User talk:Impru20/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Error in Italian opinion polling chart

Hi Impru20, I noticed that there must be an error in the script that makes the plot File:OpinionPollingItalyGeneralElectionNext.png. I find that in mid-November 2020 a point for FI is exactly at 0, as well as in mid-July 2020 for the Action party. Could you please fix it? Cheers --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

File:OpinionPollingGreeceNextGeneralElection.png

You can update this image [1] in order to include the polls after 2020 October 25 where you made the last update. If again you can not update the image you can tell me with which program you created the graph.--Αθλητικά (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You can update this image [2] in order to include the polls after 2021 March 5 where you made the last update. If again you can not update the image you can tell me with which program you created the graph.--2A02:587:4D07:7000:20FF:8EC3:FCFA:64BF (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

En Comú Podem

Hi

Do you have a source that En Comú Podem became a party on 2016? --Panam2014 (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello ! I wanted to ask you a question, how and where can the png of election polls trend lines be edited? 31.4.230.6 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you rerate the article about Torre-Pacheco, please?

Good afternoon Castilruiz,

The artcle about Torre-Pacheco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Torre-Pacheco ) is currently assessed as Start-Class and I consider that it deserves a higher category. You can see the criteria about the categories in the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spain/Assessment#Quality_scale .

Regards,

--Yolanda95 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Yolanda95

Your GA nomination of 2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy

The article 2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Nice, thanks! I have addressed some of them already, but I'll be somewhat busy in the next day or two so I hope I will be able to take on this in full on Wednesday. Cheers! Impru20^talk 19:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No hurry, I'm not beholden to the 7 day rule. CMD (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy

The article 2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Citizens (Spanish political party)

Hi, an IP editor recently made this edit, which changed the logo used in the Cs article. Do you know if this sort of logo is preferred or not? I don't want to revert before asking someone else about what's normally done. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that you just reverted it. Ezhao02 (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Mónica García's image

Hello! I didn't know that Mónica García's image was copyrighted. I'll try to add the File:Mónica_García_Gómez_(cropped).jpg image instead, since I've found it in Wikimedia Commons and it seems to not be copyrighted. Sorry and thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Salto Libre (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Conservative Party (Norway)'s color

Why has the color in the template for the Norwegian Conservative Party been reverted back to the old color scheme? The party has a new logo as shown here and the old color (#87add7) is gone from the party's website: https://hoyre.no/

I will be reverting your edit to the template unless there's a good enough reason to keep the old color. --Spaastm (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Más Madrid edit war

Hello. There's been a recent edit war on the political position of Más Madrid. Your help would be very appreciated in order to deal with the issue. It's been going on for days and a common criterion is more than needed. Thanks in advance for your valuable opinion. --Fer1997 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinion polling graphs

Hello! Recently I have uploaded a graph of the opinion polls for the next Castilian-Leonese regional election and I have used it at its respective article. You then removed it arguing that there were not enough polls to justify it. I had no idea there was such a limit on that, what would be enough polls to be correct to place it? I am now working on graphs of the Basque and Galician elections of last year and now I do not know whether I will be able to use them in their articles or not. Thanks for your attention! :)--Basque mapping (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. If you want you can send me the code template you use so that I can spare you work. For the graphs I have done I have used the template Gbuvn posted. Hope I can help you. :)--Basque mapping (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Polling tables template?

Hi,

We are a handful of Wikipedians specializing in election pages and opinion polling. Most of the layouts we use follow a very similar pattern. It strikes me that no-one yet has ever thought about creating a template that would save us some steps, and more importantly, straighten the learning curve for newcomers and occasional contributors.

Imagine Template:poll-row that would work in combination with Template:poll-header. Instead of adding manually each new poll in wiki-code, spanning over multiple lines, we could just write each poll on one line of text. Many things could then be automated: wikilinks pointing to known companies and publishers, data-sort-value attributes allowing sorting by date, color highlights, lead sums.

Here's an example (from imagination):

{{poll-row |c=Ipsos |p=El Diario |r=15 June 2021 |d=10–13 June 2021 |PP=34.8 |PSOE=22.4 |Más=19.1 |Vox=11.3 |UR=5.6 |Z={{N/A}} |ref={{Cite news|...}}}}

Seat predictions such as the ones you add on the Spanish pages could easily be added via new parameters. Not only that, but the template would make life much easier for web crawlers, either by scanning the wiki-code lines directly, or by asking the template to add a mark-up (currently too demanding).

