Jump to content

User talk:Impru20/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

Left-right axis, and year-by-year split on opinion polling pages

Hello,

Since you're a very experienced Wikipedian, and on opinion polling articles especially, I would like to ask you two questions:

  • what is the Wikipedia consensus on the arrangement of parties from left to right?
  • what is the Wikipedia consensus on the splitting of long lists of opinion polls?

I have come in disagreement with editors on the Israeli page. I have split up the long list into more readable yearly lists (as was done for the UK, Italian and Polish opinion polls). Others disagree and suggest a post-dissolution/pre-dissolution split. I am open at this but I wonder if there is some kind of rule or consensus.

A more problematic issue is my suggestion to arrange the Israeli parties according to the left-right axis (as is done for the French opinion polls). It works very well for Israel, as there are very well defined categories with little to no overlap (Arab, Secular Left, Center, Right-wing, Orthodox, Haredi). Such axis would be a great improvement as most transfers are within one category, or with the category nearby. But people complain of NPOV. Kahlores (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Artículos "Results breakdown of local elections"

Buenas, Impru. Estos artículos resultan muy útiles y son un currazo de la leche por tu parte, pero creo que estaría bien enlazarlos con el artículo principal de cada una de las elecciones locales. En este de Asturias 2003, si ves el "What links here", apenas abarca las plantillas y poco más. Un saludo y feliz año 2019. Asturkian (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sweden

@Impru20 I don't counting C, V and L as in the government, there was a note that put it right ... 

The incumbent government is the Löfven II Cabinet, it is consists of S and MP and it is supported by C, L and V (see here) and was sworn in on 18 January 2019.

Braganza (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Quim Torra

Hi,

There is historiography that estates the position of President of the Generalitat of Catalona was created in 1932 and the first president was Macià. That's why many historians says that Quim Torra is the president number 10 as you can see here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . So as there is two points of view I propose you to add both numeration each one with its references. Regards. --Kurrop (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody sees Venezuela or China as democracies despite the official version that says so. So as there is controversy I think that both versions should be reflected on the article and don't let a tendentious idea to the reader or sending him to another article in order to have a more clear idea of the matter. What would be your proposal in order to do more neutral the article? Thank you in advance.--Kurrop (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antena 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rafael Simancas

Notice

The article Rafael Simancas has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Otr500 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Crida

Hi

Will the party contest the Spanish election? And PDeCAT or JuntsCat? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. And did you know how many MP, MP of Generalitat, etc, have joined Crida? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
National Call for the Republic: the number of senators, deputies and Catalan MP is souced? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Greens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment

It's easy. Up to this point you can't source there is going to be a party coalition between both parties. If so, source it, please. If barrying a probatio diabolica we can assume until confirmed there is no coalition (or rather, given the explicit name of the candidacy, until proving something more straightforward: the nature of something going under the name "Más Madrid" as electoral coalition), Equo candidates will stand as candidates in a Más Madrid list as independents for all legal purposes (just like in 2015 for Podemos). I assume the criteria underlined by your edits at 2019 Madrid City Council election was to only include "sub-parties" when they stand in a coalition, not through the means of "incrustating" candidates in a party list (as the later can be done both by a "party" as by a "neighbor association", the later case being an extreme example of the problems posed by you vis-à-vis "Bancada Municipalista").--Asqueladd (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The same than about Equo in the regional election could be said about Actúa (another political party) willing to incrustate in Más Madrid for the municipal election (through María Garzón?), by the way.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed we can add them in the municipal election (I am not yet sure if we ought to, though). Just to be clear: my interest is to regulate arbitrariness in what it seems to be a circumstantial discardable box (which I actually abhor). Once accepted the existence of the box we can take two approaches (I personally would lean towards hardcore version of a)):

  • a) stick to the nature of the candidacies (that entails waiting to know their nature: 1) a party, 2) a party coalition, 3) a grouping of electors or 4) a party federation, with only 2) and 4) being able to structurally include "parties" within themselves)
  • b) adapt in the run on the basis of what the sources actually "say". The later approach would mean that if sources deal with an unnamed candidacy which it is a "confluence" of three organizations, so be it (not two because we don't "like" it when they are not political parties, as it if being a "political party" held any meaning in the case of the umbrella candidacy being an "instrumental party" or the likes). Or if sources say a party will run within another party, so be it (instead of making that "another" party both an umbrella organization and the organization under the umbrella when that cannot be inferred from the source).

