User talk:Impru20/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Your GA nomination of 2015–2016 Spanish government formation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015–2016 Spanish government formation 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 Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2015–2016 Spanish government formation

The article 2015–2016 Spanish government formation 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:2015–2016 Spanish government formation for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2015–2016 Spanish government formation

The article 2015–2016 Spanish government formation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2015–2016 Spanish government formation 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 Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 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 2017 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 A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González 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 A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Timeline Spain PM Horizontal

Template:Timeline Spain PM Horizontal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election

Please self-revert your edit here so that we can avoid an edit war. I've already challenged and reverted the same bold edit you made several hours before, and I would much rather you self-revert this than for me to revert the same bold edit twice. You have made significant contributions to Spanish political articles on English Wikipedia over many years, and we are able to discuss the issues we have with the article in a constructive manner. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Honestly, seeing you ask for reinstating over +400 kB of content into an article (which would turn it into the largest in Wikipedia) would be one of the last things I would have imagined to see around here!

I would have no issue to self-revert if the edit in question was directly related to your edits, but the thing is it does not (and I do not know why you seem so willing to engage in a dispute over the transclusion, which has no visual effect in the article or into your initially disputed issues, which revolved on "actual page size" and "table's width"), and I cannot see any benefit on it other than you seemingly wanting the article untouched until your issues are discussed (this is not how WP:BRD works). You should know that your action only hastened the move, but I was already planning it for some time, considering the article's tremendous size and that it was already causing severe editing and navigation lags: 425 kB of content related to the main tables of 2020 and 2021 polls alone (next election is due by the end of 2023 and we are at early 2022. At the current pace, the article would have doubled in size by the end of the legislature only by the sheer amount of polls to be added in the main tables). Your edits only affected a fraction of such size and the removal or non-removal of regional parties would have been, ultimately, inconsequential: a transclusion or split of some kind having to be conducted either in the coming weeks or later this year was inevitable.

You are welcome to expose your actual case is (either in here or at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election) to explain what your actual concerns are, and whether there is a viable solution for them. Let us not stick to discussion on shallow issues. Cheers! Impru20^talk 21:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Well, luck was on your part over this issue, since references do not show properly in the main article with the transclusion. I will investigate how to solve that; until then, the transclusion is reverted since we cannot have the main article without the referencing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Impru20^talk 21:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted the edit, but I would have preferred you self-reverted. You made a bold edit (to transclude most of the article) and I reverted it. After that, we should have discussed the matter and the edit should only be made again if there is consensus to do so, that is standard WP:BRD process. Now that the edit has been reverted, it should only be restored if there is consensus for it, and I am willing to discuss the idea. Making a similar attempt but with some variation would count as fundamentally the same edit attempt.

Perhaps you may think it is ironic that I would challenge an edit that removed 400kB of content, but I don't decide what edits to make, support or contest based purely on something like that. I wouldn't blame you if you assumed I would support transclusion like that, but I do not.

Articles like these are often problematically large for more than one reason, and the obvious judgement is that there are too many parties listed in the tables, though surely there are other issues as well. The issues are beyond simply the markup size or even the download size, and I am more concerned with the user experience. The size is causing severe issues with editing and I am glad you acknowledge that.

I hope this assists you in understanding my approach in discussing the editing of this article. I intend to use the article talk page to discuss in further detail what can specifically be changed in the article itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I should remind you that reverting another user's bold edits only because they reverted yours may constitute a breach of WP:POINT, so I sincerely hope you are not implying that you reverted my bold edit only to make a point yourself.