Possible difficulties (such as the management of splits and mergers) could be done away with good coding skills. All in all, I can't see disadvantages. What about you?

Kahlores (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Results breakdown of the 2015 Spanish local elections

I see you've reverted my edit. I changed numerous small things, maybe I should have split it up, but we can discuss them one by one.

• "This is the results breakdown of" I'm not used to articles referring to themselves in this way. I've looked at other election pages, and this is not done. An example wording is: "The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday"
• "The following tables show detailed results in the autonomous community's most populous municipalities". There is only one entry below, so this line looks like generic copy/paste that doesn't quite apply.
• "The following table lists party control in the most populous municipalities, including provincial capitals (shown in bold)." And yet, Logroño is not in bold, and it's the provincial capital and the only element in the list
• "Gains for a party are displayed with the cell's background shaded in that party's colour." Really? Where is this? I can't see it.

I added some text also, so that sections wouldn't be blank. If you don't like the context I added, I'm welcome for you to suggest alternatives. Dhalamh (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Trend Line 2012-2015 in Greece

Can you do Local regression trend line of polls from the Greek elections of June 2012 until the elections of January 2015?--109.242.164.146 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for the Islands

Hello Impru, sorry for the confusion about Proposal for the Islands. Should have been a little clearer with the edits there, I didn't realise there were two templates. JackWilfred (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1881 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santander.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

New page patroller invite

Hi Impru20, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election

I understand your reaction in your post just now. However, I suspect there’s an element of crudeness in their use of English (2nd language) that makes it sound worse than (possibly) they intend. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid headhunting

Hello. The Pollster has a clean block log. Lobbying to block them is not a good look. If their behavior is bad enough, pointing it out with diffs and links will be sufficient. You can leave the blocking part unsaid for best results. Jehochman ^Talk 09:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Yes, I would normally just let things go their way, but this case is specially infuriating considering the multiple users involved to make TP understand the point and the still apparent behaviour of not getting such point (as well as their mocking of the lack of a majority support to block them "right now" as an endorsement of their own behaviour and edits). Nonetheless, note that in my latest edit at ANI (in most of my edits, in fact) I did provide diffs and links. The fact of "never being blocked" would have been an argument earlier on, but the behaviour was so egregious and reiterative even after the ANI thread was opened that it no longer mattered (in fact, note that there was a rough consensus for an indef block "next time around", considering that the user has indeed received (and is aware of) multiple warnings). This said, thank you for your involvement and for this advice; whatever happens from now on, it's obvious that if this user does not learn from his mistakes he will end up being blocked anyway, so it's their call to use this dispute as an opportunity to learn to work collaboratively and civility or not. Cheers! Impru20^talk 10:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ll tell you a secret. Indef blocks don’t work that well. The user just creates a new account and they may become a long term abuser. It’s sometimes better to keep them active on their original account under a watchful eye. Jehochman ^Talk

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Next Balearic regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biel Company.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster and ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Random question

I don’t what to go into why I’m asking but, by any chance, have you had any notifications of multiple failed attempts to log-in to your account lately? My reason for asking is a bit of a long-shot, but I just wanted to rule something out. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Actually, yes. I got two "multiple failed attempts to log-in" notifications: the first 13 hours ago, and another one barely one hour ago. I had to change my password (it was strong already, but just in case) and was tempted to have the case elevated to ANI in the event I got a third one. Never had something like this happen to me. Didn't want to think this had any connection with any recent issue/discussion I was involved in, but now seeing this happened to you as well is... unsettling, to say the least. Impru20^talk 18:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I had exactly the same two timings. In addition I had an attempt 24 hours ago. The reason why I asked you is that the timings broadly matched the timing of Wikipedia edits by the user. ANI isn’t the place for this. I think we need advice from an admin. Not sure who at this point. I don’t know whether checkuser can have a role. DeCausa (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Yes, those were my same thoughts. Since this is the first time something like this happens to me, I am not sure on what would be the prover venue to handle this. Maybe rather than ANI, we could ask at WP:AN for an admin to help and either re-direct us to the proper venue or manage the issue privately. Impru20^talk 18:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ve asked an admin here. I haven’t identified you - I’ll leave that to you. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Perfect, thanks! We shall shee how to act from there. I see we haven't been the only ones having these experiences... one failed attempt at one account can be an error. The amount of incidents suggest this is beyond being any coincidence. Impru20^talk 20:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, wth all three of us now being attacked, I’m more inclined to think it’s just a straightforward ANI issue since it seems fairly obvious what is happening - none of us having had this before. However, I’d like to see what HighinBC suggests nevertheless. It’s moved, for me, from something quite sinister to being ludicrously WP:CIR. Why would they think that they could get into our accounts by randomly trying passwords and what would they even do that helps them if they got in?? DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: The only thing I could think of is that they were trying to sway the ANI discussion into their way using our accounts, or to have their edits restored from an account different that theirs. This should still require a CU confirmation, but if confirmed the current TBAN discussion would be void; an indef (and possibly, a site or community ban) would be due. Impru20^talk 21:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I had further attempts tonight, at about 8 hours ago. Seeing that HighInBC has already replied, and that they say they experienced such attempts themselves (note that they were one of the users favouring a TBAN in the ANI discussion), I think we should definitely raise this in the ANI thread, to 1) ascertain the true number of affected people, and 2) determine the remedies to be enforced (a TBAN seems insufficient at this rate). Impru20^talk 08:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, me too. 8 hours ago. I’ve just checked with HghinBC whether he meant he’s had attempts generally or in the last 48 hours. I wasn’t quite sure which he meant. DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Looks like it could have been in response to you seeking their advice. That means not only that we are being subject to seemingly deliberate off-wiki attempts to hack into our accounts (however incompetent and futile those may be), but that we may also being wikihounded and our movements tracked. Impru20^talk 10:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Impru20! With regard to this, the important point is that though there's very clearly a relation between the hacking attempts (which I too have been on the receiving end of) and the ANI thread, there really is a good chance that this is an LTA, or (perhaps less likely, but still quite possible) one of TP's enemies.