Any deviation from (or mix of) a) and b) adds further whimsicallity we can do without. IMO.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess we agree to disagree. Nothing more to say about Equo and Actúa. Regarding the unnamed list if it ever gets a name and the sources still consider it a confluence of three organizations, I may bring your words of "miss key information that may be relevant for some readers" if you drop a name because of "not being a political party" when actually bringing councillors to the (circumstantial) box (Carmona and Galcerán, IIRC). Please don't take it as a blunt "disruptive way to illustrate a point" and accept a reflexion about it.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
If you want to keep track on developments "Municipalistas" (the Spain-wide referent of La Bancada) registered as party on 4 March 2019, "Anticapitalistas Madrid" registered as party on 1 March 2019. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Spanish general elections

Template:Spanish general elections has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Spanish general election, 1979

Template:Spanish general election, 1979 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Carles Puigdemont

Hello. Since I noticed that you had to deal with similar situations, I come to you so you can take a look at here: Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Disputed. I don't understand the point of having a permanent template in the article saying "disputed" on something that is clearly not disputed. And as far as I know, users need to expose reasons in talk page before making any change. But this seems straight bad faith. I understand that Carles Puigdemont is a polemic figure for some people, but whether we like it or not he was indeed a president during his mandate. --193.153.142.71 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Impru, excuse me for participating here, but the ip 193.153.142.71 is quoting me. I have made a proposal in the TP [6].
193.153.142.71, remember that you must assume good faith WP:AGF and comment on the topics of the pages and not on the users WP:TALK#USE WP:TPYES.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Whats is up with this?

What is wrong with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Nationalist_Party&diff=887314465&oldid=887313490 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3CA0:2D3:A461:CE81:E6A7:30AC (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Placeholder images

Hi Impru. You'll probably have noticed that I've removed placeholder images from several Spanish election articles. As you'll see from Wikipedia:Image placeholders, usage of placeholder images is deprecated on en.wiki (and just to clarify that page as the tags may appear to be contradictory at first glance, the top tag "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." refers to the fact that the page used to be a guide on how to use placeholder images before they were deprecated, not that the deprecation is a historical issue. Cheers, Number 57 22:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi mate. Please stop adding placeholder images back into the articles. I'm currently going through them all to address the width issues. Cheers, Number 57 22:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to have to do this, but if you don't stop reinstating them, I am going to have to raise this at WP:ANI for action. Cheers, Number 57 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I am addressing the width issues; I'm going through the articles at the moment. Number 57 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, sorry, I'll file a report shortly and ping you. Cheers, Number 57 23:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Report filed. Apologies again, but if you'd engaged in discussion as a first course of action rather than immediately start reverting I wouldn't have done this. Cheers, Number 57 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, that was way OTT and I've removed the report. I need some time away from here. Number 57 23:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

15 March

Hi Impru. My apologies again about yesterday, it had been a bad day but that still didn't excuse how I acted...

My recollection from many years ago was that placeholder images were formally banned following that discussion, and that they were all removed as a result. I guess they may have started creeping back in in recent years as people forgot about it, or new editors appeared who weren't aware of it. Perhaps the best course of action might be to raise the issue at WP:Village pump (policy) to see whether there is still any form of consensus over it. That would result in a much better outcome than any kind of agreement reached between us, which I suspect would be ignored by the editor whose insertion of placeholder images in Montenegrin articles sparked my sudden clampdown. Cheers, Number 57 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on using them either way (I was just enforcing what I thought is still a valid consensus), and would probably not !vote either way in the discussion. However, I feel it would be useful to clarify whether consensus still exists on the issue, as I do see them occasionally on other articles. Also, it might be good to clarify when and what type of placeholder should be used - either a shadow image, or the question mark boxes you've added more recently. I certainly agree with your point that placeholders stabilise the width of infoboxes better than Noimage.png, although I guess that could be resolved by having another version of that image with a different height-to-width ratio.
Perhaps it could be a three-part discussion along the lines of
  1. Should placeholder images be used at all?
  2. If they should be used, when should they be used? In all situations or should they be avoided in certain articles (e.g. biographies)
  3. If placeholders should be used, what type of placeholder would be preferable: Shadow images or question mark boxes.
Number 57 15:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unidas Podemos

