Talk:Leadership opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election

Iglesias should be removed from the "Preferred Prime Minister" and "Leader ratings" sections

Iglesias hasn't led Podemos since May 2021 and retired from politics at that time. He also hasn't been included in any polls since that time either. His polls could be moved to a "former party leaders" section, as is done here - Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Helper201 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Cannot see any issue with the current setup, really. We cannot do what you propose without duplicating some of the tables, and tables in the "Approval rating" sections are ordered by party size (and, within the same party, the most recent leader over former ones. So this is already taken into account). Also, why is this noteworthy for Iglesias and not, let's say, Casado? Impru20^talk 07:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Impru20, firstly, please make sure to ping editors in replies, as I have done with you here, otherwise other editors may not be aware of your response without going back and checking and some people like myself work across a lot of pages on this platform, so it’s hard to keep track of everywhere we've left a post. The problem is that its outdated, misrepresentative of the current leadership, and could lead to confusion for those not aware of the current political situation. We must remember the reader and make things simple and keep any possible confusion to a minimum with clarity. Iglesias leads no party and won't be leading any into the next election. The solution would be to re-work the current setup. As I mentioned, we could create a former party leaders’ section, as has been done with other party leadership pages, like the UK one I linked and move Iglesias and his polling there, as well as other former party leaders. I have no problem with removing other former party leaders like Casado as well, I'm just not personally as aware of other party leader situations and thought there may be other editors that may want to keep people like him being their leadership was more recent having still led their party this year. Helper201 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Helper201, I don't tend to automatically ping editors unless I'm certain they may not pay attention to the discussion at hand: this typically happens in user talk discussions that don't take place in both editors' pages but just in one. For discussions in article talk pages that are started by those editors, I frequently assume those editors will concern themselves with keeping an eye on them, though I will ping you from here onwards as you ask.

I don't see where the confusion problem is at all, really. Political leaders are no longer polled when they retire, so if no more polls are shown on that leader it's fairly easy to assume that polls no longer assume that leader as relevant. If any reader may have the slight doubt on the current status of that leader, then the leader's WP article (all of which are linked) is the place to check, not this article (indeed, I find puzzling that we have to duplicate tables and data just because of some laziness in clicking a link to that person's article to check out that info by yourself. That's what those article links are there for...).

Also, you seem to overlook that some pollsters poll people that are not the party's leaders (i.e. Ayuso or Yolanda Díaz). Others overlook actual party leaders (Belarra). The scope of the article covers leadership polling on "political leaders" in general (not necessarily "current" "party" leaders; those that were notorious political leaders throughout this time period are noteworthy as well). It's sources which determine who are the political leaders they poll, obviously. The article is neither outdated nor misrepresentative of anything, it just doesn't convey what you seemingly interpret it should convey. Impru20^talk 13:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Helper201 What you did was an entirely inappropriate (and disrespectful) way to open a RFC, overwriting an existing discussion and overlooking an editor you just asked for his opinion without even caring to address his concerns. Also, when you say that "It would be helpful if we agreed to established a uniform way of formatting this across leadership approval opinion polling pages" you both refuse to explain why this would be "helpful" at all (as of now, this looks like you creating a whole problem because you wanted to exclude a particular politician from the table) and overlook the fact that each country may have its own particularities due to differing political systems. Open a RfC if you wish, but do so appropiately and not in a rant as this was. Impru20^talk 14:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Impru20, I entirely disagree. I opened an rfc because I wanted input from other editors rather than just us, I don't consider that disrespectful and I don't see why you should either. I disagree with your assertions regarding what you've said. Most readers don't clink Wikipedia links and I don't think assuming "laziness" is helpful. The way I see it we are at an impasse, and that's why I wanted further input from others. You completely disregarded my views regarding misrepresentation and I don't agree with yours and I saw no attempt at a compromise or how we were going to work towards one based off of what you said. Helper201 (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Helper201 You asked me for a response, which I gave, then you basically overlooked it by opening a RfC (basically, because you wanted to look for someone that did say something you like, as what I said did not meet your expectations). That's disrespectful with the guy you just asked for a reply, but it's ok with Wikipedia guidelines. What wasn't ok was the way you did it, which was basically to open the RfC at the top of the discussion (though I would rather assume that was plain lack of knowledge on how to do it). The fact that you see "an impasse" when the discussion has barely advanced reaffirms me in my view that you are basically looking for someone to prove you right and impose your views regardless of those that don't agree with you.