Willing to hear you bring forward your case. Also your reasons for reverting the transclusion. Cheers. Impru20^talk 21:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've said this on the article talk page but I'm more than happy to say it here, I do not oppose your transclusion of the article out of retaliation that you reverted one of my edits. I oppose it regardless of you reverting an edit of mine. If we were to agree on a change to the article, I would be very delighted and the last thing I would do is use it as an opportunity to make a point or anything like that. Although I disagree with your revert of my bold edit, that is something Wikipedia editors are generally entitled to do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: You actually did acknowledge you did revert me in order to make a point on how the status quo should prevail and on how BRD should work (which means you would have not contested my edit should I had not contested yours. You still have given no sustantive reason why you opposed the transclusion itself despite it bringing many of the benefits you actually seek to implement, most importantly the lagging issues in the article). I am giving you some rope and actually attempting to do as if that ordeal did not happen, specially since I have to figure it out how to make the transclusion work with regards to referencing and will not be able to re-implement it until I achieve that (which will be after the discussion is over anyway), so please do not stick to it and focus on the original issue which was you seeking to remove some parties from the table. Focusing on your reverts subsequent to that will bring no good to this situation, this is a heartfelt advice. Cheers! Impru20^talk 21:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you have misinterpreted my explanation there. I reverted you because I disagreed with the edit, nothing more and nothing less. I had forgotten about the edit of mine that you reverted at the time I reverted yours. I would have contested the transclusion regardless of anything to do with the edit about removing some of the parties from the tables. The only reason I raised that series of edits was to appeal to you to self-revert, because it was a situation where BRD was working as it should.

I also do not agree that transclusion has brought many benefits to the article, and certainly not ones that I am seeking to implement. It does not substantively change the experience for the reader. Again, I disagree with it regardless of the edits to do with removing parties, even if you had agreed with me on that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let us end this particular discussion here because with every new reply you are only making it worst for your case and making it even cleared the case for POINT. As said, I will assume as if you had not done this, and only discuss the transclusion issue when you bring sustantive reasons to oppose it (other than "I disagree with it because I disagree with it"-sort of argument). The issue did not come over the transclusion, which as of currently is stalled, so let us stick to the actual issue at hand. Cheers. Impru20^talk 22:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to discuss the merits of the transclusion proposal, because I oppose it regardless of the issue with references as well. Therefore, there is currently no consensus for it and can't be done boldly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You still have brought no reason to oppose it. Please note that you are very well aware that we have discussed over similar issues in the past and that you consented or even accepted transclusion as a viable solution back then to solve similar lagging issues. Impru20^talk 22:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am telling you I am willing to discuss the reasons. Can you show me where I have agreed to transclusion before? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Then discuss the reasons and stop telling me you are willing to discuss the reasons. Tell me what are them. On where you consented it before, yes: Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_Spanish_general_election#Trimming_table_content. Ironically, the discussion revolved on the same issue (you seeking to cut down the table by removing minor parties from it). Back then, I literally transcluded half the article in your face and described it to you step-by-step, in order to trim the article and reduce its size, and you ignored it entirely! This is why I am so eager to know your reasons behind your opposition to it here because... wow. Transclusions were used for years in those articles precisely as a result of that discussion with you, and you did not care at all! Impru20^talk 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me where in that discussion I agreed to transclusion? Not only on this but I urge you not to make any claims about myself or what I support.

I would have thought you would want to either discuss the issue of transclusion on the article talk page or to not discuss it at all, but I can certainly discuss it briefly here. It doesn't actually reduce the size of the article, it just makes it look like you have from the markup size. I don't see any benefit from the reader's perspective either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Do not modify the sense of my words. I stated that you consented and accepted the transclusions. The article was transcluded in front of your eyes while the discussion was ongoing, I brought the issue of transclusion to the talk page and noted you step-by-step on its implementation, and you did not oppose it nor raise any issue on it. In effect, transclusions were in force for years as a result of that discussion: you did nothing to argue about it until I reverted you at Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election and you felt you had to demonstrate something as per BRD.

How can you say that removing over 400 kB from the article does not reduce the size of the article? Can I ask you what measurable metric are you using to claim this? WP:LENGTH is fairly straightforward on this and it does not support your claims here. Impru20^talk 05:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Then to quote you directly, show me where I consented or even accepted transclusion. It appears to me that I did not at all address or mention transclusion then.

