User talk:Impru20/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless contributions in Spanish election articles, especially in Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015. You are incredible. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish general election, 1923, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Party (Spain). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Podemos article

About my edit in (Spanish political party)

Isn't vandalism. --95.22.133.102 (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andalusian parliamentary election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manuel Chaves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next Spain general election

Hello. What's going on with the article about the polls in election general of Spain? It was excellent, but now there is no data. Thanks for the info and greetings.--Jgarpal (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Display issue on Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015

Your edits on 12:30, 25 January 2015 to the Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015 entry [1] mean the tables for polls and seat projections no longer display when the page loads. Better for users to click 'hide' rather than 'show.' Soperd (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)soperd

Errors in placing year labels in Greek election tables

Thanks for considering my suggestion on show/hide. Let's agree to disagree on which one should be the default. However, in looking again at both tables I noticed that the year and exit polls labels in the tables are out of place. I don't want to edit the entry while it looks like you are regularly updating the page with the latest info. (and thanks for doing that).Soperd (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)soperd

invalid / blank votes

I put the separate columns back. It may have no practical difference but it has a different political value.* Moreover, the Ministry of Internal Affairs counts them separately.

PS With Greece's political system also voting parties with less than 3% has no practical difference to be honest. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Podemos leaders

Hello, I'm sorry if any of my edits appeared to be disruptive to the article. I just tried to put more than just Pablo Iglesias Turrión in the infobox. I hope you understand.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So long and thanks for all the polls!

Sorry, had to sneak in a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference. Just wanted to thank you for all your work on the Greek 2015 opinion polling page, and updating the lovely chart there so often too. I was maintaining my own Google Spreadsheet to calculate the average of each pollster's latest poll (as well as separate averages including only those latest polls from within the last 5 and 10 days), and to do so I wholly relied on the Wikipedia page's constant updating of the polls. My averages were a bit more sensitive to momentary ups and downs than the 15-day average trend line you used in your chart, but for the polling data I relied on the Wikipedia page, so I was very grateful for that.

In case it interests you, I wrote up a blog post about how closely the final polls approached the actual election results. Thought it was interesting, for example, that if you calculated the average of the final polls from each pollster, it turned out to overestimate, however slightly in some cases, the results of all pro-bailout parties and to underestimate, however slightly, the results of all anti-bailout parties. --No-itsme (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The River (Greece) and edit-warring

You have violated WP:3RR on this page. The only reason I haven't blocked you is because of the history with first the IP and then the named account. Your allegation that the other editor's edits were vandalism is not supported in policy. I have no doubt that another admin would have rejected your report at WP:AIV. The report was removed by a bot because of my block of the editor for edit-warring. You're an experienced editor, and there's very little justification for reverting so many times. I'd like to hear from you before I decide what to do, if anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been considering it, but I think that blocking Impru over this rather minor incident would be to nobody's benefit. My 2p, whatever it might be worth. Alakzi (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Liberal36 returns to edit-warring. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

You reverted my edit to the Spanish general election, 2011 article, why? (edit here). You said "And makes the table conflict, too.", what does this mean? What is wrong with making all the text the same size (100% normal font)? Please explain. --Hibernian (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Galician parliamentary election, 2012 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Galicia
Next Galician parliamentary election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Galicia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion Polling Graph

Hey there, I saw that you udpated the opinion polling graph on the "Next Australian federal election" page. To that, I appreciate it because my excel and spreadsheet skills are very basic.

I have to ask though, how do you a graph like that? With the trendline and the individual polling data (the dots)4

DestinationAlan (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

UK opinion polling 2010-2015.png

Helle Impru20, thank you for providing and especially for regular updating this nice and informative opinion poll graphics. Could you please add some information how you obtained these digested data (preferably in the "source" data field in UK opinion polling 2010-2015.png)? It looks as if you have incorporated quite a number of data ? Greetings --Furfur (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello :) I'd like to second this. The graph is really great and I can see it being used quite widely. It would be really handy if you could supply more source details so it's easier for people to verify it. You could also consider listing the data points in a table on the image's Commons page so others can maintain the graph. #Regards, and many thanks for such a great image.... 09:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Navarrese parliamentary election, 2011, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Mundo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ciervist Conservatives listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ciervist Conservatives. Since you had some involvement with the Ciervist Conservatives redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Antonio Maíllo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lucena
Joaquín Leguina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Villaescusa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment

It's not rocket science: I like wikipedia to be precise. She does not look the same to me at all. She looks changed (and older) in the 2015 one, so I don't deem appropiate to use the 2015 one in the 2011 entry when there are other options available. In the 2011 case, I could even accept the infamous "mapache" one (the photoshopped). Feel also free to adjust the light/contrast.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In related news, I gently ask you to stop carelessly overwriting files in commons suited for a person infobox with files more suited for a election infobox.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In that case, with you defending the same pic for different elections, I think we can agree to disagree big time. Maybe a third opinion could be useful? Because that is a dead end for this discussion. Just please stop dropping hints of bad faith in the edition summaries, because I got no hidden reason to back up one pic instead of the other (be aware that both of them have been uploaded by me in commons, hell, even the one you are proposing now). And last, but not least: No, if you want to change the uses of the pictures because you deem a specific trim to be more appropiate for a particular infobox you try to achieve that goal in the different wikipedias through the classical method of being bold/edition/consensus, not in Commons uploading them over other files in use like you did in the Joaquín Leguina and the Susana Díaz cases. Read OVERWRITE.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think it presents similar problems than the 2015 one for the 2011 entry. So no opinion on the matter of choosing one over the other. The only clear advantage for me is proving people change! And about overwriting: I wouldn't crop uploads of other users and overwrite them under the same filename without their permission, unless we are dealing with a clear cut case of improving the file (such as removing a watermark). I invite you to install the crop tool gadget in Commons, by the way. It's very useful.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC) PS: For the record, for individual infoboxes I vastly prefer Medium Close Up frontal shots with the eyes clearly displayed but that is just the personal taste
Still, if you favour (I don't) pics taken in profile over frontal ones (the subject mirando pa' Cuenca) I think a crop of this one (2012) is better for the 2011 entry than the 2008 one you proposed. A crop of this 2011 pic would result into a very little file but I also think it's ok. I will try to search a bit more into the 2011 cc-licensed pictures of the pp madrid flickr account, though.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Podemos graph

Hello. I was wondering if we could make a specific graph for Podemos instead of the one that is already being used for the Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015 article. I can try to make one myself if that sounds interesting but I just thought it would be interesting if we had one that began from when they were first formed to now. I don't want to be rude and make some less detailed graph and replace yours so I just wanted to see what you thought.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please respond.--ZiaLater (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madrilenian parliamentary election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ignacio González (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Next Greek legislative election wikipage polls

You can already add 3 polls: 12/02/15-13/02/15 of MARC for Alpha, 24/02/15-25/02/15 of Metron Analysis for Parapolitika, 27/02/15-02/03/15 of MRB for Star. If you want I have gathered data for these 3 polls and I can share with you.

Quantis (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Andalusian election

I appreciate that you uploaded a cropped version of the PP leader in Andalusia, but you don't have to be that rude on the editing, saying that "it's not the right size". Well, if the image it's the only available, then it would be in the table in case anyone doesn't upload a cropped one. I suggest that you would be more measured on your sayings. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Crops

Hi, Impru! In this case, feel free to change the size of the small ones. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel also free to overwrite in this case. --Asqueladd (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teresa Rodríguez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rota (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aragonese parliamentary election, 1987, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marcelino Iglesias

The article Marcelino Iglesias has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted 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}} 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. Jbh (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "Membership history" section in Podemos (Spanish political party)

Membership history is completely irrelevant for a party, especially for a party that is barely one year old. There is no section on membership "history" for older and more relevant parties like the CDU in Germany (470,000 members), the People's Party in Spain (850,000 members) or the Democratic Party (43.1 million members). Highlighting every "membership # milestone" does not add anything to the article and is rather silly. If you want to highlight the party's rise, you can expand the "rise in popularity" section. Deertine (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Extremaduran parliamentary election, 1991) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Extremaduran parliamentary election, 1991, Impru20!

