Impru20, arguing that "this is a manual aggregation of party polling data not given by sources". I agree, my edit was based on simple math. Why is that a problem, when it does not seem to be a problem to use math (and no source) for the "lead" column? Maybe we could have a stacked diagram instead? Cheers, --spitzl (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spitzl: Because what you did was WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Why doing such a math and not others? For instance, why not adding up all parties in favour of a referendum opposed to those against (thus adding Catalunya en Comú together with pro-independence parties)? Or why not adding anti-independence parties together (thus including Catalunya en Comú)? Or why not having pro-constitutional reform parties together (thus adding PSC and Catalunya en Comú separately of PP and Cs)? Of course, what you did was "simple math". But your choosing of your "simple math" as opposed to others is what constitutes OR. This is opinion polling for a regional election, not a referendum. Sources do not show aggregated results for parties based on their position, so the simpler solution is to do no math ourselves and leave readers to do whatever maths they want to make on their own with the available data. Impru20 (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx Impru20 for your quick reply. Lets see what other wikipedians think about this. In any case, if people agree on adding a graph, this is how it could look like. --spitzl (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: There are tons of sources that do the same math, see e.g. here or here. Therefore I think WP:SYNTH does not apply. Regarding WP:OR, if this also includes simple math, then this would also apply to the lead column as already stated above. --spitzl (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spitzl: The first source you bring shows data specifically on a 'Yes' or 'No' to independence question from the CEO (not political parties). The other is an aggregation done by Reuters, but not done by the pollster itself. Therefore, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR indeed apply: it's you choosing which math should prevail, not the pollsters. Again: why that math and not others? This is not a referendum, but a regional election, so such maths here are entirely out of question (either in charts or whatever). Impru20 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:SYTNH and WP:OR apply to the images on commons. If that were so half of the images on wikipedia would have to be removed.Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about the calculations, not the images. Yet, it's obvious that if the calculations are OR, you wouldn't add an image here of OR maths. Impru20 (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All, I don't edit/log-in to wikipedia so apologies for not using a usertag or whatnot. This page isn't very helpful without something summarising which of the parties are pro-independence, which are anti-independence and which are in favour of self-determination. Since this election will essentially be a referendum on those things, the page is not very useful. Surprised to see that presenting information that is easily available to those who know is considered to be against wikipedia's rules. Every party has a stated position and source. Each poll has a credible source. I'm sure other election pages for such single-issue events must similarly present data. (Guest) 10:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Finally, here is a source that shows the current polls AND explicitly categorizes Catalonian parties into "Separatisten" (separatists), "Nicht eindeutig festgelegt" (without a clear position), and "Unitaristen" (Unitarians). I believe, this should end this discussion, no? Best --spitzl (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, no. You intend to apply this for all polls, yet you can only provide a German source which don't even makes such a calculation aside from a brief mention. Again, the pollsters themselves (or the media which publish them) don't do this, so stop trying to justify adding this non-sense based in artificial calculations not provided by the opinion polls themselves. Impru20 (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Impru20, "Der Spiegel" is not a "weird source" as you call it in your page revision, it is one of Europe's largest weekly newspapers. You seem to have a very strong opinion on this matter. You even state on your profile page that you "support the restoration of the Spanish Republic". That is perfectly ok but unfortunately it also makes it difficult to find neutral common grounds. Would you be ok with us staying out of this issue and letting other wikipedians decide on this matter? --spitzl (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Der Spiegel is a German source which is not even close to being a client or comissioner to the opinion polls in question. That you wish to extract from it a justification to extrapolate your claim to aggregate party results for all opinion polls on such grounds would be very weak.
Der Spiegel does not show aggregate results for these parties as you try to paint it. In fact, it even shows a chart where these are expressly shown separately; the only stance where any form of bloc is shown is the chart's legend. Yet no calculation is made at all on the opinion polling data itself. Thus, your claim would be untrue.
As I already stated some time ago, and which is pretty obvious nonetheless (I think) is that this is a regional election, not a referendum. Trying to present opinion polling data as some kind or 'Yes' or 'No' answer to the independence issue (as you try to do on the issue) would be misleading. Specially seeing how even within the alleged blocs there are ideological differences (some pro-independence parties favour an unilateral independence, others have recently rejected it), which could allow for a lot of possible and different combinations. For example, within the pro-independence bloc, you could show all parties together (ERC+JxC+CUP); you could show non-unilateral independence parties together (ERC+JxC) with the CUP aside; and you could also show self-determination parties together (ERC+JxC+CUP+CeC). The same goes for pro-Spain unionism parties (Cs+PP? Cs+PSC+PP? Cs+PSC+CeC+PP?). You could even show combinations along the traditional left/right division (specially seeing how some media comment on various possible left-wing alliances involving ERC, CeC, CUP and even PSC). Btw, your image puts the PSC together with the "status quo" bloc, which would not be accurate. So, what would be the criteria behind the calculation? Which combination should we favour? Are those supported by sources? It doesn't seem so. Doing that ourselves would be WP:SYNTH, and even could potentially violate WP:NPOV.
Finally, the fact that you need to resort to a German source to try to support your claim shows how difficult it is to support it. Polling companies do not show aggregate results, why should we show them?
Btw, I'd like to reply specifically to your neutrality accusation, because it is frustrating to me that some people just end up commenting on the contributor to avoid commenting on content. That pro-Republic statement on my profile page is one I added back when I created my Wikipedia account at some point in 2011 or 2012. I was still naive and inexperienced back then, and I saw some users using some of these tags and I just ended up using them for the fun of it. As of currently, however, I care little about these; the only reason I don't remove them is because my user page would be empty. Yet I'm puzzled as to how you seem to use it to expend 90% of your comment to try to argue how it proves I'm seemingly not neutral on this issue (which you seemingly do to try to discredit my entire reasoning by discrediting me, instead of trying to discredit the actual reasoning). Just a note: there's one user called "Independència" which frequently edits Catalan independence-related articles, and his edits have not been disputed by anyone on a supposedly "unneutral" stance (nor do have I). If your only claim to try to discredit the allegation that this image of yours is OR is that I'm seemingly not neutral because there's a fun (and unrelated) tag in my userpage from which you do seemingly extract that I've a strong opinion on this particular issue, then little else can be said about this. Impru20 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on this issue, came to this page only to find out the likelihood of pro-independence/seperatist and anti-independence/seperatist parties winning the election. The rule being referenced above is being entirely mis-applied in my opinion. It isn't independent research to connect two known variables (in this case polling data and public positions on independence). To be honest, it reads like censorship - and bizarre censorship at that. Anyone actually from the region and voting will know a lot more than I about party positions. It won't matter a jot to the election whether wikipedia readers can establish the likelihood of pro-independence/seperatist parties winning the election, but it matters a lot for Wikipedia - its purpose and integrity. Grollum (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now seen two of the most recent polls (Metroscopia and NC Report, published right today) do indeed make such a calculation themselves (though they only refer to these sides as "pro-independence" (with ERC+JxCat+CUP) and "constitutionalists" (Cs+PSC+PP). They leave CatComú alone). If this is kept in further polls, I wouldn't be against adding such calculations ourselves to the table, though I'd rather show it directly in the table in some form, showing the actual data, rather than using an image. Impru20 (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment: Additional column(s) with pro-independence and pro-union parties would be useful and not in violation of WP:OR. It would be a matter of simple math to add the numbers, and not more math that subtracting second party from first party to obtain the lead, which is already being done with no complaints about WP:OR violation. Perhaps, instead of naming the columns "In favor of Process towards independence" and "In favor of Spanish unionism, status quo", they could be named something like "ERC+JuntsxCat+CUP" and "Cs+PSC+PP" or "government" and "opposition". 94.253.225.140 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes OR is the actual choosing of the math, not the math itself. Of course doing a simple math is not OR, but the choosing of one specific math over others on your own is what is OR. Why doing the "ERC+JuntsxCat+CUP" math and not, for example, the "ERC+PSC+CatComú" math, for instance, which is also mentioned in some sources? Why putting the PSC together with Cs and PP when the PSC has explicitly stated they would not align themselves with Cs and PP? Your proposed names are also misleading (i.e. ERC and the CUP favour independence, but they do not support it being achieved in the same way; the PSC favour constitutional reformism, so it is not in favour of "status quo"; the Catalan government has been dissolved (and the CUP was never within it), so referring to the "ERC+JxC+CUP" math as such is misleading; also misleading would be to name just "Cs+PSC+PP" as the "opposition" (the CUP and CatComú were in opposition, too). And so on). Impru20 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CDC is a non-active party. The only argument for its "non-dissolution" is that it still appears in the Party Register. However, your own link states that it has been succeeded by the PDeCAT and that CDC has no activity. There's no sense in showing a non-active party as a coalition member, specially when, as you yourself acknowledge, the PDeCAT just used CDC's name to be able to form a coalition with themselves (but it would be unaccurate to say that Junts per Catalunya is a coalition between PDeCAT and CDC, because they are both the same thing). Impru20 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your recent edits in Catalan regional election, 2017 make no sense. Aside from you changing entire paragraphs which you yourself dubbed as ok the last time you went on a mad editing spree on the article on 26 October 2017 (seeing from the page's history), you assess as "paragraph of google translate gobble" expressions which have been taken directly from the official English version of the law, which is sourced in the paragraph. It would seem you are (very) incorrect, indeed. It is not "standard English", yet the official translations of the laws do use these. Maybe it's you the one not abiding to correct English standards, but I may be very well wrong.