Just imagine if you were dragged to ANI and all of a sudden all those supporting a sanction against you would be targeted by attempts to hack their accounts. There would be no way for you to disprove that it's not you (except perhaps the CU, but I don't believe they can really be 100% certain about what's what), but surely other editors would become much more willing to drive up the sanctions against you because of it. It can also work the other way around, with editors not feeling confident enough to support a sanction because they feel the evidence for the hacking is not strong enough, while actually there are other issues which may be really serious. There are some long-since banned wiki-addicts out there who would find such stuff hilarious. In that sense, not focusing on it is also a form of WP:DENY.

I did not mean to trivialize the effect of the hacking attempts in any way: I have changed my password to a much longer one (the best way to make it secure) as a result of it, which is inconvenient at the very least. Do know, however, that if your password is sufficiently strong there's no way they will actually succeed in hacking your account (admins get these all the time). Moreover, should they actually succeed, they can't do much with it (since your account has no administrative privileges), but the irony is that a CU will then be able to see who actually did it. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I raised the Joe Job theory when the attempts started with me on friday, I don’t buy it. There are so many more effective ways to do a Joe Job than this. If I hadn’t contacted Impru in this thread (which started the ball rolling) and then Jeppiz, there’s a very good chance none of this would have come out. We would all just think we were subject to this in isolation because no one would have thought to have posted to the ANI thread and I really don’t see anyone putting two a two together. The reason it came out was pure fluke. I decided to check when The Pollster was editing to see if it coincided when the attempts were made. I don’t even now know why I decided to check it. I really didn’t expect to find anything and it was beyond a long shot. It was just an idle moment. But then I thought I saw a correlation between the times of The Pollster’s edits and the attempts. And that’s why I contacted Impru (and then Jeppiz). If I hadn’t seen that correlation I wouldn’t have done anything about it. But I misread the Pollster’s contribs - there wasn’t a direct correlation! I was wrong. They happened when he tended to edit over time but not when he was actually editing. If I hadn’t made that mistake I wouldn’t have bothered contacting Impru. And then i doubt very much any of this would have emerged at all. What sort of Joe Job is that? DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I also changed my password to a much longer one the first time I saw such incidents happening. However, when one has 627 hijacking attempts on their account, and when basically everyone who became involved in a discussion against the same user ended up suffering the same incident, that's a reason for concern. Even if I can know my account will be safe from hijacking (or that whoever does it will be seen by a CU if it ends up being effectively hijacked) this still freaks me out. It is not normal. Impru20^talk 18:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: there's a non sequitur in your argument: just from the fact that it came out the way you describe, it does not follow that it couldn't or wouldn't have come out in another way. I was on the verge of posting to ANI about it right after it happened (long before I saw a post by anyone else about it; I actually thought it was related to another case), but then in the final flick of time I hit the 'cancel' button. But yeah, it might not have worked; would a bad joe job be something so extraordinary though? Please do note that I find it highly unlikely that it was a joe job, somewhat less unlikely that it was an LTA, and rather likely that TP was behind this. But then the fact that we can't prove that really means we shouldn't act on it. If it was TP, we can't do anything about it because the evidence is not clear-cut, and if it was an LTA, we are giving them a lot of recognition.