You felt you had to demonstrate something as per BRD I reverted it because I disagreed with it.

How can you say that removing over 400 kB from the article does not reduce the size of the article? Transclusion does not remove anything from the article, that is the problem. The size of the article and the content of the article doesn't change, so it usually doesn't actually solve anything. I noticed that for one element where you used transclusion in the 2015 article, you did so because the content was used in more than one article, which is an appropriate use of transclusion unlike what you are now proposing.

The transclusions you are proposing for the current Spanish opinion polling article are also very different to the transclusions in the 2015 Spanish opinion polling article you are referring to. For me to have an opinion on the transclusions in the 2015 article, I would need to review how drastic they are. All I know about that is they are not nearly as drastic as what you are proposing to do with the current article.

What claims are you talking about? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that I did not at all address or mention transclusion then. ... erm, yes? This is exactly what I told you. In my comment of 11:08, 22 January 2019 I literally told you I made a transclusion and explained to you how I did it. You did not object, complaint or raise it as an issue of any kind. You basically did not care at all back then and consented to such action, which is what I am telling you over and over again.

I reverted it because I disagreed with it. You literally said at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election that you used the example of the status quo prevailing after you reverted my bold edit as an example of how contested editing, particularly BRD, should work, and that you used it as an example of BRD working as it should. I made a bold edit, you reverted it, so I won't restore it and instead we should discuss it ([1]) while using it as an example to demonstrate why you should have not restored your edit after I reverted it, and why you should have self-reverted after you did restore it ([2]). This is archived in the history of the talk page, I mean there is no way to deny you said this.

Then here, you argue that The transclusions you are proposing for the current Spanish opinion polling article are also very different to the transclusions in the 2015 Spanish opinion polling article, then you say For me to have an opinion on the transclusions in the 2015 article, I would need to review how drastic they are. How can you think the current transclusion are "very different", then acknowledge you have no opinion on them? I will told you: transclusions were similar in scope, the only difference being that they affected different sections (note: the article is no longer transcluded that way because I sought to reorganise the transclusion scheme throughout articles, but they are similar).

You are literally opposing for the sake of opposing without having a minimal knowledge of what you are opposing to, lol. Impru20^talk 07:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You basically did not care at all back then and consented to such action I most plainly did not consent to such action, or you would have provided an example of that.

I'll make that issue, which I thought we put aside, really easy for both of us then. Let's assume that you presumed I would support your transclusion proposal, for whatever reason. I can see how you would presume that, because you thought I agreed to your transclusions (though they were much more minor) for the 2015 article, and because you think I am highly motivated by the wiki markup size. We can now both see I didn't agree to even the limited transclusions back then, so you're backtracking and saying that I didn't raise any opposition, and that this is somehow equivalent to agreeing with it. Then you assumed that I reverted your transclusion edits because I was aggrieved that you reverted a bold edit I made the previous day.

In the matter of my bold edit, I made the edit, you reverted it, and I let that happen without reverting it back to my preferred version. Some time after that, you made a bold edit which I disagreed with, so I reverted it. You reverted it back to your preferred version, which is what lead me to raise the previous edit dispute as a precedent of how BRD should work. It was to say "hey, I contested your bold edit, so let it go back to the status quo version, just as we did before". I could have used any example of any other bold edit being contested anywhere else. The important context is that I made those statements in the time between you restoring your bold edit after it was reverted, and when it was reverted against by someone else, pleading with you to follow and adhere to the spirit and the rules of BRD.

How can you think the current transclusion are "very different", then acknowledge you have no opinion on them? Because the transclusion you are proposing for the current article moves almost all of the content, while the transclusions you did on the 2015 article were for peripheral supporting content. On the transclusion you are proposing for the current article, my view is very clear: I am strongly opposed. For the transclusions of the 2015 article, I would have to give it more thought.