Then this. "Had" is not a plural tense (as you seemingly seem to imply by substituting it with "has" saying that it must be like that because "it's one"), but a past tense. Or resorting to present tense when past is more appropiate (Parliament is already dissolved).
This is very annoying, because all regional elections articles in Spain use the same structure, and you seem to be going in and randomly changing some for the sake of it, then re-change them little time later on the basis of "correcting English" (which you somehow did not dub as incorrect the previous time you edited these). Yet if this is your way of "correcting/improving English" (imposing a flawed and personal view of your own standards of what English should be, I would nicely commend you to stop "correcting English", for the sake of us all. I may implement some of the new changes to all election articles (as I have done recently), but it's impossible to do so if some people keep changing something to a bad writting just because they feel like it, then making dozens of edits thereafter to prevent a right away revert. That's very annoying, and even disruptive. Impru20 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now made some of the changes which would seem reasonable, substituting per 100 by percent and dependant to depending, which could be somewhat confusing (and in the first case, to abide to WP:PERCENT which, btw, allows "per cent" to be used nonetheless). I'll proceed to add these to all other articles. However, other changes look unreasonable, such as:
1. valid votes—which includes blank ballots—being appliedtothe valid poll, including blank ballots, being applied. This is good either way, so why the change? It modifies consistency with other articles for no reason (maybe one of personal taste, but nothing else).
2. not reaching the thresholdtonot reaching this threshold. The threshold is mentioned just before in the paragraph, so "the" and "this" clearly refer to the same thing here. Redundant change.
3. dependant on the district magnitudetodepending on the size of the Constituency and whether a lot of fringe parties run in that Constituency and whose votes are discarded at seat distribution. Several issues with this:
The "size of the Constituency" is the same than the "district magnitude". It's its definition, actually. Unnecessary change + rather weird use of link to make people believe it links to "constituency" (?? Why?) + wrong capitalising of words ("constituency" is not capitalised unless it is at the beginning of a sentence, which would be weird already).
and whether a lot of fringe parties run in that Constituency and whose votes are discarded at seat distribution. This is repetitive + POV + makes the sentence unnecessarily long + it is also untrue. Parties with 15% of the vote may be left out of those. It would be possible for parties with 20% in constituencies of 2-3 seats, too. Do you think a party with 15-20% of the vote in a given constituency (which could very well mean over 20% nationwide) is a "fringe party"? Maybe in your country, definitely not in Spain or any of its autonomous communities. Thus, POV and misleading to readers. Current wording is more precise, much simpler and (wow) shorter.
4. Seats are allocated to constituencies, corresponding totoSeats are allocated to Constituencies which correspond exactly to. Redundant (both mean the same) + unnecessarily longer + wrong capitalising.
5. In the event that a Parliament failed to elect a President within two months of a ballot (...). This just seems a random change which just seems untrue. Automatic dissolution is triggered right after two months have passed from the first ballot of an investiture. It does not happen at any point within two months from the ballot. Nor does it happen from any given ballot. It must be the first ballot. And it must happen only after this two month-deadline has been met. Just take the recent Spanish general election, 2016 as an example, if you wish.
Then some weird changes in tenses and wording which refer mostly to word placement in a sentence, rather than actual changes (yet this is seemingly dubbed as "bad English", when some of this has been directly taken from the (English versions of the) laws. I'll be glad to help you in rewriting these paragraphs in some way which can be preserved over time and used for all articles, but I can't see where is the English improvement in all of these recent and sudden changes (much to the contrary, actually). Impru20 (talk)
Impru20 added the above and soi disant Correct English Review section to my personal Talk page despite their being told to stay off my Talk page permanently.
Most of the above relies on a specious argument about 'other' Spanish articles being similar to this one.
I repeat again to Impru20 that they are NEVER to edit MY Talk page with long winded nonsense like the above. Stay away, that is Muy Permanente! Never post this sort of nonsense to any other Wikipedia editors talk page either, there are well recognised ways to post an editors opinion to an article talk page and to flag the article talk page addition to all relevant editors whose input may be required.
Wikimucker I was answering to your complains on your alleged issues on this article. If you find these detailed responses were "winded nonsense", then you are acknowledging your own complains were "winded nonsense" too, because that was just an explanation of everything you wanted to changed. You don't want to make these changes now, and now you want to make others, so we find that you've "new" complains on "correct English" (despite you having been proven wrong that your allegations were not "correct English") and now you keep changing the article just for the purpose of, seemingly, hampering other users' work. You may be bothered of receiving others' comments in your talk, but I'm surely likewise bothered of you making worthless edits just for the sake of disrupting articles I edit. We've reached the point were you've crossed the limit on good faith with me, with open insults in disqualifications and even possible intimidation from your side (this by preventing me from personally notifying you of personal issues among us in your talk so as to peacefully solve them. You don't want peace it seems). So, with all due respect, I demand you to respect WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL (instead of keeping insulting me and calling me and/or my comments "crap" and those sort of loving things. This is not the first time you do it), and to avoid engaging in further disruptive editing, as well as to LEAVE-ME-ALONE (I also think I warned you on that, yeah? It's very worrying that, looking at your recent contributions, most of your edits this year are focused on articles/talk pages I edit, usually at the time I edit them). Next time I should go directly to ANI instead of even caring to address you, seeing your openly insultive, disruptive and, at times, persecutory, behaviour on me. I think I've warned you sufficiently during these past months, and it's just enough for me. Impru20 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20 You HAD to be told to stay off my talk page before AND YET you persist in adding nonsense to it. This material will always be deleted forthwith. At all times YOU MUST use an article talk page if you have issues with edits made to THAT talk page.
Improving language and style to make an article more comprehensible is never disruptive behaviour as you allege.
Be mindful that ANY article relying to some extent upon an understanding the arcane lacunae of Spanish Electoral Law should be phrased in a manner that is understandable to an English language reader whose own electoral system is always likely to be different.
I am therefore asking Number 57, who is a member of the wikiproject elections and referendums group in the English language wiki, to review the changes I have made in the past 3 days and to comment freely on them in the round. I shall defer entirely to their wisdom and judgement on the matter. Wikimucker (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimucker I "had" to be told? Maybe I should inquiry you on the reason you forbid me from editing on your talk page on the first place. This means you effectively forbid be (for no reason) from trying to reach any peaceful arrangement with you without having to bring our discussions to any given article's talk page, which you frequently do. You seemingly turn everything involving me into a personal issue, usually resorting to insults and/or disqualifications. stalking other users is a violation of Wikipedia policies, and your editing activity is very worrying:
I absolutely agree that Improving language and style to make an article more comprehensible is never disruptive behaviour. The issue is that your editing is not "improving language and style". I explained you carefully where and why your edits were not improving language and style in this specific case (before you found a new host of changes which seemingly needed to be done): most just were random changes of words or expressions, which in some cases made the sentences unnecessarily longer and clumsy (even with wrong linking to other articles). I even offered you to work together towards obtaining a consensus version that could be maintained throughout all articles for the sake of consistency. Your reply? 1. You removed my comments from your talk to this one. 2. You did it not before you called me "crap" (I dunno if your "improving English style" involves in instructing me on how insults are spelled, as this is not the first time you do so).
Your edits are disruptive because: 1) They are just random changes of words which at times make articles clumsy to read (and, at other times, add untrue claims and/or POV statements); 2) The reason behind it, which according to you is "improving English style", has been disproven and is not substantiated by facts: you usually change correct words by other words which, at times, are correct, yet at others aren't; 3) You coincidentally happen to "correct English styles" at articles I edit. MOSTLY at articles I edit. And funniest of all, AT THE TIME I edit them (and mostly to revert or rewrite my edits). Just check your activity. The articles we've frequently clashed include: Catalan regional election, 2017, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis , Next Irish general election, Template:French legislative election, 2017, Catalan independence referendum, 2017 and Next Basque regional election. And these clashes constitute most of your edits in Wikipedia this year. You also frequently show yourself as arrogant, as seemingly, it's you the only one who is able to write in "correct English", and it's other people who must be dumb or something and doesn't know English. If I try to reach a peaceful solution, you talk me off from your talk page amid insults. This is frustrating, specially when your own edits, at many times, tend to worsen off actual English text in pages.
I don't know what to do. I absolutely welcome Number 57 input on this issue, but I don't know what else I should do so that you leave me alone and stop stalking me throughout Wikipedia. Regards. Impru20 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My edits do not "tend to worsen off actual English text" as you so eloquently said. Please stop cluttering this section and let Number 57 comment in their own time.