Wikipedia editor Shibbolethink just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

keep up the great work!

To reply, leave a comment on Shibbolethink's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cantabrian parliamentary election, 1991 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Santander
Galician parliamentary election, 1981 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Union of the Democratic Centre
Juan Hormaechea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Santander

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation of Corts

Hello again. You're right that this is Catalan, however I'm not sure that "courts" is the correct translation either, since in English that's more likely to be understood as law courts. In cases like this we'd usually leave the original language (Corts in Catalan, Cortz in Aragonese) with an explanation of what it is, though an alternative would be Aragonese parliament or Aragonese regional assembly. Valenciano (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The link you supplied does give legislative assembly as a translation, but that's the 7th one given and would definitely be the least common meaning of those (and least understood by English speakers.) In this case, I don't really see the need to homogenise, especially when it's to a term not well understood. Per WP:COMMONNAME Aragonese Corts does seem more common in English than either Cortes or Courts (the latter when used generally seems to be referring to the legal variant.)
If we must translate it, and I'm not convinced we need to, Parliament or legislative assembly would be a much better translation. (By the way, please reply here to make things easier to follow.) Valenciano (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the order count of the definition does actually mean something. For example, the term "party" is used very widely on these articles, yet the definition of that word used in its political sense comes 3rd. There are plenty of polysemic words, and if we were to abide by this argument we would have a really, really serious problem when coming to write down entire articles due to "possible problems of understanding". I don't see this would be a real issue, actually. Gramatically, "Courts" is the correct definition of "Corts/Cortes", so no issue here.
"Court" is used interchangeably, too. Some articles even use the direct English translation of "Court" (such as this one). In any case, WP:COMMONNAME is a criteria for article titles' formatting, not for texts within the articles themselves. Moreover, your suggestion of using different English names to the actual ones to refer to the regional assemblies would go against WP:COMMONNAME were we to apply it to the letter outside of article titles.
Furthermore, you are centering this on Aragon, when this affects the Valencian Community and the two Castilian communities too. I did not find this an issue before creating the Castile-La Mancha election articles, but then I noticed that Valencia/Aragon used the "Corts" term (in Catalan) when both Castiles would have to use "Cortes" (in Spanish, since those communities are not Catalan-speaking (and Aragon isn't either, really, which adds to the weirdness of the situation, as the official denomination for them is "Cortes"; "Corts" not being used since the 18th century)), despite both of them being esentially the same word, and being mostly used on its Spanish form on the Spanish media election coverage. So it would be weird to have them being shown differently ("Cortes/Corts") when it's the same word. Thus, the English form it's the most neutral term to name them both. It's a matter of equity and simplification. Impru20 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't actually see any problem using the Catalan terms in Catalan speaking regions and Cortes in the Spanish speaking ones. Aragon falls in between as Aragonese language is basically just a halfway house between the two and easily understandable for a speaker of either. Courts is used, but it's a matter more of clarity. As a native speaker of English when I hear that, I automatically think of the legal bodies, not of parliaments, which would be a better and clearer term. Valenciano (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You're bringing a rather weird explanation here. "Courts" stands by "legislative assembly", independently of what a native English speaker can think of at first. Again, I repeat you: if we where to abide by that reasoning, we would have serious problems when using words with a variety of meanings where the intended meaning is not "the first one a native speaker would think of". It's a polysemic word with a variety of meanings, and thus the translation is perfectly valid, and necessary if you want to use the word in an English context with more flexibility. And again, you are pretending we use "Corts" for Aragon when Aragon is not a Catalan-speaking region (only the eastern regional fringe bordering Catalonia is). The official name for the current institution is "Cortes de Aragón", with "Corts" not being used by any official stance; only if you refer to the medieval institution would it make sense to use the Catalan term. Impru20 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Catalonian parliament elections

Hi, Impru. Is there a 6-party limit in the election infoboxes? If not, could you include CUP in here or here, as they actually have seats in the current catalan parliament? Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Parliament election, 1987 (Spain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Government of the 10th Legislature a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Government of the 10th Legislature of Spain. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murcian parliamentary election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartagena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