I will also take this opportunity to warn you on making personal accusations about me on article talk pages. They may be welcome on user talk pages where there is space to discuss editors, but it's completely inappropriate on article talk pages. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's see: You were directly told the transclusion was taking place and did not object to it (the comment has been referenced). You ignored it entirely and this is a fact. Check what WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is (though regarding it as implicit is quite generous, since you were literally told right in the face what was happening). By not opposing it, you did consent to it, and the transclusions were in place for over two years without you caring anything about them (it is not that you had no time to oppose them...). I am not "backtracking" because I have never told what you intend for me to have told! I have literally told from the very beginning that you consented or accepted the 2015 transclusion. It was you who misinterpreted it as meaning to say something akin to explicitly agreeing with it, but I never said that, and I even literally told you that Back then, I literally transcluded half the article in your face and described it to you step-by-step, in order to trim the article and reduce its size, and you ignored it entirely!.

The 2015 transclusions involved less content (i.e. less wiki markup size, which you have repeteadly told you do not care about in this discussion) but affected way more sections (compared to only two in Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election). Please, elaborate what you interpret as "minor", because it would seem as if you are both attempting to say that you did not agree with the 2015 page transclusions, while simultaneously defending the 2015 transclusions over the current one because of them being "minor", while also arguing that you do not think wiki markup size should be considered (so, what does stand as "minor"?). I am puzzled.

It was to say "hey, I contested your bold edit, so let it go back to the status quo version, just as we did before". I mean, yes, this is what I am saying. And this is what constitutes a textbook case of WP:POINT. You are basically unwilling to acknowledge it is POINT, but it is from your very own description. I am really unsure on what the point of conflict is here other than the label.

the transclusion you are proposing for the current article moves almost all of the content, while the transclusions you did on the 2015 article were for peripheral supporting content. ... yes, and? There is any policy or guideline opposing that? Content is still shown in the article, that's what WP:TRANSCLUSION is meant for: it saves article space, allowing content to be transcluded from different locations without it affecting the final presentation. Please, can you show me what the policy or guideline against the transclusion of most an article's content is? You say you are "strongly opposed" to it but you have given no single reason for it other than than opposing it for the sake of opposing it, and because you are apparently feeling upset because of me having reverted your edit... Impru20^talk 09:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on whether it was a consensus or not, implicit or otherwise. It's simply the case that I didn't agree, accept or consent to it. The backtracking is pretending that not expressing disagreement is somehow consent (it's not). It was also much less than half the article, don't pretend it was half the article (it looks more like 10% based on edit summaries), not that it's relevant to if I consented or not (I did not). but affected way more sections Also irrelevant, they were smaller sections as I have addressed, while your present proposal is for the few sections which comprise the bulk of the article. I don't see how this matters to the current polling article anyway.

Please, elaborate what you interpret as "minor" Transcluding the graphical summary is minor. Transcluding the polling results themselves, which is most of the article, is major. while also arguing that you do not think wiki markup size should be considered If we are to consider the wiki markup size, we should consider the markup size of the transcluded content as well.

I mean, yes, this is what I am saying. It seemed like you were saying that my reason for reverting your bold edit was because you reverted an edit of my own. I was using the bold-revert-discuss example of the bold edit I made to describe why you should self-revert your bold edit which you restored after I had reverted it, not as a reason why I reverted your bold edit.

