User talk:Impru20

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

I wondered if it was possible to have the graph updated for this page, as it hasn't been done for a couple of months now. I would be happy to help out... but don't know how it's done and expect you have a big spreadsheet somewhere.Saxmund (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I wondered if it might be possible to have the graph updated for this page on Thursday or Friday 22/23 May, before the results of the local and European Parliament elections are known. This would establish a baseline for how voting intentions change following these events. Thank you! Saxmund (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you update the graph again, it has been about a month since the last update! 174.19.225.113 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to put this I've managed to confuse myself having never had a wikipedia account before. I was wondering where you got the statistics from for your graphs on the opinion polls for the 2015 UK General Election? I would like to reference the graph in my dissertation but need to know where the actual numbers come from. Thanks in advance - myblindambition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myblindambition (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Impru20, I wondered if you will be updating the graph on this page a bit more rfrequently now we are into the official General Election campaign. Thanks, Saxmund (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC).

Hi Impru20, You've been doing excellent work updating the page. But could the YouGov models also be included in the main list. I understand why you've separated them into their own table. But I can't see any reason why the couldn't be in the main list as well. All the polls are models and not just a straight poll, so while the YouGov is a new method, I still think it should be in the main table. Especially as they are the polls with the largest sample sizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidermagicat (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Party vote share by electoral district tables in Spain election articles

Thanks for the changes you made to my tables, however they're problematic as the sort function doesn't recognise the { {increase } } and { {decrease} } templates and therefore just sorts all the numbers as though the templates weren't there. Unless you can find a way to solve that, I plan to partly revert your edits as it's far more important to have a table that sorts properly rather than one that "looks nice." Valenciano (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't thought on that. Ok, the templates will be removed. I may help you with that, since I just added the templates to the boxes in the 2008 and 2011 elections. I'll revert those of 2011, since I'm already editing the article, if you don't mind. --Impru20 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I did it myself. --Impru20 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh Impru20 I did not know that Spain 2000 has said they will not run in this year elections, just wondering is Democracia Nacional running. Timjones86 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great, utterly diligent, detailed and impressive work at Spanish general election, 2011 and other Spanish elections' articles. Your accomplishment is very much appreciated. RJFF (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Election articles

Well done for creating all those Spanish election articles, but when you add the stub tags they have to go at the bottom of the page rather than the top! Number 57 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you're adding the infoboxes to articles, make sure you use the same date format as the article (which outside of American-related articles, should be "day month year", not "month day, year". Cheers Number 57 17:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Election results

I have to say I was shocked to see you make this revert. The results you reinstated into the infobox are different to those I provided from an official source - the Congress website (taken from the Junta Election Central, or the book I referenced it to (the version you reverted to has no source, although I suspect you are using the same one you mentioned in the 1979 article revert). You also removed all the information about the Senate electiosn which was newly added. I am open to combining PSOE and PSC in the infobox, but just reverting everything? The same goes for your revert of the other election article - fair enough you can disagree about the actual results, but please don't just revert to a far less detailed version. The link you used as the edit summary for the 1979 election includes far more detaield results than even I had added, but you reverted to a crap version with far less detail. Why didn't you just fill in the different votes your source uses?

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm open to amending the results if you want to discuss which is the more reliable source (I will use the results on this site to fill the results tables if that's what is the definitive source, but why would the Congress have different figures?), but please don't simply revert to less detailed versions that don't even include vote numbers or the Senate. Thanks, Number 57 08:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

PS - apologies if the above comes across as a bit hostile - I wrote it shortly after I woke up. Like I said, I'm happy to use the mir.es source to amend the articles if you think this is the most reliable and will do so later today after a response. I just think that reverting to less detailed versions (and removing the Senate info) was a bit harsh. Number 57 11:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, next time I work on the articles (possibly this evening) I will use the mir.es source (and I'll correct the tables in the 1979 and 1982 elections). Regarding the Senate results, at some point I will put in some text on the electoral system that explains that only some of the seats were elected, and those marked "Regional" were actually appointed by the regional parliaments.