Well, you don't wish for me to reply you on your talk page, now you seemingly wish for me to shut up entirely and not to reply you here either. Will keep that in mind too. As for your English, your "improvements" have been sufficiently commented out (and I could comment even more of your "improvements" if you wished so, but yeah, let's wait for others to comment on this). Regards. Impru20 (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted earlier today, about me, and I quote your assertion that: You also frequently show yourself as arrogant, as seemingly, it's you the only one who is able to write in "correct English", and it's other people who must be dumb or something and doesn't know English
What worries me the most is that I've asserted several times how there's plenty of evidence of you stalking me throughout Wikipedia for the past year, and you're not even trying to refute it or, at the very least, back down in your behaviour. I don't know why you specifically called for Number 57 to come here—I'm not sure if he will even care about this whole issue in the first place, because this has been brought way off-topic—but if you want for him to come and discuss, then I suggest you to wait and stop cluttering this section (just quoting your own assertion; one that you don't seem intent on complying yourself). If you want some chatting with me, that's what users' talk pages could be for. What I can't get to realize is how you ban me from addressing you in your talk page, then you seemingly keep chasing me throughout Wikipedia for months; creating whole discussions elsewhere and bringing me in, because you seemingly don't feel like having it in your talk but you don't mind having it or even starting it yourself in, let's say, a regional election article's talk page; throwing insults at me (such as crap or long winded nonsense to refer to myself and my comments); then trying to bore me to death by keeping discussions ongoing even if there's nothing to be said; etc. I will hereby refrain from further discussing here unless it's not just the two of us in discussion. I'm done with you, and I'm tired of months after months of battling/clashing with you and of you "coincidentally happening" to make some random "correct English" edits (which are often found to be disruptive instead of constructive, as your edits in this article have been shown to be) in articles I edit, at times when I happen to edit them. You're hampering my own progress in Wikipedia and I'm feeling quite uncomfortable with this situation. I just want to have peace, but I note you: the next time you pursue me to an article to hamper my activity, I'll bring you to ANI. Impru20 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, but looks weird. There are many polls during the campaign, but few throughout the rest of the legislature. So, specially at the beginning (and specially considering that some polls show JxSí whereas others show ERC and CDC/PDeCAT separately) it's quite... weird. Impru20 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is intended. It's the only way to properly depict changes from the 2015 election, as ERC and PDeCAT (now JuntsxCat) did not comprise the entirety of JxSí (11 of their MPs were fully independent members from the civil society, who are not running again). % results from JxSí will be considered using the strength ratio of each party within JxSí in the 2015 election; that is, 22 for ERC (+ allies), 29 for CDC/PDeCAT/JxCat and 11 independents. Otherwise, we would have to show a –39.59 pp and –62 seats JxSí, as it has just disappeared now (but that would mean considering it an independent entity from ERC and JuntsxCat, which would be wrong). Impru20 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source for the "unofficial comparison" data used in the infobox and results table or was it calculated by Wikipedia authors? In the latter case, it would be WP:Original research and should not be used. If there is no verifiable data, we simply cannot state a swing value for each party – like it or not. --RJFF (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the parties did not exist at the time of the 2015 election would be even more WP:OR, because they did obviously contest it (it's just that they did it within JxSí). This sort of comparison is done for other countries' elections (like Italian general election, 1953 after the dissolution of the Popular Democratic Front (Italy)), so I'd say it'd abide to WP:MATH and would be legit. I agree that no solution is fully satisfying, but it's more accurate to depict a seat variation (both ERC and CDC did win seats at the 2015 election after all) than just saying that JxSí lost all 62 seats and that ERC and JxCat appeared out of nowhere. Impru20 (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to write that they didn't exist or emerged out of nowhere. We can simply note that no data is available for the swing of votes, because they were both part of JxSí in 2015. This would be definitely accurate. We would still have data for the seat changes, so readers would still get an impression of their gains. --RJFF (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not view my edits without prior consensus as an unfriendly act. It's just easier to illustrate my idea by implementing it in the article rather than describing it here on the talk page. It can still be undone if there should be strong opposition against this change. --RJFF (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The media and published reports usually compare ERC and JxCat to JxSí results. They do it in charts and the such, so graphically it could be achieved, but obviously when you have to write it down in a table you can't do that. Seats are easy to calculate because you can know who held which seat and where and from which party was he/she a member, and this can be sourced so no issue.
However, I agree that for vote swings this is problematic because JxSí was formed by more parties/entities/members, so I acknowledge you have a point. Vote % can't be easily divided between JxCat and ERC (though I think it's pretty obvious there has been some swings to these both from the CUP), and I think the current solution is one of the more mathematically respectfull, but accurately doubtful. I'm taking a look at this right now. Impru20 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RJFF: Well, yeah, I had actually something like this in mind, so it's fine. Will work it out how to depict it in the table now (I can just use some asterisk and a note or whatever). Impru20 (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still generally think that "conservative" is a more accurate way to describe the PP both in a Spanish and a Catalan context. Calling it "liberal conservative" isn't more accurate or specific, because it refers to only part of its ideological standpoint. I don't think you can really sum up the differences between the parties in a single word or phrase. Better to change the table to give a left-right position, a unionism-separatism position and a general ideological position, or any combination that gives a better impression of how the parties are distinguished. Of the three main Unionist parties, one is Conservative Unionist, one is Liberal Unionist, and one is Social Democratic Unionist. That's about all the information that needs to be conveyed in a small summary when the reader has the opportunity to click through. No need for added complication of "liberal conservative" and other contrived terms that simply serve to clarify the position of a party within the "conservative" school of thought. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal would make the table just too large, and that's not the idea neither. Indeed, the idea was for it to have just one ideology (as it's done for most other countries). A separate table within the "Campaign" section has been added to cover the specific independence issue in a more unPOV-ish way, like done for 2015. Impru20 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bancki. Because Thursday is the sooner the law allowed the election to take place once Article 155 was enforced. Electoral Law states that 54 days should be the gap between the dissolution of the chamber and the voting. 28 October was the date the royal decree calling for a election was published. Do the math. I guess it could be mentioned in the entry.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are normally maximum six parties in the election infoboxes. Why include the seventh party in this election and not in other elections? Togiad (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The seventh party (once the election has been held; I understand its usefulness when results are still to come) adds a lot of blank space to the infobox and makes it unnecessarily large. I would've agreed to have the PP in should it have won the right to form a parliamentary group of their own, but things as they are, they fell below 5 seats so they'll go to the Mixed Group (it's also very unfrequent for a seventh party to both enter and win the right to a parliamentary group. Not just in Catalonia, but in most regions in Spain. So that's why I use a maximum of six for consistency and aesthetics. It's also very rare for other countries to use more than six slots once the election has been held). Impru20 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox should not be limited to 6 parties arbitrarily just for aesthetic reasons. However the argument that PP's representation is too small to form a parliamentary group is a valid one and a good criterion for inclusion/exclusion. --RJFF (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding my personal preference: I personally think that all parties that win more than 1 seat should be represented, as especially in proportional electoral systems they can have an important impact and are an important part of the results. Maybe not at a national level, but for regional elections where the number of seats is small, 2 out of 135 seats is still quite important. Obviously not the most important thing in the world, but here are some examples of 7+ parties being in European election infoboxes:
So it's not that uncommon or rare at all. In fact in proportional electoral systems it's very, very common. I agree that the infobox should not be limited to 6 parties arbitrarily. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: we need a consistent rule on infobox inclusion, not arbitrary inclusion based on aesthetics. Should it be parties that can form a group? If so, CUP shouldn't be in the 2017 one. Should it be all parties? Those with more than 1 seat? My personal preference would be a) parties with more than 1 seat at a regional level, b) parties that can form a group at the national level. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would favour to use the Template:Infobox legislative election (that is presently used in election articles of Israel and the Netherlands) in all countries with massively multiparty systems (including your examples of Denmark, Switzerland, Greece since 2012, Ireland since 2016). Aesthetics (and simplicity/clarity) may indeed be an argument, not for an arbitrary cut at 6 parties, but for a different design altogether. Template:Infobox election was originally designed for US elections which usually feature just two major parties/candidates. It is simply inapt for some other countries' systems. --RJFF (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with your proposal is that you can't add all parties as possible, because if i.e. more than nine parties won seats, you would only be able to have nine.
Six is not arbitrary. First, it helps harmonizing the whole article, preventing that the infobox is so large that it unduly conflicts with tables in other sections (and this is not that rare). Yeah, you could say we have the {{clear}} template for that, but it ends up showing a lot of blank space anyway, which is what it's intended to be prevented. Obviously, you can only apply six when more than six parties do win seats, and this is not that common.
Then, your own examples enter in the category of what I said were "It's also very rare for other countries to use more than six slots once the election has been held". Irish elections before 2011 none use more than six slots (despite being occasions when more than six parties won seats. It's actually 2011 and 2016 which are unconsistent with the others, for some reason). The same applies to Danish elections before 2001 and French elections before 2002.
So, you say six is arbitrary? Because I see it as a perfectly consistent rule (having an actual purpose and reasoning behind it) when compared to the way in which this is worked out for other countries' elections. That is what would be truly arbitrary. You may like this or not, but it's not an arbitrary choice.