"Most readers don't clink Wikipedia links" is an assumption that I don't know from where it's taken. Links are exactly for that. If you don't click Wikipedia links, then that's your issue, not everyone else's. Sincerely, you are creating a problem and creating useless generalizations just because you want to see a particular leader out of these tables, which is not a fair conclusion. You have also demonstrated a profound misconception of this article's topic area (i.e. that this article covers "party leaders" rather than "political leaders", which is the core of your argument), and have not even addressed such concerns. You cannot accuse me of "not attempting compromise" when it's you the one who has refused to accept or discuss anything else that is not their own view. At this stage, I will obviously maintain (and defend) my stance, which I see as the right approach to take (and one that is backed by arguments and not by wishes). Impru20^talk 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Impru20, a 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention." This was reported in:

• Ashwin Paranjape, Bob West, Jure Leskovec, Leila Zia: Improving Website Hyperlink Structure Using Server Logs. WSDM'16, February 22–25, 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA. PDF Helper201 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Helper201 You are reducing this to the absurd. This study refers to useless links resulting from a tendency by many users to overlink everything. You obviously don't need to access a link redirecting you to concepts such as "blue" or "sky", because you normally will know what those things are; Wikipedia already has a MOS on linking to help with that.

What you claim here is that you cannot know if the people listed in this article are the current party leaders or not (which is not even relevant for the article's scope), pose it as a general problem for everyone else and then deducing that links are not a solution because you cannot be bothered to click them, finally using that as an excuse to reform the article in your own view so that the end result is that Iglesias is removed from the tables.

I mean, with all due respect, but I must reaffirm myself: being lazy to click strategically placed links is not an argument for removing sourced data or mutilating it so that a particular leader is given less prominence (I should remind that this discussion is still called "Iglesias should be removed from the "Preferred Prime Minister" and "Leader ratings" sections", so your aim was obvious all along). Impru20^talk 15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Its funny that you accuse me of a lack of knowledge when you are assuming I'm opening an rfc to look for people to agree with me or that I "cannot be bothered" to do this or that, which are both perfect examples of not assuming good faith. I know who leads these parties, I'm thinking of the reader and the reader comes first. Do you really think I'd bother to go through all this here on the talk page if I couldn't be bothered to click a link? Come on now, THAT is absurd. I have no sway over who comes here, they may agree with you, or me, or neither. I'm just looking for other views on the matter and what potential compromises there might be that people may like to put forward. It’s not for you to be able to dictate when an rfc can and cannot be opened. Its perfectly reasonable to open an rfc when a discussion has been open for a week and only one other editor has responded. Helper201 (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Helper201, I don't mandate when to open a RfC, I'm just asking you to don't be stubborn and actually check the guidelines on how to properly open a RfC. You MUST open a new section. I'm not going to make you the favor of reverting you again, so that it's others that may point the manipulation you made to this discussion (by inserting a brand new statement above the previous comments) to you. Btw, I specifically told you to open a RfC if you wished, I just asked you to do so correctly. You are seriously unable to receive feedback or accept any comment that is contrary to your wishes, while you claim it's others that don't want to "compromise" with you (your meaning of "compromise" being something akin to "accept what I say and shut up"-style of compromise). Let's see. Impru20^talk 15:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Cool Helper201. Now can you please revert this so that we don't have two simultaneous RfCs running? Thank you. Impru20^talk 15:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Again you seem to be not assuming good faith and really attempting to discredit me. I had no objective of coming here and causing an argument or dictating a certain way or "manipulating". If I were like that I would have just done it, or got people here that I thought might agree with me, I've done neither, nor have I edit wared or tried to implement any changes. So much of this thread is you throwing slander when mistakes may have been made and things are not done right or in your agreement. Please stop assuming bad faith. Helper201 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You titled this discussion "Iglesias should be removed from the "Preferred Prime Minister" and "Leader ratings" sections" and revolved it around the figure of Iglesias until I pointed to you that Casado also existed, so it's not bad faith to assume that removing Iglesias was your goal all along. You have repeteadly overlooked my arguments and refused to reply to those, when addressing those would have solved most (if not all) of your issues, so it's not bad faith to state that you did exactly that. You accused me of not seeking a compromise or of we being at an "impasse" when the discussion was just two comments long, so it's not bad faith to state that you are explicitly refusing to compromise on any other that is not your own wishes. Note that accusing others of bad-faithing without any ground can constitute a personal attack. Since you chose to open a RfC, I see no point in continuing this discussion, and I think it's best for both of us to just focus on content. Thank you. Impru20^talk 16:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