Also, I think the election results tables used on articles like Spanish general election, 1996 needs some work - particularly in its length - you cannot see the whole table on a single screen because every row has one or more lines. If you have a less complex table like on Spanish general election, 1982, it makes it much easier to read. Number 57 15:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Impru20, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Spanish general elections, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

UK 2010-2015 Opinion Polling chart

Can you please remove all of the blank space on this graph by re-uploading it because it is not only unsightly but its now very un-user friendly for those of us that want to see it properly. Besides we don't know if there will be a snap election or not (unlikely I know but we don't have and are not allowed to pretend we have a crystal ball are we). I can understand you not wanting to re-upload it now because, it will need to be updated in May as agreed as per it's talk page, so if you want to wait till after the local elections by all means do :-) Cheers mate 130.88.114.46 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As the user commenting below has said, under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, elections are not expected to be held before 2015. Moreover, it is not un-user friendly at all; to the contrary, it helps users to see the trend lines from a perspective which encompasses the entire (scheduled) term, and to know whether some polls are mid-term polls, how much time is left (at most) until the next election is held, etc. Should the election be held earlier, however, the graph would be fixed accordingly. Impru20 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the poster above (the gap should be left in, as the chance of snap elections is now very remote with the fixed term parliaments act), I would ask you keep this regularly up to date. It has been almost a month with no newer version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.108.243 (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, I know; I was just waiting for the publishing of more polls. Since in the UK new opinion polls come out in an almost daily rate, I'm prefering to wait until enough of them have come out until update the graph. I'll update the graph in shortly. Impru20 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just very impatient :D Thanks for the updated version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.108.243 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election‎

Hi there. Surely we can't keep the entry there when it adds up to more than 100%? From studying the PDF, it seems that an extra 1% may have been added to the "other" section; however, instead of adding this percentage, I think it's best to avoid any faulty information and remove it altogether. As it stands, the article appears obviously incorrect (especially as there is an entry just above it with the exact same numbers, except 6% instead of 7% under "others"). — Richard BB 13:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello. May I invite you to comment on the debate on notes in the opinion poll tables at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#20-21 February and 12 March? I believe your input would be welcome. Best wishes. --Wavehunter (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You Thank You Thank You XD

Hi there, just wanted to say thank you so much for your graph (and your frequent updates to the graph) on the next UK General election wiki page. I find the graph in question quite useful and it's really great to see someone dedicated to updating it so thank you for that!!! Also I see that you are quite active on Spanish General Election's and I was just wondering if you might consider trying to improve some article's on the European Parliamentary elections in Spain as these all seem quite run down, if you have the time to look into that it would be amazing, thanks again! Guyb123321 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've tried to improve the 2009 election article somewhat, but right now I've not enough time to fully update all the articles as I'd like to (I've been planning to do it for a long time; it's just that I want to focuse first in more politically important elections, such as the local and regional ones in Spain). Hopefully I can center on them soon as there's just one year left for the next European elections, as well as they're becoming an increasingly interesting political issue to talk about in Spain. Impru20 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Update for Greek graph?

Thank you for the adjusted numbers and scrolling table on Next Greek legislative election, but the graph needs to be changed. First, the SYRIZA's may average in the table is incorrect. The number is incorrect because you counted Zouga's "survey" which wasn't an actual opinion poll. Zouga is a Greek TV show, and they simply surveyed a group of viewers who volunteered to be interviewed, with no demographic weighting. Secondly, the color used for DIMAR was far too dark, and makes the table confusing, since KKE is usually identified as the darker shade of red and the party's lines run right next to each other.