Besides, I'm absolutely against the use of Template:Infobox legislative election as RJFF proposes. It's pretty much painfully ugly and prevents much data from being shown to the reader (you would end up mutilating the whole infobox just for the sake of trying to include more than six parties. Absolutely not worth the effort). Remind that infobox are summaries. There's no rule or requirement establishing that every party needs to be shown there, not even every party winning seats. That's what the actual Results section is for. Infobox legislative election was originally designed for Israeli elections and its use elsewhere has been frequently the issue of discussion and controversy (at many times, its use ended up being brought down; most notably, in United Kingdom general election, 2015 and United Kingdom general election, 2017). Impru20 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is arbitrary, because it is based on the design of a template that some Wikipedia user made; this limit has no base in the political system of any country, in the practice of political scientists or news media, or any other reason in real life. If someone had designed a different infobox template, the limit could just as well be at 4, 5, or 8 parties. Moreover I do not agree that the Template:Infobox legislative election is "painfully ugly" (which is a totally subjective judgement), on the other hand it fits the realities of multiparty systems without a representation threshold or a conventional differentiation between major and minor parties. In the case of this specific election, we have a good criterion for inclusion/exclusion: the number of seats needed to form a parliamentary group, which is based on an actual organic law and not just the idiosyncracy of some Wikipedia-internal template design. --RJFF (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for some countries that six parties win seats may be very common, and in some others could very rare. So yeah, saying it's arbitrary because "this limit has no base in the political system of any country", then well, every country has its own political system. In regional elections in Spain it's quite rare to have more than six parties winning seats in any given election.
No, the Template:Infobox legislative election just mutilates the infobox, depriving readers from nearly all of the information that Template:Infobox election provides. It does not show votes won by each party, does not show vote swings or party leaders of anything (and this is pretty much basic information). Anyway, I'm willing to add a seventh party to the infobox, specially seeing that there's many arguments for considering the PP as a relevant political actor.
However, when you say that we have a good criterion for inclusion/exclusion: the number of seats needed to form a parliamentary group, what do you mean? In Catalonia this is regulated in the internal regulations for the Parliament, and nowhere in Spain is this regulated under an Organic Law. However, if you do say this, do you mean that parties not being able to form a parliamentary group should be left out? This would mean having an additional possibility, which would be to left the CUP out. Impru20 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well we definitely agree on that, Impru20 - I think the Template:Infobox legislative election is uninformative and ugly and would prefer the 6-party current infobox to that. As I've said, not the most important thing in the world, but it seemed like something worth discussing.
You certainly make fair points and they've given me pause for thought. There doesn't seem to be an easy solution and the 6-party infobox seems a reasonable compromise between 'all parties' and 'criterion for inclusion/exclusion'. I think we should allow for some leeway - e.g. if the 7th-placed party wins a solid no. of seats (e.g. 10) and the 6th-placed party is only a little bit bigger (e.g. 1 seat). This doesn't apply to this article though so I'm happy to withdraw my desire for change. Kindest regards, FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If PP is not being included because it failed to win enough seats to form a Parliamentary group then I suggest you take out CUP too. It will also be a mixed group so it's not remotely significant in its own right. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Independance parties down 2 seats but shown as up 3 seats in infobox
The Guardian correctly says the Pro-Independence parties, despite retaining their overall majority in Parliament, are down 2 seats (from 62+10=72 to 34+32+4=70) as well as again failing to win an outright majority of the popular vote, with 47.7% when 99% of the votes were counted (this seems now to be about 47.5%, down about 0.4% from about 47.9%, though there may be some rounding errors involved). Meanwhile our infobox gives the impression they are up 3 seats (+3 +6 -6 = +3). So I think we need a clarifying footnote about this. I would perhaps eventually try to put this in myself, except that I don't currently understand how we get from -2 to +3. Can somebody please explain? Tlhslobus (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are already enough footnotes explaining this and the actual results in the Results table. They come down 2 seats, but there are an additional 5 seats corresponding to JxSí independents which were not running again, and which are not shown in the infobox because they did not run. Infobox shows parties, no blocs, so results shown correspond to variation between parties, as obvious. Impru20 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I currently see no such explanatory footnotes anywhere. The -2 to +3 result is completely incomprehensible to me, and I suspect to most of our non-Spanish readers - the only reason I currently have any idea what is actually going on is because I read The Guardian, not this Wikipedia article. On that basis I have currently opposed posting this article at ITN for lack of Quality, while Supporting posting it on Notability when the quality issues are cleared up. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, parties. Infobox does not show blocs nor candidates/parties which were not running for election; the difference you point out being the result of five independent JxSí candidates not running for re-election. Such an obvious thing needs to have a footnote of its own? :D Impru20 (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as far as I'm concerned there is nothing obvious about it. However per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I will be taking no further part in this discussion here (as distinct from the discussion at ITN), nor will I be attempting to edit this article, as I have now remembered my pointless unpleasant experience of a previous unsuccessful attempt at what I saw as improving a Catalonia article.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be clarified by giving last election N/A for both ERC and JxC and then running their seat change against "seats before". That would clarify that they didn't win those seats in their own right at the last election, but they have gained relative to their own party group strengths before the election Maswimelleu (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The name is incorrect. There is not a "regional election", but "autonomic (or autonomous) election"
Catalonia is officialy recognized by Spain as "Autonomous Community", not a "region". So, the official name of the article has to be changed to Autonomic election (or perhaps Autonomous Election), the name it has been used historically in Spain when there is an election in a Autonomous Community
And many more examples on a simple Google search.
(Of course if you want, you can keep up the actual name "regional" as a link, for "clarifying purposes", but the actual name is INCORRECT).
The only Autonomous Community with "region" in its official name, is Murcia. No other. So it is the only case it can be logic to name its elections as a "regional election".
In fact, there are some other kinds of political and administrative divisions in Spain which can celebrate elections and some of them can be equally treated by the general expression "regional election", not even normally used in Spain media or society to be used as a correct translation of the term "Autonómica". Examples of that are the three provincial (below autonomous level) "Juntas Generales" elections in Basque Country. Or as in the case of the two spanish archipelagos, "Cosells Insulars" in Balearic Islands for every one of its greater 4 islands, and of course, the "Cabildos Insulares" in Canary Islands, for every one of the 7 greater canary islands too. These lasts 2 examples are, in fact, below even the provintial level (every spanish island ARE NOT an autonommous community or a province by their own, but can be defined as a "region", like the provinces, or even the more little "comarcas" existing along all Spain).
The term "region" in this article is too much general and officially inacurate to be in the "Official NAME" of the article.
"Regional election" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English reliable sources. So, while we obviously know that these are called "autonomous communities" in Spain and not "regions" (however, you should consider that "region" in English is a wider term than it could be in Spanish), the fact that there is not a proper translation for elecciones autonómicas (autonomic? autonomous?) and that sources just refer to these as "regional", means that "regional" will be the name most typically used. Check these sources, for example:
Also, aside from COMMONNAME, "regional election" would meet WP:NATURAL in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (being a title readers of the English Wikipedia are much more likely to search for than "autonomic" or "autonomous"), WP:PRECISE ("regional election" is precise enough to unambiguously identify the article's subject. No need for the "autonomous" or "autonomic" for readers to identify it), WP:CONCISE (alternative, longer names could be possible (such as "Catalan Parliament election" or "Parliament of Catalonia election"), but "Catalan regional election" is as short as necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects) and WP:CONSISTENCY (other articles covering these elections in other countries tipically use "regional election" to refer to sub-national elections comprising region-wide administrative divisions, unless another name is specifically preferred under COMMONNAME). Impru20 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The name is just incorrect. The use of "regional" in the anglosphere media for this elections can be understood by short historic existence of the autonomous communities of Spain. I repeat, like I said, a simple link page can solve problems for the people not well-informed about the name used by spanish State, but the name "officially" used here as "THE ARTICLE name" is simply incorrect and so inaccurate in any way. I agree however, in the propose of the use of more correct and common names in other wikipedias, to refer the catalan elections as the "Catalan Parliament election" or "Parliament of Catalonia election", much more correct and accurate than the actual used formula. Edvard (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The name is accurate as per COMMONNAME, PRECISE and WP:NC-GAL. The current formula of "Catalan regional election" is the one nearly unanimously preferred by English reliable sources (104,000 results in Google, 361 in Google Books or 1,580 in Google News, whereas for "Parliament of Catalonia election" it's just 655, 2 and 0, respectively). Google Trends comparisons also show that "Catalan regional election" is the term people tend to search for when looking for this topic. Even in Spain, the most common name would be elecciones autonómicas de Cataluña and not elecciones al Parlamento de Cataluña (though I don't deny that naming conventions for articles in other language-wikis may be different, but that is not our issue, as that would fall under a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument which wouldn't be valid here). Also, "Parliament of Catalonia election" would be longer than needed (given a shorter common name being available) to define the article's topical scope, so it would fail to meet WP:CONCISE.
It looks like some people just forgot that this is the English wikipedia. We must use English reliable sources for reference when naming articles, and it can't be said that The use of "regional" in the anglosphere media for this elections can be understood by short historic existence of the autonomous communities of Spain. This is an anglophone wikipedia project, so if that's what reliable sources in the anglosphere media use, we must follow suit. Impru20 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will be very brief: YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT, but, the official name is NOT "regional election". I think you are moved by political reasons, so I don't want to discuss with you: any thing what you are talking about has been responded before, you can read it or not. The opinion has been posted, and it is based on the OFFICIAL name of Catalonia by Spanish State, NOT BY ENGLISH MEDIA. There are pages used to redirect, when people doesn't know THE EXACT name of the article, and there are articles with VERY LOOOOONG names, like this [1], thanks. Edvard (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but, the official name is NOT "regional election" Yes, it is under English reliable sources, and they've been clearly presented to you. I'd prefer to use something resembling "autonomic" or "autonomous", but these are not used in English sources and so they would fail to meet COMMONNAME. "regional election" is the closest to it.