People's Party

It looks that you're not reading my edit summary very well: I said specifically the LOGO, not the election posters (in an election, anyone could use the color they want, and that's the poor argument you're using to revert my edition). Instead, the logo is only one and have a established color. You could review that by extracting the color code from the logo that exists in Commons. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

One more time you're not reading the edit summaries, or the messages that I left you on your talk page. Don't put into discussion the photos taken to the party logo (read and repeat: PHOTOS OF THE LOGO, not the logo). They could be different factors (brightness, contrast, etcetera). Instead, the file that exists in Commons is the valid one because it's not a photo of the party, and therefore it's not affected by external factors that could make different shades of blue. I hope that you understand this, and don't use again poor arguments, including photos of the logo. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"mostly the one that fits best for use in Wikipedia". That's a very subjective argument, because I could say that the party logo is a perfect lightblue, and because I say that "fits better" they're going to accept that, even when everybody knows that it's not the real party logo? Sorry, but this argument again is not a very effective one. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your DRN Request

I closed your request for dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard because there has not been previous discussion on either of the applicable template talk pages. The discussion was only on user talk pages. If further discussion takes place and is inconclusive, you can refile a request for dispute resolution. I would like to note that you and the other editor both were edit-warring and got close to 3RR. Thank you for requesting dispute resolution and stopping the edit wars, but first try discussion on the template talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

...keep up the good work! That Sfs90 guy is accustomed to disrupt editors he does not like, or simply because they disagree with him. He evades discussing, and when he does, it's always for heating up everything with worthless (or no) arguments.... --Diego Grez (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Aragonese parliamentary election 2015, Podemos polling

Hi, if you take a look at the following video, around 4:10 exactly you'll clearly see the percentages of the running-parties. Looking at CHA figures, CHA is given between 2-4%, which means 3.0 in average. Here´s the video to check the data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN7WvSLeE9k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.197.141 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Spanish municipal elections, 1999

Hello Impru20,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Spanish municipal elections, 1999 for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.                      ~Rayvn  19:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United Extremadura

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on United Extremadura requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Compassionate727 (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

autopatrolled user right granted

Hi Impru20, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Need any help?

I saw that the polls for the Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015 article haven't been updated in a bit. Do you need any help? Just tell me where to look and I can try to get the source and such for you.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Cortes or Courts

Hi, I've raised the question at Talk:Castile-La Mancha parliamentary election, 2015 though I see you've already had the some discussion above with regard to Aragonese parliamentary election, 2003.--Cavrdg (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Coalition or Electoral Alliance

(From Interista) On the question of coalition or alliance, the Wikipedia page on Electoral Alliances states: "Unlike a coalition formed after an election, the partners in an electoral alliance will usually not run candidates against each other, and will encourage their supporters to vote for candidates from the other members of the alliance." This is the situation between the PSD and the CDS-PP for the autumn election of 2015. The Portuguese press is referring to this as the coligação because (i) it has been such for the past four years as a post-electoral agreement; and (ii) it might cause confusion with readers with the Aliança Democrática(which was the electoral alliance between the PPD/PSD, CDS and PPM in the legislative election of 1980.

You state that Wikipedia's definition of coalition is "A coalition is a pact or treaty among individuals or groups, during which they cooperate in joint action, each in their own self-interest, joining forces together for a common cause ... whereas an electoral alliance may also refer to a coalition, but is a more wider term which also includes other forms of cooperation (i.e. Two parties promising not to oppose each other in some electoral districts would be an electoral alliance, but it would not necessarily be a coalition since both parties would still stand separately)." You then go on to give examples in Spain and Australia.