Please, can you show me what the policy or guideline against the transclusion of most an article's content is? My opposition to it is because it is completely unnecessary and does not improve the article. It does not reduce the size of the article and does not save article space. All it does is spread the original hosting of content across different pages for no reason. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The action was done, you were extensively briefed about it, and you just chose to ignore it. That is consenting to it. Do we need a signed agreement from you in some form of legal contract for an action to be adopted in an article for it to be considered to be in consensus? I mean, it is you the only one going around in circles about how you did not expressly agree to it, but I have a tip for you: that was your fault, not mine. So stop wasting my time on the issue of whether you explicitly agreed to it or not. The fact is that it was done, you were informed, you were adviced, and you did nothing. Do not pretend to depict transclusion as a so bad solution right now when you did not even care to address it at the time and instead ignored it. Period.

not expressing disagreement is somehow consent (it's not) It is. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS.

they were smaller sections as I have addressed, while your present proposal is for the few sections which comprise the bulk of the article. But what is the difference? What is the policy or guideline allowing one thing and forbidding the other? I mean you yourself discarded wiki markup size as a valid metric. Then you introduced that transclusion at the 2015 article was valid because it was "minor" (but "minor" according to what when you yourself discarded article size as a valid parameter for transclusion measuring?). Then you argue that transclusion is not valid when it affects "the bulk of the article" (what's the policy or guideline stating that?!). Please, get your facts right.

My opposition to it is because it is completely unnecessary and does not improve the article. Ok, so you do not have a policy or guideline against the transclusion of most an article's content. Thanks for the input.

All it does is spread the original hosting of content across different pages for no reason. I literally told you the reasons for it multiple times. If you do not want to agree with them is a different thing, but I am not going to get entangled into your going around in circles. Cheers. Impru20^talk 11:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The action was done, you were extensively briefed about it, and you just chose to ignore it. That is consenting to it. That is simply not what consent is. There may very well have been consensus, implicit or otherwise, but not from me. Either way I'm not disputing the transclusions done on the 2015 article that you made in 2019, it's just not true that I consented, agreed or accepted it at the time or at any time.

But what is the difference? What is the policy or guideline allowing one thing and forbidding the other? If two things are substantially different, then someone can support one thing and not support the other. That does not require any policy or guideline.

I mean you yourself discarded wiki markup size as a valid metric. I do not discard it, but it should not be abused and it shouldn't be too heavily relied upon. Transcluded content should be included with markup size, for example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That is simply not what consent is. ... What?! The page you linked relates to consent under tort law. I have not asked you to engage in any sexual activity, manage my personal data, practition medicine on my body or whatever. I always meant consent under Wikipedia standards and in the context of Wikipedia editing, for God's sake! xD Again, check what WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS means.

If two things are substantially different, then someone can support one thing and not support the other. That does not require any policy or guideline. So you acknowledge you have no reasoning to oppose the transclusion other than you opposing it. Fine, thanks!

Transcluded content should be included with markup size, for example. "Should be" does not equal not "it is". Where is it stated that transcluded content is included in an article's wiki markup size when the content is physically not within that article? Can you provide that? You thinking it should be does not mean it is, and indeed you yourself acknowledge it is not right now. Impru20^talk 22:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

No, our article titled consent says it is a term used in common speech. There is no mention of consent in the policy you have cited. If you want to claim there was an implicit consensus that's one thing, but nowhere did I consent.

I've already given my reasons for opposing your transclusion proposal for the current article. I am entitled to disagree with one proposal and not disagree with another proposal when the two proposals are substantially different.

Any reasonable editor would agree that the size of an article doesn't decrease just because you move parts out and transclude them all back in. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Lol. I am not going to enter into an absurd debate on the definition of "consent" because of you deliberately ignoring WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. You have been around here for years, so do not pretend to play dumb on me.

Oh, yes, you are entitled to oppose anything you want. But it is based on youir own whimp, not on any policy or guideline. That is another relevant fact at play.