If I had any tech savvy I would do it myself, but I don't. --4idaho (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, and you're welcome. ;) Impru20 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ^_^ --4idaho (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm very sorry to say I've reverted your recent changes to the Opinion poll table on Next Greek legislative election. I did this for several reasons:

1. The changes made the table too wide - it forced my internet browser to create a horizontal scroll bar
2. Something you did made the text in the table smaller (yet the columns were wider) making it more difficult to read
3. You changed the date format from international to American
4. The coding was pretty poor - e.g. using the align=center command for every row, when you can just add it in the table heading

Hiding part of the table with a scroll bar is a good idea, so if you can do this in its current format, then please do, but the other changes are not acceptable in my view. Cheers, Number 57 14:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have posted an improved version in your sandbox, which has fixed most of the problems I've described above. The one change it still needs is for the date formatting to be fixed. Can you do this? Number 57 15:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've sorted it all out now (was quicker than I thought), and have readded it to the article. Cheers, Number 57 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Just finished the changes, including the date formatting. Take a look at my sandbox to check the new version of the table in order to see if it's more acceptable than it was before. Impru20 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, the dates are the same as before. TBH, I think the version now on the article is ok, no? Number 57 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you need this link as 4idaho has reverted. Are you happy with it? Number 57 15:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I thought that with "date formatting" you meant that I had to fix the text wrapping in order to prevent the dates messing up with the rows' height. As for the current version in the article being ok... I don't think it is that ok, for several reasons:

1. The lead column is too wide. It is the same width than a party's polling colum, when this shouldn't be the case, because it looks ugly. It should be made as narrow as possible; preferably to have it just as wide as the data it shows.

2. The link column was thought for the previous table (the one with a lesser font size). Leaving it in with a larger font size makes the table look too "packed" and even cluttered (i.e. some poll rows having double the height of others due to the data in the "Polling Firm" and/or "Date" columns being too compressed. In my opinion, all rows should have the same height (though an exception can be made with the "Election Results" row)). In order to solve this, I've restored the system used in the previous version of the table, that is, to have the polling firms' names to serve as the links themselves.

3. Party colors: the party colors shown in the graph and in the lead column should correspond with those shown in the party's name boxes in the table.

I think this is it. Impru20 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Spanish general election, 1979

Regards your removal of the results table and the claim that the full results "haven't been removed. They've been replaced by a template table", the template does not include the full results - only those for 13 of the 50+ parties that contested the election, whereas the wikitable includes the results for all parties. I have no problem with you using the template as long as you add the full results to it. Thanks, Number 57 15:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

PS, I am also concerned that you performed a blind revert on that page, reinstating large amounts of whitespace and also removing the Senate results. Please can you be a bit more careful in future when hitting undo. Thanks, Number 57 15:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added the missing parties to the template. However, why do you think a template is needed when the data is only displayed on a single page? Surely it should be substituted there and the template deleted? Number 57 16:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

UK Polling graph

Great work on the graph for the upcoming UK election! I think we are due another update though, especially as it is conference season in the UK and we may see some movements in the polls. Apologies for being so cheeky ;) RobDR (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a suggestion of scale (going over 50 is really pointless in UK GE politics) on the image talk page, in case ya don't see it. 92.15.61.7 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Impru20, "Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election" is now listing Green Party in the results on the main table. Is there any chance you could add the Green Party to your graph? I took on a lot of adding to the 'detailed poll results' table, so that reflects the position of the Greens back to the early months of this year, when instead of being on their current 6% or so, they were on 2% or so. That way, there is easy access to sufficient data to have a meaningful graph. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Golden Dawn's ideology

Although it's true the party is far-right, neo-nazi is a more specific description. All neo-nazi parties are far-right, but not all far-right parties are neo-nazi. And Golden Dawn's ideology is not in dispute. The ideology section on the party's page is extensively sourced, and there is no active discussion on Talk disputing it. Far-right is better than ultranationalist, but there's no reason at all not to use the extensively sourced ideology on the party's page.

The Next Greek legislative election article is simply not the place to be disputing the party's ideology anyways. If someone wishes to dispute the party's ideology, it should be done on the party's article. Until then, we should use neo-nazi, which is the most useful description. --4idaho (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Update for graph of Greek opinion polls?