I'd request you to comply with WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. I've not accused you of being politically motivated or anything else and I've provided you with everything, ranging from sources to actual policy-based arguments, that back the use of "regional election". If you see yourself unable to counter such evidence, I suggest you to just back down from the discussion. But please, don't engage in uncivil behaviour, and while you may shout if you wish, that won't help your case either. This is the English wikipedia, not the Catalan or Spanish wikipedia. We here don't (and shouldn't) care how the election is named in other wikis, because this wiki has its own set of rules and guidelines. If you can provide that another, different name is more widely used in English sources than "Catalan regional election", then by all means provide those. Your open rejection of "English media" indeed show that you're not familiar with the English wikipedia's policy on sources and reliable sources, so I'll suggest you to get familiar with those before ignoring these right away and making these kind of accusations. Thank you.
Note: Also, don't pretend to justify a long name just because an entirely unrelated article has a long name. WP:CONCISE does not prevent articles from having "long names", but from having names "longer than necessary" (and still, this wouldn't counter the fact that "regional election" supersedes "Parliament of Catalonia election" by far as a common name, so...).
I repeat: DO WHAT YOU WANT. Even if it is not moved by the principles of Wikipedia: be an independent source of information in the most accurate way. No interest in continue a washed up discussion, and much less to derive it to a personal discussion. The arguments were exposed, nothing more, bye. Edvard (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which parties wishes a free Catalonia ? How many seats do they have together now, and how many seats represent parties preferring to stay within Spain ? This isn't easy to find out, without any real knowledge of the participating parties. Also if a such majority exists - will there be another referendum or what ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the tables and graphs are either unreferenced or their sources are unclear. This needs to be fixed given that this article is currently being promoted on the main page under ITN and solid referencing is one of the requirements for the main page. At the moment I am strongly inclined to pull the ITN blurb until this issue is corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I will hold off for an hour or two to give editors a chance to fix this. But if the referencing is not improved fairly soon I will reluctantly pull this from the main page until it is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: - please note that my efforts at sourcing by adding suitable references to the tables in question were reverted without adequate justification by User:Impru20. I have reversed this decision, but cannot intervene further without triggering an edit war. Just notifying you of the situation. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stormy clouds: The tables are sourced. You even re-used one of the sources by adding a name to the reference so you could re-use it: how can you say it wasn't sourced? You're only adding random sources in random places throughout the articles which provide absolutely no context or information on what you seemingly wish to be sourced. What you're doing is WP:REFBOMB, and it kills the quality of the page. Results tables are pretty much sourced, so saying they aren't is absolutely non-sense. The link for the results is given where it says "Sources" in the table (this one: https://resultats.parlament2017.cat/09AU/DAU09999CM.htm I dunno how it's possible you can't notice it when it says "Sources" very clearly... votes, seats, percentages... everything is taken from there, so yeah, it's sourced), links are provided to provincial results disglosed in their own articles which are, in turn, sourced themselves... how can this be not sourced? Please illustrate me. Impru20 (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source that I used, with the exception of the re-used one (I had intended to delete its original listing), detail the results of the election in a comprehensive manner, providing the necessary sourcing for the tables. They are simply not random sources, and to claim that they are is preposterous. Moreover, simply stating that a section is sourced when a consensus has been formed to attest to the fact that it has not is not acceptable procedure. I am not willing to engage in edit warring, and so will not edit the article again to address this. However, claiming that appropriate sourcing is detrimental to the article is unfair, especially when the position of the article at ITN is at stakes. Providing the sources, as requested by admins overseeing the article is not refbombing - it is solid editing within the confines of consensus. Thus, allow the record to show that I formally disagree with the reversion. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't see where the issue was placed at the specific "Results" tables. What Ad Orientem said was that "Most of the tables and graphs are either unreferenced or their sources are unclear", but he did not specify which ones and why/where/how are they wrong. This is just as useful and descriptive as saying "well guys there's something wrong here". This is a 160 kB-worth article. Please, specify where the issue is. I could understand that the tables in the "Parties and candidates" or the "Leaders' debates" or the "Stance on independence issues" are unsourced. Definitely not the "Results" tables. And if someone says these are unsourced, then well, I invit them to check those again, because I think that only by adding a neon sign could these be more obvious.
Secondly: actually your sources were much less descriptive than the links of Spanish and Catalan media or the link from the Generalitat page, as results are not so obvious for people visiting them. And yeah, they were random because they seemed to be taken from random English media, and many of them did not even were results tables or anything matching the level of detail presented here. And it's just absurd: I mean, all sources take their data from the Generalitat website. And those that do not, do usually take their data from Spanish media sources, which in turn take their data from the Generalitat website, because that's the only official source for results. So, what's the point in showing dozens of links repeating essentially the same info (or even not showing it all), when this can be achieved with just one link? Please, illustrate me, because you're failing to explain how and why every one of your sources was needed. If they weren't, then yeah, that was WP:REFBOMB.
So, don't pretend to hide an obvious fact (that you refbombed the page) by arguing it in that it was what some administrator told us to do, because they obviously didn't said that you should do what you did. Impru20 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fairly obvious that if you are looking at a table and you can't easily tell what the source of the information is, then it is at the least, not clearly referenced. Readers should not be required to go digging through the text to find sources for claims in tables. And no, links to other Wikipedia articles don't count because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There are two ways I can see for addressing this. If there are numerous references then they should be included in each line or after each claim of fact. Sometimes this can be done with a new table column. In cases where there are only a handful of references they can often be cited collectively at the top or bottom of the table. Just type in the word "Sources:..." and then add your ref links. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific the only table that looks to be solidly referenced is the one entitles "Slogans." That is a good looking and clearly referenced table. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Sources are next to where it says "sources". Unless you try to convince me that readers need a lot of work to understand that "sources" actually means "sources" and not other rare meaning, I can't get your point. I don't think we need to put the same source in each line or next to each number, because that'd pretty much kill the quality of the tables. Btw, what you suggest is done for absolutely zero elections in the world, and I don't think this one is different. This is how elections are typically sourced: with the source(s) being put in a specific section of the "Results" table. It's not difficult to find them unless you're actually not looking at the tables at all. This is the customary practice for election articles in Wikipedia. Sincerely, I don't know how "quality" is worth sacrificing for "quality".
Links to other Wikipedia articles would count as long as those are sourced. Basically because as per WP:SPLIT. Specific provincial results are in their own articles because having these here would be just unbearable, so a summary is left here and full tables brought to their own articles. And those are sourced, so no, we're not using Wikipedia as a source.
(edit conflict) I am looking again at the tables and I do see one table at the top of the Overall Results section which has sources listed below it, not sure if I missed that earlier or it was added since, but that works. If those sources are intended to cover all of the tables I'd just move that line to the top under the section header and above the first table. That usually lets everyone know that the sources are intended to cover the material in the following tables. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Ok, you absolutely ignored me, thank you. Anyway, I'm against your proposal, because that would just work horrible and would be unconsistent with all other election articles. These tables and charts and next to each other, so it's already obvious these sources refer to all of these without needed to bring them to a random place in the article. Again, Chilean general election, 2017 (which is another election at ITN) works exactly the same way, just as other elections for other countries do. This is customary practice for elections. Impru20 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry if you feel I am ignoring your comments. No, other Wikipedia articles don't count because Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we do not expect our readers to have to go to other articles to hunt up reliable sources. I have not looked at the Chilean article. I am focusing on this one and do not wish to get side tracked with OTHERSTUFF issues. As far as I can tell the only remaining tables in need of some kind of referencing are the first, third and fourth. And I do not like squirreling the refs that are expected to cover all of the results tables under one and just assuming the reader is going to grasp they are for the others as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes. I think that works for the results tables. So the only ones that still need some kind of citations are the parties and coalitions table, the stance on issues table and the debates table. I am guessing these can be fixed in a similar manner with a quick line at the bottom with appropriate ref links. We are getting there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to hide an obvious fact... you claim that I randomly grabbed articles from English media and transcluded them, yet, of the fourteen references which I included, eight were not in the English language, and seven originated from Spanish media, which you are holding to an ostensibly high and trustworthy standard. Stop purporting that I maliciously edited the page to refbomb it, AGF please. If we want to throw accusations spuriously around, violations of WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL come to mind. The consensus was that sourcing in the tables was inadequate, I took action to resolve this, in no way violating policy. Arguably excessive, perhaps. Reckless ignorance of policy, no. Detrimental to the entire article, absolutely not. Thus, will you please refrain from claiming that I was refbombing without adequate information to support this point of view. Even if it was excessive, there is a more elegant solution that purging everything repeatedly and flagrantly ignoring consensus. I listed all sources under the table prior to their deletion, and they adequately addressed sourcing issues, without violating policy. I do not think, unfoundedly, that you are attempting to detrimentally affect an article. I would ask that the same courtesy is paid in my direction, and in a prompt manner (I nominated the article for ITN for a reason, and dearly wish that it remains posted and is not stunted by squabbling and squirreling. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Results are all taken from the Generalitat official website. You still fail to explain why fourteen sources are needed to cover content easily sourced by one. You youself acknowledge this was Arguably excessive, and Ad Orientem has specified the issue does not relate to a matter of "quantity" of sources, but to a matter of "placement". So yes, you bringing a lot of rather random links and placing them at random locations in the article (outside any table and without any format, just put there like that) was not appropiate.