Hi Should we create a new article or move the first article ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

But sources from 2019 use Unidos or Unidas? Also, official name is still registrated as Unidos? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
What name have been communicated to the electoral commission? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
What about Crida. Did it join JuntsCat? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Junts per Catalunya

Hi

The new name is Junts. Should we edit the article and add the new logo? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

But we could add the name of the alliance. Is National Call for the Republic part of the alliance? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Podemos

Hi

Will the party contest the municipal election in Madrid? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

En Marea have been replaced by En Comun-Unidas Podemos. Should we create an article? Also, what is the name of the coalition who have replaced A la valenciana? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. But should we have an article for En Comun-Unidas Podemos? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Crida

Hi

Crida have really 20 MP in Catalan parliament, 3 deputies and 2 senators? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Italy

Could you make a chart for the coalitions like for Denmark, thanks ;) Braganza (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Recaps

On one of my sandbox pages I merged the colorful provincial recaps that you made for each constituency, on one page. I think it looks very good and could be used for a potential Wikipedia article to give a quick, overall view of the trends.

I applied the same system for the recent history of the Catalan and Basque Parliaments. It's captivating to see electoral history recapped this way.

Cheers for tonight and the next days. Kahlores (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


Unconstructive Edits

Hi there. I noticed that you have recently reverted some edits I made to articles in good faith, citing vandalism. I would not hesitate to argue that your own reverts constitute vandalism, given that they are unsubstantiated by the larger editorial collective. I would appreciate if you brought your concerns to the arbitration committee going forward. Thank you and have a blessed day.

2019 Spanish general election RfPPs

Some vandalism is to be expected for an article that's on the Main page. But in this context, the current volume of these is not that disconcerting. I am applying blocks liberally, however. But there is no need for further RfPPs unless the situation becomes truly dire. Thanks. El_C 17:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

En Comu/En Comun

Hi Do you have the list of the Podemos-led platforms since 2014? Also, Comun is a name of a party, ideology or other? Also, do you have new opinion polls? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coalició Compromís, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enric Morera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

CatComu

Hi Could you upload new logo? --Panam2014 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

My images

Hi, I saw you removed my images because of copyright. So, how can I add the images in a way they aren’t copyrighted and which licence should I use? Thanks. Rodrigospascoal (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I very much admire your work on Spanish political issues. Cantabrucu (talk) 18:301, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspicion

By the way Impru, who is this Asqueladd guy, and is his relationship with Maragm anything to do with sock puppetry?

Lo peor es que soy de México y a pesar de estar creando artículos sobre nobleza española, esta despreciando mi trabajo. ¡Quién diría que el es el español!

--Cantabrucu (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

People's Party (Spain)

Hi, I see you recently edited People's Party (Spain). Could you please leave your thoughts on the talk page regarding the current dicussion at the bottom of the talk page about whehter the infobox needs updating to remove the liberal-consevative label, as it may no longer be up to date? Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No point...

...in my continuing to give you space to express your failure to understand in the discussion at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election.

My contribution to the debate there is perfectly clear for anyone who wants to read it, and who has an interest in clear, balanced, factual information, appropriately weighted and presented. Kevin McE (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Very poor form to make public accusations about off forum posts. You really should read what you write about. Kevin McE (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the above user didn't feel it was worthy enough to address my reply on their concerning behaviour shown above. Impru20talk 17:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

'statutory'

Hello Impru. Just an FYI, 'statutory' is only used in the sense of something being a legal requirement – for instance, it is a statutory duty of local authorities to provide waste collection services. It does not mean 'related to a statute' in the sense that you were using it for article titles. The subject of the referendum was the question of autonomy. The only possible title if you want to include the word would be something like '1935 Galician Statute of Autonomy referendum'.