The graph on Next Greek legislative election has becoming quite out of date, since there has been considerable movement in polling numbers since the last update (at the end of September.) I'd update it myself if I knew how, but I don't. Can you please update it (since you uploaded the previous versions), or I'll go ahead and remove it from the article? (Since it no longer reflects the polling table?) Thanks and cheers. ^^ --4idaho (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--4idaho (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Next Italian general election

Hi Impru20, thank you for your edits in Next Italian general election. I would suggest you to insert in the polls also Communist Refoundation Party and Italy of Values, which gain more or less 1-2% according to the polls, but they were shown in the previous one. Maybe you can omit them in the graphic because it is already quite crowded, especially for the minor parties. Thank you, kind regards. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 polls

Hi Impru20, can you do your graphics of election polls also for the Italian general election, 2013? Here you find the data: Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013. Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, thank you very much for your works! -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The last request, that I asked to you. When you will upload the new version of the graph of the Next Italian election, can you change, if it is possible, the colors of New Centre-Right and Brothers of Italy, with the colors used in their metacolor? Because we have changed them since you did the graph for the first time. Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

EU election, 2014 (United Kingdom)

Hey, I've noticed some of the good work you've done for opinion polling graphs, especially the one for the Next United Kingdom general election. I was wondering if you could produce an identical graph for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) and update it every few weeks (or at least every month) as the elections take place in 4 and a half months time. This will be most useful as the page will likely pick up a lot more traffic soon and it would be nice to have a complete article for our readers. Cheers Owl In The House (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(coppied from my talk page)

It would be hardly possible, at least for the full 2009-2014 period; there aren't enough polls to even try to think about it. Polls available (the earliest of which, by the way, dates from Jan 13, when the last election was held in June 09) won't be enough to cover a single year, and the resulting graph would feel rather weird. Impru20 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken but there are going to be a lot of polls from various companies coming in over the next few months. I agree that it is simply not possible to do a graph across the whole Parliament or indeed over the whole of the data available. It does seem clear that there are going to be a lot more polls than there were for the 2009 election and that there will (in time) be enough data to do a graph to cover polling movements during the campaign starting from January 2014. I expect there will be a bare minimum of 25 further opinion polls but there could be as many as 50 polls, either figure over a 5 and a half month period would be more than sufficient to produce a graph. Perhaps we should wait until March before a graph for 2014 is started.

I notice a rather crude graph for the 2009 elections was done on a similar basis (graph starting from May 2009). The 2009 graph is better than nothing but as I say it is rather crude, maybe you could look at replacing that if you don't mind? And then look at 2014 when there is more data, perhaps in March. Cheers Owl In The House (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Polling graphs

You clearly get a lot of praise for all your work with various opinion polling graphs – let me join them in doing so, as you're indeed doing a great job! However, I was wondering how, exactly, do you make them? A lot of people keep asking you to make new ones for different countries and elections, but I get that it can get a bit much. I've made an article for the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017, and would really like to add such a graph to it :) If you want to keep it a 'secret' instead, then I would really appreciate if you could make one for the article I mentioned. What I'm trying to ask you is: what programme do you use to create the graphs? Thanks a bunch in advance! Nikos Malas (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Italian election graph

Hi Impru20, can you upload the graph of the polls for the Next Italian general election? Thank you, kind regards. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2014

Hi, Impru20! I noticed your excellent graphs and wondered if you would be willing and able to produce one for the upcoming Swedish election? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2014

Its result could be influenced in one way or another by the fact that there is a 4% election threshold and some parties might thus not make it into the parliament, according to some of the polls, so maybe it could be a good idea to highlight this percentage in the graph somehow? Thanks in advance in any case! Pcongre (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: There are more polls in the Swedish version of the page - https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksdagsvalet_i_Sverige_2014 Pcongre (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Impru20,