Btw, I did not accuse you of "maliciously" editing the page to refbomb it; I just said you refbomb it. good faith must be presumed, and I did not accuse you of refbombing in bad faith and/or with malicious intentions. I'm sorry if you felt like that (and I excuse myself if it was understood that way, I never meant that) but I feel no better either seeing you accusing me of acting maliciously myself.
(edit conflict) Guys, we are all on the same team here. Can we please AGF and try not to get testy. Let's just try and get some decent refs on the three remaining tables so we can move on. It's two days before Christmas. "God bless us everyone." -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It does not really matter at this stage, in my view. Fourteen may have been excessive, I will concede that (does not justify a full revert to one, but I digress). It seems, via the addition of sources, that you have also conceded that more sourcing was required (correct me if this is an incorrect assumption). We are working towards a suitable midpoint here, a compromise that maintains the article quality at a suitable standard. Thus, I will not argue the point vis-á-vis policy violations any further. Let us put the disagreements behind us and co-operate in spirit to get the article to the place where we mutually want it to be. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think more sourcing for the Results tables were needed BUT I'm willing to concede on the issue of provincial results sourcing because a compromise is preferred rather than continuous conflict. If adding these sources makes the sourcing clearer and complete, then well, it was easily done with a non-harming change (and by mirrorring the format used for the main table, i.e. a line below with the Sources, we keep consistency within that section).
Well, given that those fourteen take their results from one, yes, it's rather redundant that we use more than one. I added two more as some sort of compromise and for variety, but these are absurd (in my view) because every source relating to results take their data from the Generalitat webpage (and the official webpage is the only place where we're assured to take accurate data). Nonetheless, these are ought to change once definitive results come out, so having these for now makes no harm.
I've created a column for adding sources for each debate in the Leaders' debates table. Now it's just a matter of finding them and adding them. Impru20 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
these are ought to change once definitive results come out - absolutely agreed. One source will suffice when permanent results are announced. Until such a stage, the compromise of having multiple sources is commendable and acceptable. Kudos, and congratulations on your earnest efforts to enhance the encyclopedia through editing this article. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks to you for adding the remaining sources for the debates and political positions and so on. Things are much better achieved when cooperation is in place. :) Impru20 (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good 2 go I am satisfied that the article is now adequately sourced. There is always room for improvement but this is good enough for the main page, which is to say it's pretty good. Well done to Impru20 and Stormy clouds for your getting things up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes to "Summary of the 21 December 2017 Parliament of Catalonia election results" table
At Catalan regional election, 2017#Overall, in the table titled "Summary of the 21 December 2017 Parliament of Catalonia election results", there are numbered footnotes which are intended to explain the relationship between Together for Catalonia, Republican Left of Catalonia–Catalonia Yes, and Catalonia in Common–We Can to their counterparts in the prior regional election. However, they are not proper explanatory footnotes using Template:Efn, just superscripted numbers that don't actually link to their corresponding notes. The note text can be found in a box at the bottom of the table which defaults to being collapsed, thus obscuring the content of the notes. In fact, the first time I saw this table, I deleted the superscripted numbers because I couldn't find any corresponding notes that went with them (see [2]), although I found the notes shortly after and reversed my prior action (see [3]). I would like to un-collapse the note text so that readers can find the content of the notes more easily, but I have been told that they have been collapsed for "consistency", although I am not sure as to consistency with what, since the article does have a separate Notes section at Catalan regional election, 2017#Notes which is handled differently.
So my question is: Is there a consensus of multiple editors here that the notes to the "Summary of the 21 December 2017 Parliament of Catalonia election results" should be kept in a collapsed box and hidden from view by default? --Metropolitan90(talk)01:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is kept like this through hundreds of election articles for Spanish elections. This is what is called consistency. And they're left collapsed and not using efn because for some elections the number of notes may be unbearable for these to be supported through either of these formats (check Spanish general election, 2015#Congress of Deputies, as an example), as well as to avoid conflicts with other footnotes throughout the articles, or with the tables themselves (this may happen when party names are too long. Subescripted names cause no issues at all, but efn templates may affect the tables and cause alignment issues).
Btw, you say the content of the notes is "obscured". How so? You can uncollapse them. And they're pretty much noted under a "Notes" label. Ãnd given that you indeed acknowledge you did find the section by taking an actual look to it instead of just wildly coming in and removing the superscripted numbers, I can't see where the actual issue is aside from one of personal taste. Impru20 (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it should be the other way around. It's you who's pressing for a change, so it would be one of your (rather multiple and unconsistent) choices the ones which should obtain consensus, right? Correct me if I'm wrong but this is how consensus works. Also, my opinion counts equally as that of any other (specially when I did already try to work out a system of uncollapsed footnotes in the past and I'm telling you it causes issues because I've experienced them myself), so you should not dismiss it just because you don't like it.
As a compromise, though, I could make the "Notes" label more visible by making it larger if you wish, though I'm not sure on what your actual intent about it is. Impru20 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would like to see if anyone else cares about this issue besides you and me, and if so, what their perspectives are. That's why I took this issue to the talk page. --Metropolitan90(talk)02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Impru20 (who is Spanish) seems to be changing the bias of this article against the Catalan nation. This following version of the image is a good detailed version of how the electorate voted, and should be added in the infobox as it gives the overall demographic result in a nutshell:
This image is on many other language wikis including German. It was taken down by User:Impru20 stating that "constituencies are provinces, not counties, so this could be misleading". It is less misleading than the present (over simplified) map.
Even the title of this article (use of 'Regional') is incorrect (see above discussion) and creates an unnecessary bias in the reader's mind. I now suggest: Catalan General Election, 2017 as 'regional' is very denigrating to the people of Catalonia, and is very biased. Why bring politics into it? there is no need. just delete 'regional' and add 'General' or 'national', as it covered the whole nation. This is in line with both respect both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC-GAL.
Wikipedia does not have to follow the UN's definition of what is a nation (or state). Common sense, history, culture and language tell us that Catalonia is a Nation, and the free spirit of Wikipedia should not be placed in the straight jacket of Spanish politics. I have absolutely no personal connection with either Catalonia or Spain, and consider myself totally neutral. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, respect WP:GOODFAITH pal. I reverted your addition of this map just for consistency with other articles, as well as because these don't show actual constituencies (which are provinces, not comarques), so the current map is more respectful with the electoral system and with reality. Also note that the Parliament has not re-convened. So, how is it possible that you know the distribution of parliamentary groups already? That would be OR.
From there, all of your claims of bias against me, aside from entirely unrelated to the issue at hand, do seem like kind of WP:KETTLE, because you seem to be showing a strong bias yourself towards pro-Catalan feelings. So far, your only "proof" or evidence that I'm being biased is that I'm not treating Catalonia as a state or a nation. Well, Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain, and "regional" is indeed the common name in English sources. A quick search in Google shows 106,000 results for "Catalan regional election", as opposed to just 965 for "Catalan general election" and just 1 result for "Catalan national election" (and it looks like a forum). A search of both terms in Google Trends shows likewise (and actually, it shows 0 results for "Catalan general election", so it's clearly not a commonly-searched term). So firstly: your bias claim is unsourced (and I'd rather see that your own stance is biased itself, as one can guess from your own wording and your strong defense of Catalonia being a "nation" or that it should be treated as if it was a state or something). And secondly: the region/nation issue is not an actual issue, as it's pretty much obvious that this is a regional election (i.e. autonomic, though "regional" is the COMMONNAME in English reliable sources). "Regional" is not denigrating by itself, unless you yourself make it denigrating; but that's not the word's fault, but your own.
Aside from this (and returning to the actual issue), I wouldn't object the map being put elsewhere throughout the article (though the issue of the OR-ish distribution of parliamentary groups remains), but the infobox should show the constituency map as these are the actual territorial divisions in which seats are awarded and not comarques. Impru20 (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Also, the issue of the disputed Tarragona seat between Cs and PP should be fixed, as it has as of now been awarded to the PP after the counting of the CERA vote. So, it's Cs 36 (not 37) and PP 4 (not 3). Impru20 (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using words like 'Pal'; I'm not your Pal, as this is the first correspondence we've had.
The idea of using Google to decide whether or not we call Catalonia a region or a nation is laughable; and consolidates a bullying, Spanish, winner takes all position which is anti-diversity, anti smaller languages and nations. It's tabloid mentality. 'Regional' is not the word a Catalonian person would choose - and that is what matters here; respect, not smoking guns, minority feelings, not gun-ho majority wins. By the way, I do not say anywhere that Catalonia is a state! This is your word, not mine. Catalonia IS a nation, but it certainly isn't a state, as yet.