I see you are moving the articles again. Please don't do this. You should go to WP:RM if a move is undone. Cheers, Number 57 17:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The definition of 'statutory' cannot be used in the sense that you are trying to use it. Whilst the definition you refer to says 'of or relating to statutes', it is still only used in the sense of 'required by' or 'defined by'. As a result, a 'statutory referendum' would be a referendum required by statute, not a referendum about a statute, so the meaning (if used in the article titles you have proposed) would not be correct. Perhaps it's one of those areas of English that is difficult to explain exactly why something is not right, but please take it from a native English speaker (and one that taught English), that this is wrong and not an 'error on my part' as you claimed in the edit summaries.
As I said above, if you really want the word statute in the title, then you can use 1935 Galician Statute of Autonomy referendum or similar. Number 57 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think titles like '1935 Galician Statute of Autonomy referendum' would be controversial, so I don't think there would be any need for an RM if you wanted to go ahead and move them. My objection was purely to the use of 'statutory'.
With regards to 'constitutional' you are correct that it has a primary meaning similar to that of statutory, but the term 'constitutional referendum' is also widely used and recognised as referring to a referendum on a constitutional amendment, so I don't think poses the same issue. Number 57 17:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me. Cheers, Number 57 18:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The opposite of a 'consultative' (also described as advisory or non-binding) referendum is a 'binding' or 'legally binding' one, not 'statutory'. 'Statutory' would mean legally required in the sense that the referendum is required by law, but this isn't really something that would be put in an opening sentence as it's not a key detail about the vote (whereas binding or non-binding would be). Number 57 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

See e.g. 2012 Icelandic constitutional referendum, 2008 Georgian referendum or Referendums in Sweden. Number 57 21:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Using the word 'statutory' is really not appropriate at the start of these articles. I do not think it will be entirely clear to many readers what it means, and it is of secondary importance to the referendum being binding. Your insistence on using it just looks like you are trying to make a point after our discussion yesterday. Please replace it with 'binding'. Number 57 21:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Statutory really doesn't work here, but it seems you are unwilling to accept this advice. I will seek input from other English-speaking editors. Number 57 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have not changed my motive – I have never said that the term 'statutory referendum' would be appropriate in any sense; I was merely trying to explain what the term would mean if used. However, it is barely used and so is not appropriate for the first sentence of these articles. This is nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT; it's about writing something in English that is correct and understandable. Number 57 21:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I said "it effectively means" – i.e. what could be deduced as its meaning. However, this is not the same as saying "it is normal or ok to use this"; In all the time I have been researching to write Wikipedia articles, I do not recall ever seeing the term 'statutory referendum' used (the closest is the (still awkward) 'mandatory referendum' used to describe certain Swiss votes. 'statutory referendum' is not a common term to use in English and I would say a decent proportion of readers would be confused by its meaning even though they understand the two words independently. Number 57 22:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Which was the rationale for merging the articles of different mandates of J.L. Rodríguez Zapatero within a single one? Could you provide me with a link to the particular discussion? I may be willing to propose revisiting the idea of merging. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, it looks to me an overconcern to try to enforce consistency across different contexts (for example across different constitutional eras). Despite good intentions it is more of a disservice than a positive. Besides, to be fair, the most tricky case is not the Restoration (with PM mandates being actually rather straightforward barrying some acting capacities: the King tasks the PM with forming a government and the later forms it, period; another thing is the notion of legislative term, though, but that is unconsequential here) but the francoist dictatorship (as differentiating mandates of the head of government for the period with Franco as head of government can be a haphazard task). In any case Urquijo Goitia's classic provides scholar response for both cases. Then again, I won't necessarily worry about articles needing the same structure in a different "constitutional" [sic] era of sorts. I wouldn't shoot myself in the foot tying the content of any recent cabinet to an oddity of an Isabeline governmnent, Francoist government or whatnot. I know that sometimes (current) governments are referred to the full continuous PM rule interval (as well as sometimes governments are subdivided into further cabinet crisis/big reshuffles below the mandate level), but the most common understanding is associated to each PM's mandate (interval in between each sworning off of the post, that is). All in all, with what you tell me, I will strongly vouch for (re)spliting the entries, having different entries for post-1975 "the Juan Carlos/Felipe era". Or if you wish with the post-1979 era (the "fully democratic era"), the post-1973 era (the "clearly defined president of government era"), the post-1977 era (the "era after the 1977 general election"): it is not very important, to be honest. Regardless of what happens with ancient governments (which for the most part they don't even exist so far and that would also offer different challenges because of different context). Regards. PS: not to say that in the case concerned, the Zapatero Government, the very same structure suggests the split into two is only natural. PS2: In any I am going to start with disengaging the entry from the other wikipedias, as the entry is not the same thing as those.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I would go with recognisable surname(s)+government+optional roman ordinal as default, with alternative options when problems pop up. Cabinet could do it too, but the Spanish notion for the PM's office may suggest selecting the other. Council of Ministers while probably the most accurate is not very used in English language sources (or Spanish-language ones, for that matter). Besides relating the particular government to the head of government and a preference for a certain model of table formatting when possible, which should be the common thread "across ages"? Legislative term cannot be a common thread. The mandate as in suggested above following the sucession of "swore in the office-swore in the office-..." can be used for most of cases although it presents some problems when dealing with Franco. In any case I think we are worrying too much, so far, the cover of the topic in "ancient eras" is dire.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling for next UK GE