@Impru20: you're absolutely right, it's not normal, and it freaked me out too. If there's a way we can find out who did this, we should certainly pursue it. I have also been thinking whether it would not be possible for the devs to make it easier for the CU's to see what's happening? From this conversation, I gather there's much room for improvement there. Perhaps something to put up at WP:VPI? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

i don’t think there’s a non sequitur in my argument: I think the evidence is overwhelming that no joe jobber would have done this - it just doesn’t make any sense. However, an LTA, with no aspiration to joe job the Pollster, could well have - and the evidence seems to be mounting that that’s what has happened. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

José María Aierdi

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this - there's no point, you're a consummate bully - but there's nothing in the infobox documentation which states that the native name filed should only be used for non-Latin names. This is another example of a long pattern of suppressing anything that is non-Castilian.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Excuse me? I would demand a reasonable explanation as to why a justified revert (where I simply pointed out to you what the common practice in Wikipedia is, with "native names" being typically used for those using different alphabets) is being responded in my talk page with accusations of being a consummate bully and casting aspersions on me allegedly suppressing anything that is non-Castilian. This is an uncalled personal attack, and should no reason be given I may consider taking actions against this. Cheers. Impru20^talk 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Election chart (2019 Portuguese legislative)

Hello! :-) Concerning your recent reversion here, I agree with your idea of changing the current chart to accurately match the parties' relative position (and, upon closer inspection, I also agree with your objection that the colours of the chart I had added don't quite match those of the table). We would have to change: the IL to between PSD and CDS-PP; the PAN to between PS and PSD; and the Left Bloc to the furthest left-wing position. But I don't know how to do it! :-/ Would you like to perform the change yourself? If not, how may I do so? Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@LongLivePortugal: I've already uploaded an updated chart with IL to the right of the PSD (it may take a while for it to update properly in the main article depending on your device, but the change is already done). As for the rest of proposals: PAN is centre-left and has green politics as part of its ideology, so its current position is ok; whereas the Left Bloc is shown as left-wing to far-left (the same as the CDU, but the main alliance partner there, the PCP, is shown as "far-left") so its current position seems ok to me as well. Cheers! Impru20^talk 20:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Too much hassle. You folks take care of it.

Well, you fellas can argue over when the German chancellorship changes hands, as I'm going to bed. Scholtz will be the chancellor when I awake. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

United We Can for Andalusia Parliamentary Group

Hi

We need an article because it is a parliamentary group. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't create articles on parliamentary groups. Impru20^talk 17:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Party shading/Nowoczesna

Template:Party shading/Nowoczesna has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Party shading/PiS

Template:Party shading/PiS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Castilian-Leonese polling graph

Hi! Now that it have been announced snap elections in Castile and León I think that it is a good moment to add a opinion polling graph. If you remember some months ago I added one and you reverted it because there were not enough polls to see a clear trend. Well, now that it has been confirmed that elections are going to be held alone, it is sure that they will gather much more attention which will made more than usal polls to be published. You also said that it should be tried to mantain the same style in the spanish polling graphs, so if you post your code of R i can use it for the graph. Thanks!--Basque mapping (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• File:Opinion polls Castile and León 2023.svg

Hmm ok, I will study this. Maybe I can get one such chart myself (which will allow for much more consistency with charts for other communities, such as Andalusia or Madrid, for example) as well as keep it up to date. Give me one day or two and I'll see what can I do. Impru20^talk 15:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if you finally decide to upload your own one I will ask for the deletion of mine. Thanks for answering! :D--Basque mapping (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this was faster than I expected. It's already uploaded and the page updated with it. The smoothing is provisional: depending on the amount of polling published until 13 February 2022 (it's the first time a snap election is held in CyL, so I've no clue on how many opinion polls will be published!) it may be adjusted to account for a much larger frequency. Impru20^talk 16:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello again, Impru20. Thanks again for excellent work across multiple elections articles this year. Wish you and your family a pleasant rest this holiday season. Valenciano (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/DLR at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/DLR has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/AV at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/AV has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/AR at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/AR has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/UPE at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/UPE has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/Falange at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/Falange has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/PRR at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/PRR has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/PLF at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/PLF has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/PLD at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/PLD has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/PLC at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/PLC has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/ID at templates for discussion

Template:Party shading/ID has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)