Thanks for the last point regarding the map. I'll look into this further; a few languages have taken that last vote into consideration, and I shall amend the map accordingly. I would also suggest you take this up on Commons, on the image's Talk page, rather than just delete it, from this article, or, as you suggest add it elsewhere.
Lastly, you say that I'm pro-Catalan - I might well be if they're mistreated by bullies; I'm pro any nation which is bullied, walked over, trampled upon. But more than anything, Wikipedia depends on balanced views, and this article is very unbalanced. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first correspondence we've had and yet you accused me of bias and of denigrating Catalan people just for reverting the addition of your map in the infobox. I hope you end up acknowledging it's you who intend to bring a heavily pro-Catalan nationalist bias here, because this is pretty much self-evident from your wording.
I should note you that it's you the first who brought the WP:COMMONNAME policy here. And under the COMMONNAME policy, it's "regional" the most commonly used name in English reliable sources by far (if you don't like Google, you can check this, this, or [arties for well over 20 year! this, this or this). So that pretty much settles the name issue. Also, you say "regional" is not what a Catalan person would use, but I've never seen any Catalan person using the "Catalan general election" expression, and indeed, this is not reflected by sources. You discard the Google search engine as a valid tool for deciding on sources, yet you pretend us to acknowledge your own, unsourced claims as the valid source for it. Again, that pretty much settles the issue in favour of "Catalan regional election".
As for the image, I only reverted it being used in the infobox, but never denied it could be used elsewhere as a complement. I think I can work it out into the "Results" section without much trouble. Impru20 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion: Catalan election, 2017 - is neutral, not biased, not derogatory. When I suggested this wording you reverted it saying "Respect WP:COMMONNAME". You must have forgotten. 'Catalan Election, 2017' would be better than 'Catalan General election', which you say is not used - by the way - the use of 'general election' is in the article itself! - ...the En Comú Podem electoral alliance which contested the 2015 and 2016 general elections in Catalonia.
"regional" might well be the most commonly used name in English. You missed my point, that it is offensive. Catalan election, 2017 is not.
I take offence when you say that I "bring a heavily pro-Catalan nationalist bias". Nationalism has nothing to do with the neutrality of a subject. I could easily have used words like 'fascism', but refrained from doing so; therefore I used 'bullying' and words suitable for Wikipedia. I could easily point the same finger at you, that you have "brought a heavily pro-Spanish nationalist bias" into this article. By the way, I haven't been a member of any political movements or parties for well over 20 years!
Above mentioned reverts by you are not the only instances where you have changed this article into being anti-Catalan; and if need be I shall list every one, right from your first edit.
Your new suggestion of "Catalan election, 2017" does not fully comply with either the WP:COMMONNAME as there nor WP:NC-GAL policies you yourself brought here, and would also fail to meet WP:PRECISE (general (i.e. to the Congress of Deputies+Senate), municipal and European elections are also held in Catalonia). "Catalan regional election" is the name used by English reliable sources, does meet NC-GAL and is precise enough to unambiguously identify the article's topical scope. And there's absolutely no negative or POV connotation on "regional" so as to merit its replacement by a different name, so it's still the name best suited for it. Catalonia is an autonomous community in Spain, and this election was held within that context. "Regional" is the name used to refer to these kind of elections by English reliable sources, so... I don't really know where the issue is aside from some POV claims.
On your issue with the following sentence: the En Comú Podem electoral alliance which contested the 2015 and 2016 general elections in Catalonia. I just hinted at it in the preceding paragraph. Well, it's obvious that "general election" is used there because that is referring to the Spanish general elections held in December 2015 and June 2016, not to any regional elections in Catalonia. So yeah, "general election" is correctly used there.
You're bringing statements here which are strongly against WP:NPOV, so yeah, I'd say they're biased. And I'd be glad that you informed me of how did I bring "a heavily pro-Spanish nationalist bias", seeing how you accused me of 'bias' just because I did not agree with your map being in the infobox due to comarques not being constituencies (I still don't know where is the "heavily pro-Spanish nationalist bias" in that, but surely you can illustrate me. Though I'm not sure what will you say, given that you see the use of "regional" as "anti-Catalan" lol). Neither do I have accused you of belonging to any political movement or party, so I don't see the point of highlighting such a info. I just criticized that you accused me of bias on unfounded grounds while you yourself are taking a heavily non-neutral stance on the issue. Impru20 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Catalan election, 2017" is in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME: there was only one Catalan election, and it's to the point, simple, neutral. Otherwise let's use "Catalan national election, 2017" - certainly not offensive to the Catalan people or others! That's what we have on cy-wiki: "Catalan national election, 2017". 'Regional' is NOT included on de-wiki, el-wiki, es-wiki, eu-wiki, fr-wiki, gl-wiki, it-wiki, lmo-wiki, cy-wiki, ms-wiki, no-wiki, ru-wiki, sv-wiki, vi-wiki etc. In fact pt-wiki is the only other wikipedia to use this offensive term. I'm astounded that you do not realise that the use of "regional", where it's not necessary is offensive. Maybe that's why the article is so unbalanced, biased. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Catalan election, 2017" is not in accordance to COMMONNAME because English reliable sources tend use "Catalan regional election" as the specific name for these kind of elections. No, it wouldn't be incorrect, but it wouldn't comply with COMMONNAME. And it would also fail to meet PRECISE, as someone looking at it won't be able to identify from the name which kind of election was held. As you may check under WP:NC-GAL, the type election must be shown in the article title too.
"Catalan national election, 2017" would fail to meet COMMONNAMEa and NC-GAL, and would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Catalonia is not a nation, it's an autonomous community of Spain. That's recognized by all English reliable sources, and your own POV in the issue does not override reliable sources. And yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but this is the English Wikipedia, and we must abide to English Wikipedia rules and guidelines, sorry. What other wikis do is their own trouble, as their rules and guidelines are not necessarily the same ones. Impru20 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Catalan election, 2017" is widely used - more so than the existing, 'regional' version we have on Wikipedia:
Financial Times (21-12-2017), The Guardian (21-12-2017 and 22-12-2017), BBC News; 21-12-2017 and 22-12-2017, Sky News (22-12-2017), AlJazeera (22-12-2017), euronews.com (21-12-2017), politico.eu (12/22/2017), The Telegraph (21-12-2017), Express (21-12-2017), The Independent (21-12-2017), EL PAIS (28-12-2017), New York Times (21-12-2017). "Catalan election, 2017" is therefore in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME policy. You say: PRECISE, as someone looking at it won't be able to identify from the name which kind of election was held. - Of course they would know which election it refers to! There was but one! Only one 'Catalan election' occurred in 2017. 'Catalan election' means 'an election held throughout Catalonia'. Singular. I'm afraid you are clutching straws, and your arguments are thin and very fragile.
You mention my own POV! Nice try! I have outlined that I have absolutely no connection with Catalonia or Spain in any way, unlike you. This is a feeble attempt at dissmissing my arguments that the title should be neutral. Is every editor who argues for the underdog, the fringe, minorities, stateless nations, diversity equaly guilty? I rest my case! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "Catalan election, 2017" is not in accordance with COMMONNAME, PRECISE and NC-GAL. The type of election is required to be shown in the name. Btw, your own sources also use "regional election" as name, so I must assume you're acknowledging I'm right or something?
That "regional election" is neutral is a fact, because "regional" has no POV connotation either way. It's the name used by sources. Easy. Yet you're consistently showing a pro-Catalan nationalist POV, which is also a fact. "regional" is neither anti-Catalan nor "bullying" as you claim, so arguing that these should be removed because you think Catalonia is a nation and not an autonomous community is absurd. Anything else, I think arguments have been pretty much exposed, so I don't see the point of continuing this discussion when even your own sources show that "regional" is the way to go. Impru20 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the article title. My above list are all titles - newspaper or website headings / titles. NOT the small print way, way down! All these newspapers and websites I've listed use "Catalan election" and so should we. Please don't try and move the discussion to what is said elsewhere and keep to my request - change the title.
Calling a nation a "region" is NOT neutral; that's a fact. If, in future, Europe calls Spain a "region" rather than a country - you would be offended. This would be as offensive to you as calling the Catalan nation a "region" is to many Catalonians, or "Scottish regional election, 2011" rather than Scottish Parliament election, 2011. If "The type of election is required to be shown in the name", then let's follow suit! "Catalan Parliament election, 2017" is not offensive, and would be an improvement. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously neutral. The fact that you consider Catalonia a "nation" when sources do not is bringing a POV element into question. Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain (which English sources also call a "region" indistinctly without any political or other meaning). Catalonia is obviously not a nation. Your complain is, thus, unfounded.
You've been shown that "Catalan regional election" is preferred overwhelmingly by sources over "Parliament of Catalonia election" or other alternative name ("Catalan Parliament", as it's your last proposal, is not even the parliament's official name), and even your own proposed sources trying to point otherwise actually show that "regional election" is preferred for use. Yes, your sources, so this is obviously an absurd discussion. Catalan regional election is the obvious name and it will stay, because it can't obviously depend on the POV of some random guy, and because you only seem keen on changing it for the sake of it for political motives. I'm sorry. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE and WP:NC-GAL prevail here. Impru20 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is irrelevant; to the people of Catalonia it is a country, not a region, so let's not offend them. And if it's offensive to them, then let's change it. Parlament de Catalunya is the official name, Catalan Parliament is a translation, and your suggestion of "Parliament of Catalonia Election, 2017" is equally acceptable. Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Parliament of Catalonia election" was a suggestion of yours, not mine. I'm not favour of a move, so please don't manipulate my words.