In response to your revision: The raw data is annotated with significant political events that give context to shifts in the opinion polling. It is not practical to show this information on the long-term chart. With the 2019 short-term graph, this is feasible. An annotated graph will make it easier to interpret at a glance the dramatic shifts in opinion polling during the past year. If you are unhappy with the aesthetic aspect, it can be revised. Gustave.iii (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk page for the Opinion polling for the November 2019 Spanish general election

Just to make you aware, I transferred your comment about Más Madrid over to the Nov 2019 opinion poll talk page from the April one. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

2006 general election

Why have you rollbacked my edit in this page? Those tables are too long, and the page overflows --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You did not understand what I mean, the length is not the same, with the full name of the coalitions those tables are not entirely in the perimeter of the page, it is a bad effect that can simply be solved using those abbreviations, otherwise it's necessary to move the page to the right to view the entire table.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
But in this case it takes very little to avoid this effect, so why did you roll back my edit?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Ehm... no, you answered "The tables are the same length with the edit and without it", but it isn't true, and "An enormous amount of Wikipedia articles use similar or even larger tables. Sometimes, such a size is needed", but in this case is not needed and other abbreviations are already used on these tables. So so you didn't answer my question and you haven't explained to me where the problem with my version is. If you don't explain the reason to me, then I can restore the previous version...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Original research? Unione and above all CDL are the offical or established abbreviations of those coalitions, it is a well-known thing (so now I answered you on this point too). You gave me three reasons, but they are wrong: do I restore my edit? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Más País

Hi MP is the new name of MM. So should we merge the both? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. So why MM/MP have been founed in February 2019? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
See here. Also, is it sure that MM still exist (not only for the parliamentary group]? And if MM still exist, are there others sections named Más + City? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
MM is only for Madrid. But MP is a party and a platform for all the country. So MP is member of the coalition, not only MM. Because some candidates are not members of MM, Equo or Compromís and CHA. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should replace Más Madrid by Más País in the composition because not only the party MM but also MP is a part of the coalition. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

And for Aragonese Union? The coalition have been cancelled? Also, for MP-Eqo should we create an article? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
So why Aragonese Union (the third coalition) have been deleted from the article of the 11/19 elections? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Information about a graphic

Hi Impru20, I am Carlos Acosta from Wikipedia in Spanish. First, sorry by my english, I do not write in this language. Second, I want know how do you make the graphic in this article: Software used, how calculate the average opinion by party, etc. I want use a similar graphic in Wikipedia but I do not have enough information. You can write me in my talk page in Spanish site (Better in Spanish, but if you will do in English, I will try to understand you). CarlosArturoAcosta (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"Next Extremaduran regional election" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Extremaduran regional election. Since you had some involvement with the Next Extremaduran regional election redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Your revert on Franco's article

Just to explain that I understand your point, about WP:CONSENSUS and I I understand that if bold edit gets reverted, one must seek a consensus for adding content, not to continue reverting. But in this case my bold editing was reverted without any explanation, and Wikipedia:Consensus policy also says that edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring.. And this is what happened, my good faith contributions were reverted without any explanation. It is impossible to find consensus if one does not know what is being contested. You seem to be a long stranding good editor, I do not wish to quarrel, just wanted to provide an explanation of why I've reverted and seek your help to improve the lead section. The lead section seems quite weak and has room for improvement. Thank you. --J Pratas (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Senado de España

Buenas tardes Impru20, perdona que te hable en castellano pero veo que eres español (y no tengo un inglés muy fluido jajaja).