However, you overlook one very important point. The Portuguese electoral system is that of the closed list at district level, and Spain (to the best of my knowledge) and Australia also have proportional systems. As such, in Portugal, even if the two parties wished to stand separately but not oppose each other, they could not. This is in contrast to the FPTP system in operation in the UK and the USA (combined populations rather higher than Australia) where, as indeed happened in 1983 in the UK, those parties in an alliance did field separate candidates, but never in the same constituency. This was referred to in the UK as an "alliance", and not a "coalition". In Portugal, although the parties are standing on a joint list, they are not fusing as a party, and whichever deputy is elected will remain a deputy of his own party, despite being elected on a joint list. As such, the definition of electoral alliance to refer to the Portuguese situation is entirely appropriate, and is likely to be understood as such by those readers in the UK and USA where there is no list system for elections.

I suggest you might consider the more accurate wording thus to be "The PSD and CDS-PP are to contest the forthcoming election in an electoral alliance, or coalition." (It matters not which you put first, whether "coalition" or "electoral alliance".) Thus we can all understand clearly.

PS. You might also care to consider that in the UK coalitions are generally considered to refer to government rather than elections.

(Cheers.) Interista (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) PS added 13:14

Reference errors on 22 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Help for "Greek bailout referendum, 2015"

Can you please help keep the Opinion polls on the greek version of the article. User Gts-tg and CubicStar is removing this data without any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Believeitornot1 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 Greek bailout referendum, 2015. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer}}

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catalonian parliamentary election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the Catalonian parliamentary election, 2015

Hola Impru20,

Felicidades por tu tarea con el artículo Opinion polling for the Catalonian parliamentary election, 2015. He visto que has añadido JM&A. Asimismo, no son encuentas, sino proyecciones basadas con encuestas anteriores ("considerando los antecedentes electorales y efectuando un tracking de la demoscopia publicada") y dudo de su inclusión en un artículo que recoje encuestas. ¿Cuál es tu opinión? --Davidpar (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm guessing my comment on the Talk section of page goes in the same direction. (My Spanish is what I can understand from French and Latin.) Filipvanlaenen (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Italian 2013 election graph

Hi Impru20! Excuse me but I saw on your sandbox that you have many polls about the 2013 Italian election, from 2008 to 2012, what about inserting them in the page Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013 and maybe create a graph about them, as you have done for many other elections? Thank you and have a good day! Nick.mon (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Great! Yes I know that it will be an hard work, good job :) Nick.mon (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links in Body of Article

Hello, Impru20. I recently noticed you've added external links to the body of an article with your last revert in Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. You may not be aware, but this does not meet WP:EL. Please remove the external links, converting to cites if appropriate. If you do not have the time, please revert your revert until the editor who added the information or another editor can. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish general election, 1986, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guerra sucia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Norwegian election 2017 graph

Hi, thanks for all your hard work. But the polling graph in the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017 article hasn't been updated in 8 months, in January. I'd appreciate if you could update it soon. :)