So, let's see: You've now proposed five different names on the basis of different reasonings, according to different Wikipedia policies each one (or none at all in most cases) or without any consistency between them; just for the sake of changing a word that you think is offensive (but you bring no sources for it being offensive, and the only sources you brought confirm that "regional election" is COMMONNAME). This, despite "regional" not being factually offensive (it refers to the election of an autonomous community, i.e. a regional territorial division within the country. Nothing wrong there) and against what the overwhelming majority of sources state. Yet you're being highly POV-ish here (continuously claiming that Catalonia is a "nation") and even manipulating my own words to try to imply it's me who have made an alternative suggestion to change the name when I'm not supporting a name change. You may think what you wish, but understand that your thoughts cannot supersede sources or Wikipedia policies and that, under such reasonings, the name will not be changed. I think all arguments have been exposed and this is all for it. Thank you and have a nice day. Impru20 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carwil:Catalan parliamentary election, 2017 it is then. Thanks!
Impru20 - if you go through my above comments you will see that my only POV on this matter is that the use of 'regional' as an adective is offensive, it is also incorrect. The POV of the article was very pro-Spanish and anti-Catalan - thanks to many of your edits (deleting the detailed map and other bona fide, valid edits without explaining yourself). I have shown that around 15 main newspaper and websites do NOT use the word 'regional'; I have shown that ALL other language wikis including es do not use 'regional' in their title (apart from pt). You still have not shown proof to your claim that 'regional' is not offensive. If you are unable to appreciate that 'regional' offends many people and is denigrating, then I suggest you stop editing articles on Catalonia. You do not have a neutral stance and are unable to see other people's view. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've been consistently assuring that Catalonia is a nation and making pro-Catalan nationalist statements (such as dubbing this page as "Catalan national elecion" or likewise), and that's POV. The very fact of assuring that "regional" is offensive when it's a fact overwhelmingly recognized by sources is also POV. That 'regional' is offensive is a very fact which is your own point of view. Other wikis may do as they please, but that's irrelevant here, as the English wikipedia as its own set of rules and guidelines, and under these, 'regional' is the way to go.
You still have not shown proof to your claim that 'regional' is not offensive Starting by the fact that 'regional' by itself is not offensive, proving it is not offensive would be a probatio diabolica, as it is impossible. Yet you've been already shown plenty of sources that show that 'regional' is the preferred wording in the English mainstream media, and even many of the sources you yourself provided do show that 'regional' is indeed the preferred wording. It is you who say that it is offensive under this context, so it's up to you to prove that it actually is under what is reported by the mainstream media, books or whatever other English reliable source. As of yet, you only come here arguing that other stuff exist (i.e. other wikis) and that this is somehow (and under your own POV) a great wrong that should be righted. That's not even close enough for making your case slightly valid.
If you don't have anything else to say aside from repeating the same over and over again we should end this discussion, because we're just repeating ourselves and this is going nowhere. I don't know what else can be said about this issue which has not been already said. Prove that 'regional' should not be used because it's offensive as you say, or just accept that it's what the mainstream media use. Impru20 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Impru20: I just have been notified of your remark that "the issue of the disputed Tarragona seat between Cs and PP should be fixed, as it has as of now been awarded to the PP after the counting of the CERA vote. So, it's Cs 36 (not 37) and PP 4 (not 3)". Could you please explain in more detail what you want to be changed and provide me with a source for this and then I will correct any errors? Thanks --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion16:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The more detailed map is better. Now that it's fixed, please post it! And Catalan parliamentary election, 2017 is great. Remember there was a referendum earlier this year, so "Catalan election" won't do.--Carwil (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comarques are not constituencies, so the map is not for the infobox. And it's Catalan regional election, 2017 as per WP:COMMONNAME, as it's vastly preferred by reliable sources (as examples: 1,910 results for "Catalan regional election" in GNews opposed to just 11 for "Catalan parliamentary election". Overall search results are equally lopsized in favour of "regional". Also note that "regional" is also commonly used throughout Wikipedia for other elections elsewhere). Actually, "Catalan parliamentary election, 2017" was the name this article had in the past, before being moved to the new location for the sake of COMMONNAME (due to the amount of sources) and WP:PRECISE (because Spanish general elections, which are also held in Catalonia, are "parliamentary elections" too. Thus, it was imprecise). Impru20 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why the parties are suddenly ordered ideologically in the results diagram, when they are ordered everywhere by their stance about independence. I think this should be reverted. Togiad (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the common diagram order elsewhere in Wikipedia, and it has been reflected here too for the sake of consistency. Left-right politics are still relevant in Catalonia (with a hypothesized left-wing alliance having been one of the issuees throughout the campaign). After all, even if independence was the dominant issue throughout the campaign, it was not the only one. Institutionally and politically, this was still an average regional election to elect the Parliament of Catalonia. It was not a Constituent or plebiscitary election. And certainly, other Wikipedia articles do follow this scheme even when independence is a campaign issue (see Scotland, for instance).
It's also untrue that they are order by their stance about independence "everywhere". In fact, in many media outlets they're automatically ordered by results obtained (for example: [4][5][6][7]). Impru20 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, not "everywhere", they are also ordered by seats, but I am not sure to find sources with the left-right order. Also, the 2015 election is not ordered left-right, so I think that reverting the 2017 election diagram would be consistent given the circumstances. Togiad (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the left-right order is not the most-used one in sources for any election anywhere, actually, but it's obvious that these diagrams must show parties in some way, and the left-right order is the one 1) most commonly used throughout any kind of elections in Wikipedia, and 2) most consistent with other elections, allowing for easing comparisons and preventing disparate orderings to be used each time.
As for the 2015 diagram, it is actually ordered left-right. JxSí had no actual ideology, so it actually cares little where it is put (and the current design is the one that looked aesthetically better). For 2015, it also just happened that the left-right order nearly milimetrically matched the stance on independence of each party. As you see, 2012 is also ordered left-right, as also are previous elections. Impru20 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Turull hunger strike to denounce the Spanish Courts hadn't resolved their appeals
Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Turull were proposed to become President of Catalonia after the 2017 election as it's correctly explained in Government formation. This section also explains the Spanish Courts blocked their election keeping them on jail or sending them to jail while not resolving any of the appeals made by their lawyers.
Yesterday, Sànchez and Turull decided to start a hunger strike given that Spanish Courts hadn't resolved those appeals yet after more than a year. I think that's relevant information and should be explained in this page. Otherwise, the reader might think Sànchez and Turull just accepted the Court verdict without any complain.
Indeed, they were proposed, but their hunger strike has nothing to do with neither the election nor the government formation nor anything related to it, nor has the cause of the hunger strike anything to do with the election. Precisely, your own justification for it just reinforces such idea, as your reasoning for adding it here has absolutely nothing to do with the election (just because Sànchez and Turull were proposed at some point as President candidates does not mean we should mention everything related to them here). Impru20talk22:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Impru20. These ongoing events around Sànchez and Turull should be covered on Wikipedia, but not in this article. The election article cannot be the place for every event stemming from it, or else every election article would contain everything the elected government did next. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20 and Bondegezou: thank you for your contributions here, but I disagree. The hunger strike is not a random event stemming from the Government formation but an event closely related to it. It was a protest started by the two leaders that were blocked from being elected. Giving information about them being blocked but not about their protests derived from it, is hiding half of the information to the readers. As an example, I think Sànchez and Turull protests is much more related to the government formation than this other paragraph we have:
Concurrently, the European Arrest Warrant against Puigdemont was reactivated just as he was in a visit to Finland, but he left the country to Belgium before Finnish authorities could arrest him. On his way to Belgium on 25 March he was caught and detained in Germany while crossing the border from Denmark.
If Sànchez' appeals were accepted by the Courts, he could have been elected President. Giving the reader information about the appeals being not resolved and their protests against that is fundamental information. It directly affected the government formation. --Aljullu (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a protest started by the two leaders that were blocked from being elected. Such a connection does not exist. Yes, Sànchez and Turull were blocked from being elected, but their hunger strike nearly one year later has nothing to do with such a block, but a protest in response to their one year-long preventive detention measure. Puigdemont was also blocked from being elected, yet he did not start an hunger strike. In contrast, Joaquim Forn and Josep Rull (also in preventive detention) went into hunger strike as well, yet they were not even proposed as candidates for President.
You are attempting to put it as if the hunger strike (which has ended now) was a direct consequence of both Sànchez and Rull being prevented from getting elected President, which no source backs up. In fact, this was not even mentioned in the two sources you added back then to support such a claim, so it is basically a conclusion not stated by the sources, but reached by yourself, which is SYNTH.
On the paragraph you mention, I agree that, seen in retrospective, it has little to do with the government formation process, so I'll be removing it. Impru20talk20:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