Any reasonable editor would agree that the size of an article doesn't decrease just because you move parts out and transclude them all back in. Aside of this statement being fallacious, I have asked you for something very simple: a policy or guideline backing up your claims. I am not going to enter a debate with you of which a "reasonable editor" is (which is one you may not come out in good shape). If you cannot provide anything, just say you cannot, but stop being circular and recycling empty statements. Cheers. Impru20^talk 06:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you on whether there was an implicit consensus for it or not, it's just not true that Onetwothreeip consented, agreed or supported it. Please see WP:SIZE, the lead section establishes browser size as a measure of the article's size, and the issues that arise in large articles which aren't solved by transclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If you did not dispute the transclusion when it was explicitly conducted under your nose and you were explictly told about it, IMPLICITCONSENSUS applies. You did nothing nor did complain about it for over two years, so IMPLICITCONSENSUS still applies. You consented to those edits by not taking any action against them. Period. I am not going to enter into a legalistic or semantic debate with you on your interpretation of "consent" because of you complaining that you did not explicitly agree to it, because that was not the subject matter of debate, nor is actually relevant to the issue at hand. If you do not know how Wikipedia policy on consensus works, I kindly recommend you to take a look and become familiar with it, but this is not the venue for you to be taught such utilities.

On WP:SIZE, it still does not support your claim. "Browser size" is not a metric for article splitting or size reduction, and its mention in SIZE is limited to the lead without any further practical consequence whatsoever. However, on a related note, I have come across this October 2021 discussion in that guideline's talk page in which your interpretation of that policy came under heavy criticism, and you yourself were severely mauled by multiple users (and were almost brought to ANI because ot it) for exhibiting a behavioural pattern similar to the one you are exhibiting in this particular case, which is: distorting the concept of "article size" in a way suiting your own benefit, recklessly splitting and/or mutilating articles without taking care of the benefits of such action, using a myriad of arguments (generally untrue, irrelevant or exaggerated) and recycling them until the contributors of the article are worn down, etc. This took place in the talk page of the guideline itself, in which your view was explicitly rebuked. Further ahead, it is further implied that SIZE refers to "readable prose size" when it requires for article trimming, not wiki markup size (and much less "download size" or whatever, which is a new concept of yours that you are bringing now). I would say your judgement on this issue is compromised and recommend you to step down from attempting to cut down articles based on their listing at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Articles_by_size, but that's just my personal recommendation. Cheers. Impru20^talk 07:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You consented to those edits by not taking any action against them. That's not consent in any way. You can just say I didn't voice any opposition, which is clearly what you mean.

All of the size measurements in WP:SIZE are discussed in the context of managing the size of the articles, which includes splitting. "Download size" and browser size are interchangeable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You did not voice opposition to the transclusion despite being warned about it. I am not going to debate the obvious.

"Browser size" is still not a metric for article splitting or size reduction. Its mention at the lede of SIZE has no practical consequence whatsoever with regards to your opposition to transclusion nor any of your other proposals for Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election. You have also entirely ignored my mention of your rebuking at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Clarification needed for "article splitting activists". You are not an authority voice on this issue, and indeed many users have recommended you to stop doing these things you do. You should really drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass on this issue. I don't think there is little else to discuss here, we are going around in circles. Cheers. Impru20^talk 07:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"Browser size" is still not a metric for article splitting or size reduction. Of course it does, otherwise it wouldn't be there. Yes, I ignored your mention of something I am uninterested in. I don't believe I've ever claimed to be an authority on anything, I am a Wikipedia editor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course it does, otherwise it wouldn't be there. No, it's not. You were rebuked for doing something similar in the discussion you now claim to be "uninterested in": i.e. to manipulate and reinterpreting WP:SIZE to enforce actions that are not supported by such policy. As a Wikipedia editor, I kindly recommend you to stop doing it, period. Impru20^talk 08:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm completely within the policy, so that's not a problem. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again: the policy does not support using "browser size" as a metric for splitting or mutilating articles. You keep doing on your own whimp using your own interpretation of the policy as an excuse, which is a different thing. Impru20^talk 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This page contains an overview of the key issues concerning article size. There are three related measures of an article's size:

• Readable prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections
• Wiki markup size: the amount of text in the full page edit window, as shown in the character count of the edit history page
• Browser page size: the total size of the page as loaded by a web browser Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If you do not know how to properly use Template:Talk quote inline, please do not use it. As per WP:SIZERULE within the SIZE guideline: Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters. It says nothing about "browser size", which is only mentioned in the lede without any practical effect whatsoever (just to differentiate it from "readable prose size") so please, stop the manipulation. I also do not see any reason to keep this discussion duplicated: this is already being discussed at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, so I will post my final response (that basically discredits everything of what you have said and shows how little knowledge you have on a guideline you claim to defend) there. Have a nice week. Impru20^talk 09:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not using the readable prose size rules of thumb, so that's irrelevant. The most important measure should be the readable table size in the case of table-based articles, followed by browser size and then wiki markup size third. All three measures are relevant to considering an article too large, and diagnosing size-related problems. While we do have this readable prose size indication, it is up to editors to decide how articles should be structured. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not care what you think what it "should be". It certainly isn't right now, so it is all what matters. Now, drop the stick and back slowly away from my talk page. Thanks! Impru20^talk 06:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Valencian regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enric Morera.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Spanish prime ministers aren't elected

Spanish prime ministers aren't elected. They're are appointed. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, have it your way. Spanish prime ministers are directly elected, like many presidents of republics. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GoodDay: There is a specific election procedure for Spanish prime ministers (and regional presidents) regulated under the Constitution, the regional Statutes and other laws. There is a specific vote on the election of a new prime minister by the newly-elected parliaments. So yeah, I would say those are elected (indirectly, by the parliament and not by voters, but it's still an election!). Indeed, your changes are wrong: Zapatero was not the "Prime Minister after the 2004 election" since it was still Aznar until April, for example. Your changes are plainly wrong.

Update: Your second comment is chidlike. I mean, I expect a lot better from a Wikipedia user as experienced as you in refuting arguments than resorting to such kind of sarcasm. Impru20^talk 21:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. I want nothing more to do with it. Go ahead & mass revert all my efforts. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

??? I mean, you made a number of bold edits (fairly simple ones, btw, not taking much "effort" and, in one case, disrupting an entire infobox...). You got reverted. As per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to seek a consensus for those. And if your reasoning to my response (which is backed by the actual legal proceeding of election of a prime minister in Spain) is to just reply with "I'm gone with it you are right do it I don't care", there is seriously very little to comment in here. Impru20^talk 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: For example, your edits for elections previous to 1979 would be correct, since there were no parliamentary votes in those electing a prime minister. You could have made an argument for those instead of resorting to this rant. I will be fixing the format of these to fit with the rest of the infoboxes, since I see no other issue with those beyond that. Impru20^talk 21:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You're more familiar with the content of those articles. Therefore, I won't be undoing your reverts. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nor will I undo those of your edits that are correct. As you see, it is as simple as discussing it. Next time you conduct such a string of edits in articles whose content another user(s) may be much more familiar with, and you see them mass reverting you while providing you a reasoning for it, just ask: maybe they have a good reason for doing so, and maybe it is you the one that is in error (here you were only partially so). I will consider this as a miscommunication issue. Cheers! Impru20^talk 21:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Do as you see fit, with the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, for losing my cool. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González

The article 1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González 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 A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Castile and León maps

Hello Impru20! I hope all's well. I have checked electoral maps of Castile and León and detected that the municipality of Berzosilla is not correctly depicted. It is an exclave of the province of Palencia and it appears in the maps as part of the province of Burgos. Do you think this is something that can be easily fixed? Thanks! Togiad (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election

Good evening Impru20 since you are an article writer in the entry Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election, please very much add the polls that were removed from another use during a rectifier because I can not since the IP page is locked as well as to update the chart so that it is updated by the month of May. Thank You --91.140.104.90 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue of PASOK/KINAL