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinion poll Greek elections

Why did you undo my edits in the opinion poll section without discussing it with me or even explaining in the edit summary the reasoning of your action as I did and as you are supposed to do? It is standard in such opinion poll tables to indicate when the pre-election period officially starts and the parliament is dissolved; it is also obviously very useful for the readers. I am restoring my edits. Yannismarou (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am getting it from Wikipedia:
Now giving me as examples the US polls is obviously irrelevant, since there is no dissolution of Parliament there.
The undue weight argument obviously does not stand, since the dissolution of the Parliament is not an event, but "the" event in a parliamentary democracy. It is the moment when the campaigns officially starts. Therefore it obviously has the major importance. From this point on the polls are not for a "hypothetical" election but for the "upcoming" elections. You really tell me that the reader of this article should not have a clue when the campaigns officially start, and which are the reactions of the polled voters from this point on?
My edits are adequately explained and justified; there is a precedent in Wikipedia as I clearly indicated above (all of them recent elections) and therefore my edits stay. If you have a problem, go to the talk page of the article and discuss it. In such a discussion and in case you continue to disagree with my edits, you can propose inter allia the division of the table following the example of the Canada, Bulgaria and Austria articles.
By the way, I really appreciate your Greek elections poll-related edits, which are very accurate and useful, despite the fact that - from what I see in your userpage - you are not speaking Greek.Yannismarou (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
And since we had the opportunity to interact, two more remarks which might be useful for your edits: (a) we can't be sure yet for the exact date the Marc poll took place, because it is not yet published (actually now "Ethnos of Sunday" starts to circulate in Athens); yes, this English-speaking site you mention says "5 September" (it also gives "5 September" for the Kappa Research poll which was actually conducted 2-3 September), but I don't see yet this date confirmed from any other Greek news site; I don't see a reason to hurry for a poll not yet officially published (b) this "Bridging Europe" pollster is completely uknown in Greece and no Greek media / news agency has ever mentioned it.Yannismarou (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
As long as the polls stay in the main general election article, and, since I added a background section, I agree that there is no reason for in-table information. But I believe that soon you will have to move this information in a separate sub-article, as is the case in most Western elections aricles with a large volume of polls. In this case, I believe that you will have to indicate when the campaign starts and I will insist on that again. 20 August or 28 August is something that we could discuss, but the campaign officially starts on the 28 August. It is the dissolution of the Parliament in Greece that landmarks the campaign and the pre-campaign period and not the resignation of the government. Before that, we do not even have election, and if I remember correctly the article is about an election! By the way, (1) my edits are not controversial, because they are based on a logical precedent of other similar articles where I see no controversy on this issue (and I also can bring you more examples of such articles), (2) there is no ongoing discussion, there is only a discussion between you and me in our talkpages; "ongoing discussion" means that you open a relevant discussion thread in the talk page of the article which you have not done, despite the fact that I invited you to do it, (3) I do not know if you realized it but you are on the verge of violating the 3R rule, and the main reason for not continuing that is to protect you from facing the consequences.Yannismarou (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You mention that the last GPO poll was conducted 3-5 September. However, the site you link (National Herald) has a date of 4 September.Yannismarou (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Murcian parliamentary election, 2015

Hi, Impru20 Why do you don´t admit references to the regional branch of Podemos in this page? --Lofesa (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again,
Podemos Región de Murcia is in english, as you can see it. I don´t have good skills to write in english, but less or more, it is readable, and yes, I have done a mistake from a newbie, introducin the \' in the english name, an other editor introducing the label DEFAULTSORT:Podemos Region de Murcia. Is possible that you can help me to correct that mistake?
About the color scheme, I let the original color scheme in Murcian parliamentary election, 2015 because is the same as Podemos Region de Murcia, this last is a regional branch, and have the same color scheme as defined here https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8xLYLNwnRCsTmN1SjVQdS0yZkE&usp=sharing&tid=0B8xLYLNwnRCsb3lNYWctNDZkTTA, If I have changed any color reference in the article, my bad, is a mistake, and sorry for that.--Lofesa (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your help and edit. As you can see in these article, no much articles link to it, and I have changed the link´s in these from Podemos Región de Murcia to Podemos Region of Murcia. Is that a correct action?
Thanks in advance--Lofesa (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Program used for opinion polls

Hi, could you please tell me which program do you use making of the opinion polls? Would like to make a graph for my country's election. Thank you. --Novis-M (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you help. Already working on it. --Novis-M (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese legislative election, 2015

Why you deleted polls in this article? In your revision polling are not there. Please, fix it. Thanks, Gonçalo Veiga (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

But why I can´t see any? Gonçalo Veiga (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

All right, polls were scroll off. But why coalition in office was moved to the last spot? In the past days coalition was 1st or 2nd. These revision made more difficult to compare the two parties contesting victory. Gonçalo Veiga (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish general election, 1982, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Greek Elections article

Hi. I see that after all you did not agree to the Table of the Opinion Polls being sortable (in Greek legislative election, September 2015). But there were certain advantages to it being sortable. For example:
(1) Comparing the opinion polls of the same company
(2) Calculating the minimum and the maximum percentage of each party over all opinion polls
(3) Finding out in which opinion poll the absolute difference between the two leading parties was the minimum.
RegardsSoSivr (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with SoSivr. --Checco (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Next Italian election

Hi Impru20! Excuse me, but could you update the graph of the election? Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Impru20, thanks in advance! --Checco (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Role of constituencies vs. D'hondt in creating virtual threshold

Hi, I saw you reversed my edit in the two Portuguese election articles on this topic.