And in the very first reply I said I had no problem with other party leaders being removed, to quote myself, "I have no problem with removing other former party leaders like Casado as well". I have not overlooked what you said, just because I didn't directly respond to them doesn't mean I overlooked them. You accused me of multiple things like not being bothered to click links and using an rfc to get my own way, what you did is clearly in the grounds of assumption of bad faith. Helper201 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC))

Yet you kept insisting on Iglesias. You accepted the extension to other leaders along the way to avoid falling into outright incoherency, but removing Iglesias was the whole ordeal from the beginning.

"just because I didn't directly respond to them doesn't mean I overlooked them" Yes, if you repeteadly and wittingly refuse to reply to sensible parts of my arguments and then go and reply as if you didn't read them, you are overlooking them. I did not tell you these things for you to make fun of them, but for you to actually get aware and act in consequence, something you insist on avoiding.

"You accused me of multiple things like not being bothered to click links and using an rfc to get my own way" Well, you acknowledged that yourself. That's not an accusation.

Seriously, I don't want to continue this discussion here with you with the RfC open, specially when you are bringing this to personal territory. I please ask you to stop this right here, right now. Thank you. Impru20^talk 18:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Should former party leaders that are no longer being polled be moved out of the "Preferred Prime Minister" section to a "former party leaders" section

Should former party leaders that are no longer being polled be moved out of the "Preferred Prime Minister" section to a "former party leaders" section, as is done with Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election? Helper201 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Partial oppose as per the discussion above. Firstly, because Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election has no "former party leader" section for "Preferred Prime Minister" (it pertains just to Approval ratings), so this is based on a wrong premise to start with. Secondly, because if something like that is done it would mean an unnecessary duplication of tables and of content, when the current format for "Preferred Prime Minister" poses no issues at all. Thirdly because, as stated in the discussion above, this article covers relevant political leaders that are polled by sources that are not properly "party leaders"; that is not the article's scope, since prime minister candidates in Spain don't need to be their parties' leaders (something which is very different to what happens in the UK). And finally, because the goal of this RfC (as has been demostrated in the discussion above) is to remove Iglesias from the main table, which is not a NPOV-free reason for an edit of this scale to be conducted.

I, however, can see some grounds for inserting a "former leaders" sub-section in the "Approval ratings" section, as what is done in Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, so that's something that can see a compromise solution. Impru20^talk 15:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We wouldn't have to duplicate anything, simply remove the people that are no longer party leaders from the "Preferred Prime Minister" section and their polling listed there and place it in a separate section. I’m not proposing this be duplicated. All the people in the "Preferred Prime Minister" of this page are or were party leaders or presidents of at least one party or another as far as I can see. I'm not proposing any information be removed from the page or duplicated, simply that some information is removed from one section and the same information placed in a more relevant section. I'm open to other ways to reorganise the information on the page other than this way. I just don't think the current way the information is laid out offers the most clarity to those unengaged or unknowledgeable in Spanish politics and could be made clearer. Helper201 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, if you have to reply, do so below the comment you are replying to. You are the RfC originator. Indents here are meant only to allow people to voice their opinions, otherwise you would end up flooding the RfC with "reply" indents. As it's merely a procedural and uncontroversial edit, I have done so myself.

Once again, tables do not list just "party leaders". Yolanda Díaz or Isabel Díaz Ayuso are not party leaders, yet some pollsters poll them anyway because they are relevant political leaders. Trying to establish any argument on the basis of "X person is no longer a party leader" is wrong. Besides, the fact that a person is no longer polled is already enough evidence for everyone to automatically assume that such person is no longer relevant at that stage, so there is no real identification problem there.

What you propose now is to mutilate tables and break data continuity with Sánchez, Abascal and other leaders that have been in place from the beginning. Seeking so only because someone does not want a particular leader from appearing in the main table is not acceptable. As I told you repeteadly in the discussion above, I do not and will not agree with that under that reasoning. My proposal for "reorganising" the page is to leave it mostly as it is, since I do not see any need for any "reorganisation" that seeks to solve auto-created problems.