I don't think a new page should be created, as this is the exact same coalition but with a slightly different name (see for example the Greek Wikipedia). The issue of the logo is more ambiguous, since, as far as I can tell, it still uses both logos, as well as this new one that combines both names (yes, it's official, I didn't just make it up). In most polls the coalition is now shown as "PASOK-KINAL" ("Panhellenic Socialist Movement - Movement for Change"), but the use of the name "PASOK" does not indicate any change in the makeup or ideology of the coalition, but is rather a choice of brand image, since PASOK (the largest party in this coalition) is the most recognizable; no new entity was formed to justify the creation of a separate page. Either way, it is misleading to link the image on the polls page to the PASOK party, as what is being polled is not that party, but the coalition PASOK-KINAL, i.e. the same as KINAL but with a slight name change.

Regarding the copyright of the image, I do believe it is acceptable. I don't know what you mean by "threshold of originality"; this is an official party logo and is also used in the Greek Wikipedia article. I put it on the polls chart at the same time as the EL and EP logos, and while the bot removed those it didn't remove the PASOK-KINAL one, indicating that it doesn't cause any copyright problems. Your solution of linking both is great for the time being, but I see no problem with using the new logo as soon as the KINAL page itself has been updated to show the new logo.

Thank you for taking the time to read this! Am34114 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy

The article 2017 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2017 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 A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Navarrese regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bandwagon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Navarrese regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estella.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Castilian-Leonese election

Hello, could the actual results of the 2022 Castilian-Leonese election be added to the opinion polls graph? Thanks. Togiad (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Sadly, they can't as of now, since for some reason the whole graph goes nuts when the actual results are added (I don't know why, though I guess it has to do with the PP's trend and the frequency of polls). I have not encountered this issue with any other of the charts I have worked on, so it keeps puzzling me. I'm still figuring out how to properly add those without any distorsion, though. Impru20^talk 09:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Graphical summary

Hi Impru20. My name is Jurajec6 and I am user involved mainly in the Slovak politics. I saw that you uploaded a great graphical summaries for the next Spanish and Italian parliamentary elections. The article with polls for the next Slovak parliamentary election currently lacks such a graphical summary. Since I'm not experienced in creating and editing graphs outside of Wikipedia, I can't change it. But I really like your work. So I just wanted to say and ask if you could create a similar one for Slovakia if you were bored, or at least give us your know-how.

Best regards! Jurajec6 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

File:OpinionPollingItalyGeneralElectionNext.svg

Hi Impru20

I noticed that the trend lines for the Italian general election are extremely smooth with some lines (especially PD) clearly underfitting. From my understanding, the smoothing depends not only on the "spansize" parameter but the number of polls as well. Not sure what the exact mathematical relation is though. Given that the Italian general election probably has more polling data than any election, I would recommend using a significantly lower value than what you are currently using.

Cheers, Gbuvn (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure if I understand you correctly. What do you mean by the R script can only support up to 1,000 data lines? Does it immediately get worse for the 1,001st line? If not, I would still recommend reducing the spansize parameter. The point I was trying to make is that the smoothness is unfortunately defined by something like $smoothness=span*datasize$ (not sure if linear). Therefore span needs to be constantly reduced while adding data, if the smoothness is to be kept constant. Let me know if that works or if I misunderstood the problem. --Gbuvn (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

One other possibility that I see is to define the parameter n, if you haven't already. I don't really understand that one completely but somehow it controls the maximum complexity of the trendlines. If you don't define it, a default value is used (I can't find the actual number). Increasing it might fix your problem. For Germany (2021) I used a n value of 500. You can check out this to see how it's used. If that's also not the solution, it would be great if you could share your code and input data, so that I can try debugging further. I used 1,020 data lines for Germany (2021), so I assume there must be a fix. Gbuvn (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons graph

Hi, Impru20, did you see the post I direct to you on Wikimedia Commons here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:OpinionPollingItalyGeneralElection2022.svg - on 11 August?

If you could update this graph, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

New blue color for PP

Hi

Should we change the color of the PP? Panam2014 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Impru20^talk 04:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)