To clarify my position: no matter what proportional formula you use, there will be a virtual threshold. This predominant factor in determining this virtual threshold is District Magnitude: the number of seats per district. As you can see here (tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/ElSystems/Docts/effthresh.php) scholarly discussion often completely ignores the exact formular (D'hondt, St Lague, largest remainder) because the district magnitude is so much more important.

I hope we can resolve this question collaboratively, and perhaps come with a compromise phrasing. If you disagree on the topic, let me know how and why. I suggest that if we still disagree we could consult an expert if we find no other way. Thank you. Thorbecke2012 (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Opinion poll graph for the next German federal election

Hi, when you have some time, could you please update the opinion poll graph for the next German federal election? There is a lot going on right now in Germany, starting to look like a political earthquake - it would sure be good to keep it updated these days. Thanks a lot. --Novis-M (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish general election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caretaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Spanish general election, 2015 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Dukedom, Ferrol, Inequality and Debacle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited En Marea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Galicia and Galician (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Context in electoral district articles

Can I ask you to stop removing the context from these articles, please? If people want information about how many members Almeria has elected over time, they are best finding that information in the article about Almeria, not in a general article. Valenciano (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Info on number of members throughout the district's history is already provided on each district's infobox (dunno if you checked it out, but it's large and at the top of the article; it can't be missed out), on a very visual way. Other aspects, such as eligibility or electoral system basics, are best left out for each general election main article (since those may change for each different election, and some aspects (such as eligibility or some minor electoral system tweaks) do). For those, it's better to reference to the main general election article instead of having 50 repetitions of varying and incomplete information. Impru20 (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
But all that's essential background info. People shouldn't have to click on to other articles to find it out. Valenciano (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Valenciano: People should go to the main general election articles to check the electoral system and eligibility requirements used for each election. The district articles are not the place to talk about those general basics (which may change and have changed throughout the years, so those may be different for each election), which are used for all districts. Rather, they should center on the specifics of each district. Mainly election results, though other specifics may be discussed too (i.e. how Madrid is the district "traditionally" reserved for PM candidates, or the such). General aspects common to all districts are better (and more properly) covered in the main election articles themselves. Impru20 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Take a look?

I forgot I worked with you on Spanish related articles and was wondering if you could make sure things on here look accurate if you have time. I know you're good with polls so it would be very helpful.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Yes. So what? I fail to understand your criteria, which is anyways "your criteria", nothing particularly derived from the Spanish electoral system.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The spanish political system (plurinominal closed list system) does not hold any organic importance for the fact head-of-list candidates go in the same list than the previous election (maybe in systems with uninominal districts it is a more notable information, I dunno, therefore the concept of "seat"). Actually, in the Canovist system (a mostly uninominal system, d'oh!) talking in those terms was far more usual. If you, by the reasons you are entitled to, feel the need to inform about the previous electoral district where they were elected as MP's, denying someone that info because of not re-running for it... it's arbitrary, because Pedro Sánchez running #11 in the list for Madrid in 2011 is not more important than Alberto Garzón running #1 in the list for Málaga in 2011 despite both Pedro Sánchez and Garzón running now #1 in their respective Madrid lists.. In any case the "notable" (I wouldn't call it myself notable enough for the infobox, but still) information is Rajoy, Sánchez and Garzón were MPs in the previous legislature term. For the record, if I were the main contributor to the entry I would avoid using parameters about electoral memory in the infobox, because elections do not have "memory" (and such data are secondary info in terms of notability and "post-production" analysis), but if I used them I'd try to be coherent.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
So the rest will be removed too. But hey, I am not the one interested in editing under temporary premises! You've explained very well. tThe divergence point is you deeming coherency "redundant".--Asqueladd (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I've been following the opinion polls for the Spanish General Election. Thanks for all your work on keeping the page up to date :) Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Muchas gracias por sus ediciones en los artículos de los elecciones generales españolas. ¡Es muy apreciado! :) TwoWholeWorms (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Elections updates and missing deputies