En primer lugar, te escribo porque veo que eres el miembro más activo respecto a elecciones y temas de política en España y quería comentarte un tema sobre esta tematica. Sabrás que fuí el que cambió el número de senadores en las próximas elecciones de 266 a 265 (aquí se puede comprobar).

Resulta que en estos últimos días he estado buscando información sobre la cámara alta española y he visto aquí que a partir de la XIII legislatura, el número de senadores designados por las comunidades autónomas ha bajado de 58 a 57. Investigando, encontré que la Comunidad Valenciana ha sido la que lo ha perdido (también un diputado pero se compensa con otra comunidad autónoma). La razón según esta web radica en un tema de población.

La cuestión es que creo que para la XIII legislatura ya se provocó que el Senado estuviese compuesto por 265 senadores. En el artículo de las elecciones de abril no se vió reflejado el cambio y creo que es erróneo.

No obstante, me está siendo muy difícil encontrar información oficial, pues la web del Senado ya aparece cerrada la XIII legislatura y ni te deja consultar cuales fueron los senadores electos y los designados (o la información es muy confusa). Me gustaría que le echaras un vistazo y me comentaras que opinas y que deberíamos hacer.

Gracias. Un saludo. --Jarl93 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"Majority"

I do not know why one should use a completely different calculation in the UK than in Italy and Poland and NOBODY responds to the discussion Braganza (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Elección de liderazgo de Ciudadanos

Hola. En vista de la renuncia de Rivera a la presidencia de Ciudadanos, decidí redactar este artículo Next Citizens (Spanish political party) leadership election. Espero que me puedas ayudar expandiendo el artículo. Gracias. --Stalin990 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--BrugesFR (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruption

Still waiting for your answer.--Baprow (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely, I'm really tired about your crusade. Ok, the colors have gone. Not necessary a fourth menace. But respect the previous version. --Baprow (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Response to 'Proposed Deletion...Comparison of UK Election...'

Hi there - not sure of protocol here, but I've edited my talk page in response to the proposed deletion, and fixed up the page itself in ways which might be helpful, removing the deletion notice.

I'm writing this here to make sure you don't think I'm ignoring you and changing things at random on the page.

As you can tell I'm pretty new...how does the consensus on deletion process work?

RERTwiki (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on House of Representatives elections

Hello, since you have recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 United States House of Representatives elections, or 2016 United States House of Representatives elections, I am inviting you to an ongoing discussion taking place at Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections#RFC on inclusion of House elections. Orser67 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

PDECAT

I'll try to be as civil as possible, as your latest editions in Catalan independence movement can only be explained by some sort of confusion and not by any bad faith. On the one hand you state in one edition summary, and provide a source confirming it, that the PDECAT is an extant political party, i.e., it still exists. On the other hand you revert my editions that say exactly that. My best guess is that you don't understand the word extant, otherwise I don't know what to think. --Jotamar (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Socialists' Party of Aragon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aragonese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 - Recent Reversion

General consensus is not required for the Lead of an article (except in terms of what is written exactly), as the change pertained to the section in MOS:LEAD, under MOS:INTRO - "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." No edit war occurred - there was disagreement, but I have since sent the editor a note regarding this same matter. And if there are any inaccuracies, one should simply correct (evidence provided) or remove these. GUtt01 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll make clear on one thing. There was and may still be a dispute, but the other editor did clearly point out to me that I had made some inaccuracies when I rewrote the Lead, which I respected greatly. I did note him talking about Talk Page, but I wanted to clearly point out some in the MOS for Leads. The article's lead was clearly in need of a clean up, hence my effort to rework it. I won't go into the article to revert again. But do understand that my recent reversions in the last hour were towards guidelines under MOS:INTRO. I don't mean to intend being the one to unilaterally interpret this, but clearly going in to clean it when it may take time to get consensus for change when I first saw the article is a part of WP:BEBOLD? GUtt01 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

General Election 2019 - Final Predictions

How can I have a conflict of interest on a page where I post somebody else's already published data on a page where no opinions are posted, there are no opinions posted and it was not promotion, surely by this logic they should all be removed as promotion?

I do not understand why my edit has been removed when I was simply adding to the database that was already there, how were the other predictions added?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyC2019 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1980 Catalan regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union of the Democratic Centre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Impru20/Archive_9&oldid=1063505198"