If anything though, and as I told just before and went unaddressed by your reply (I do not know if my comments are being read at this point, since your replies repeteadly seem to ignore things I already spoke about), I can see a reorganisation of the "Approval ratings" section by creating a "Former leaders" sub-section to move the Iglesias and Casado tables, since that won't break any continuity and would take very little further space. Impru20^talk 17:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I was very specific to mention in my edit party leaders and presidents. Also, Yolanda Díaz leads Sumar, while Isabel Díaz Ayuso is the president of the People's Party of Madrid, the latter of which is seemingly the only outlier in perhaps not exactly conforming to "party leader", depending on how what wants to specifically define such a thing. And yes, in spite of how disrespectful and hostile you continue to be towards me, I'm reading your comments. Helper201 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sumar is not a party; as of now, it's an umbrella organisation/platform which is not even clear how will contest the next general election. Belarra is Podemos's actual leader and she is not even mentioned in most polls. Feijóo was also polled pre-1 April, when he was still not officially the PP leader. So no, Ayuso is not the only "outlier" because pollsters do not necessarily poll "party leaders" (something you still keep refusing to acknowledge), which is why this article speaks of "political leaders". I am skipping your personal considerations on me since I want to keep this civil, thank you. Impru20^talk 18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not these are specifically party leaders or not doesn't matter either way in regards to the issue I highlighted. I'm simply proposing the information be moved because those such as Casado and Iglesias are not leaders in any capacity anymore and are no longer being polled. If the person has a sustained period where they are not polled and no longer hold any leadership in any capacity it is then in which I would propose they be moved. Whether or not they are a party leader, president, or leader of an umbrella organisation or platform is irrelevant in such a proposition. Helper201 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it matters because you revolved the issue on these being current party leaders or not. It's not important for the article whether they are currently leaders "in any capacity" (which is not the point, either, but anyway...). They have been relevant political leaders at some point during this parliamentary term, so that already makes them worthy of inclusion. Plus what you suggest would mutilate the tables for the current leaders. You still haven't replied to almost any of the concerns I raised before, so I will resort to link those and just stop replying unless new issues are raised in order to avoid going around in circles anymore. If you are unwilling to get the point, it is not my fault, but nobody should get dragged into an endless discussion like this. Impru20^talk 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I should've said current leaders in the first place, I never meant that the person had to specifically be a party leader, that's my fault in not specifying the nuances. I mean it matters that these people should hold a leadership role in some capacity being the article is revolving around "Leadership approval polling". I've addressed your main issue in regards to that fact you think it will duplicate information. I'm not proposing any information be duplicated, simply removed from one section and placed in a new one. You could just add a new section to "Preferred Prime Minister" called "former leaders" and move those who are no longer leaders or being polled there. I have never understood why you think that this means anything would be duplicated. I think there's simply misunderstanding from both of us in regards to each other’s perspective, yours in not understanding my proposal and mine in not understanding how you think it will cause problems. That's why I thought outside input could be useful here. Helper201 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you did the whole time: even this RfC's opening statement is worded to specifically refer to "party leaders". I have had to remind you about this like five times before you started accepting that they may not need to be "party" leaders. The article revolves on "political leaders" (it's explicit on this), and the whole discussion above was started by you on the issue of Iglesias not being the current party leader. So yes, these nuances are important on how to address this issue, as it modifies the approach (being a current party leader no longer a valid criterion for inclusion or lack of it).

I said duplicate or mutilate. Firstly, you will be creating a second, separate table (this would a duplication of the table, and separating info that could be served under a single table). Then you will be separating information data for current leaders from their current stats just because they are shared with "former" leaders, thus mutilating it. I'm desperate at how to explain this to you so that you actually read it, and I'm starting to think there are serious reading issues here (that may also explain why this whole affair poses an issue at all to you). I've told you about this like five or six times yet you keep ommitting it. Sincerely, and I don't want to sound disrespectful, but you are wasting my time and bludgeoning the discussion. Either address this at once or, if you cannot, just wait for some other people to intervene and stop keeping responding me to repeat the same over and over and over again without addressing what I'm telling you. Thanks. Impru20^talk 20:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Siece

I like to learn more about 41.116.73.234 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Infor@Questet 41.116.73.234 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)