Hello, Impru and season's greetings! I'd a couple of questions, I was going to update the election results, but, if you're planning to do that anyway, then I'll leave it to you. Secondly, I notice that you've removed the deputies elected from the tables you've added compared to the previous version where they were included. This is essential information and should be there. I only noticed when I was going to update categories for each of the deputies re-elected and now can't do so, as the info has been removed. I would suggest adding an extra column and just removing the pie charts at the right of each table, as they're totally redundant and don't add any information which isn't in the table beside them. Let me know what you think (best to reply here.) Valenciano (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, as even by removing the pie chart there wouldn't be enough space for them. I would suggest creating a new article to show MPs elected in each election (all of them) is that's to be the case, just as it's done for other countries (see here, here, or here). We should avoid mixing MPs elected with election results, as it may get confusing to people.

Also a new article could be used to show senators elected too. I had been thinking on doing it for much time but focused instead on results' sections and articles. This could be a good chance to do it. Impru20 (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please reply here to keep the conversation in one place! I have your page watchlisted. There are various options for it. I quite like the tables used on Irish elections pages e.g. here, as it makes it easier to see how long deputies have served, the issue is with the larger ones like Madrid and Barcelona. What do you think? Valenciano (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's another option, as a separate section within each article. But as I see, maximum amount of deputies it would allow would be eight or so. This leaves us the issue of the largest constituencies. It would necessarily need the table to be done vertically as opposed to horizontally, but that also limits space as there have been already 11 elections in Spain. Suggestions? Impru20 (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
For the larger ones, they would have to be split into separate tables. The alternative is simply to add tables below the results as the Spanish wiki does. Valenciano (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
But the Spanish wiki just mostly ignores vote and % results or leaves only a small place for those, which is not the case here. There is no space for that in the tables of this wiki as election results have been added here with swings and the such. I still believe that creating a separate article listing all MPs in each parliamentary term would be the best option right now. Impru20 (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I say those would be tables added below the existing results. I don't think we need a separate article for them. Valenciano (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean a separate article for all MPs in all constituencies, instead of putting them in each constituency article. That would make MP-searching a lot easier too. Impru20 (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year Impru. Unless this separate article covered all elections to date, I don't see how it would make searching easier. Often when I go to constituency articles, I'm interested in seeing who represents the district, who has represented it for longest etc. Moving those to separate articles breaks that link and it's relevant to the specific constituency, not to a catch-all article. Valenciano (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm only saying what is done for other countries, and the fact that doing it in the same constituency article would break the article, as there's just no space for putting all names. A "catch-all" article seems simpler and avoids those issues. As you said, constituencies with many MPs would be very problematic. A single article for all MPs would just solve that problem, with a sortable table so that you can check MPs by district. I can't see how that can be bad; much to the contrary, it would help you to check MPs by district AND at the sime time it would also avoid forcing you to check each district individually to check all MPs. If the issue for you is so important, a link to such an article could be placed in each constituency's article. So you just would be referenced to it. A simple solution. Impru20 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
There is, we could put tables below the results tables or include them in the tables themselves, as was the case before you changed the article. It's more relevant information than the pie charts, which simply duplicate information. We don't need a table *and* a pie chart to give the same information. In the majority of cases, people aren't interested in seeing all MPs together, they're interested in knowing who the MPs for their district are and other information like how long these MPs have served. Valenciano (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with putting all MPs in a single article? That would solve BOTH your issue as well as the possible issue of users looking for all MPs without forcing them to search on each district's article. Just create a single one for everyone and you solve all issues without creating new ones. It's not a matter of what you think people may or not may be interested. Maybe you aren't, but since other such articles do exist for other countries, it's pretty sure the issue has arisen for them. I myself find such an article much more comfortable to navigate. So yes, it's a possibility. Also, the one-article solution would require much less work than your proposal, as it's simple to work on a single article than to keep editing 50-like articles for 12 or so elections. Regards. Impru20 (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to Spanish general election, 2011

I reverted the change in the abbreviation you made on this article. The website of the party, New Canarias, appears to use the NC, rather than NCa, abbrebeviation. Thank you! Onel5969 TT me 13:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Results of the Spanish general election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Impru20/Archive_5&oldid=1143061494"