I would be great if you could update the graph with the latest data ASAP. As it is now it really misrepresents the current opinion, something that could affect the outcome of the election which is only a month away. You should perhaps consider a larger window for averaging than 15 days as that only includes the last measurement, i.e. a single data point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.115.13 (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you did it before I even sent that message. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.115.13 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Swedish polling table

I saw you were developing a table for polls for the Swedish general election, 2014 article. Thanks! One thing that's important to note is that the combined result of the "red" and "blue" blocs is much more important than the result of individual parties, so maybe have Red/Blue columns like in the Opinion polling for the next Danish general election article? --4idaho (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Italian election graph

Hi Impru20, can you upload a new version of the graph? Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Next Croatian General Elections

Hi. First i want to thank for all your work on opinion polling graphs. It is great and you should continue to work on this important contribution for Wikipedia. :)

I was wondering if you could do one opinion polling graph for the Next Croatian general elections?

If you are willing to do create a graph here are some helpful notes:

-last elections were held on 4 Dec 2011, center-left coalition won the elections, and 11 parties then had representation in the Parliament,

-it is a mess, 2 major parties (combined having 102 of 151 MPs), 3 other, and 6 small parties mostly with one or three MPs.

-in 2011 only one opinion poll was held on 27 Dec, on the graph you should show the results of all parties and coalitions shown at the bottom of the linked page (Next Croatian general elections); Kukuriku coalition, HDZ coalition, Labour, HDSSB, Grubišić et al, HSS, HSP-AS, HSP, HSLS, BUZ.

-if you think that 10 is a large number for a graph, you can remove HSP-AS, BUZ and HSS because later they will join the HDZ coalition, but it would be nice to see that change on a graph,

-in 2012 it is the same situation until 4 Dec, when HSP-AS and BUZ join the HDZ coalition, now we have 8 parties on the graph,

-in 2013 it is the all same until 24 Jul, when HSS joins the HDZ coalition,

-the situation does not change until 5 Dec 2013 when some new parties join the race and start gaining support, ORaH and NF,

-IL MB is an outsider, but if you want to put it on the graph it is ok,

-in 2014 from 8 Feb we have a new coalition, homophobic and conservative parties HDSSB and HSP joined with a bunch of "100 votes in elections" parties,

-and last, on 6 Mar NF and HSLS formed new coalition for the next european and possibly next general elections,

-so today we have 4 coalitions, 2 parties, and 2 independent lists.

-on the linked page you can see all the opinion polls.

I thank you in advance.

Tuvixer — Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: From 25 Feb 2014 you should use the "If the Elections Were Held Today?" table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvixer (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NO NEED. But tnx btw. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvixer (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Kapa Research poll

For context, the poll was comissioned by To Vima. Here is a To Vima article about the poll -- in English -- explicitly saying its an EP poll: http://www.tovima.gr/en/article/?aid=584344

I agree it's confusing that they compare it to parliamentary polls, but it is definitely an EP poll.

FYI, "εκλογών" = "election" in Greek. "ευρωεκλογές" = "European election". "εθνικών εκλογών" = "national election" (according to my translator, at least.) This is how you can tell apart the national and European polls in the government database. Polls that say national election or just election should be national polls. That should also conclusively show the Alco poll for 24-27/3/2014 was also an EP poll.

As to whether the Kapa Research poll is really two separate polls, I'm pretty sure you're right and they're separate polls after reading the english article, so I'll separate them on the European Parliament election, 2014 (Greece) article. Cheers. --4idaho (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the weighting doesn't matter. It would be OR to say that because they weighted it by 2012 vote it can also be used for the legislative election, when the source says nothing like that, and explicitly says its polls "for the European election." I'm not saying its best practice to weight a European poll by the 2012 results (I actually greatly disapprove), but that's the way they did it, and they explicitly say it's still a European poll.

And there are many cases of voters expressing vastly different results in European elections and national elections. Just because you're polling the same pool of voters doesn't mean you're going to get the same result. If there's a pollster in Spain who does that, I greatly disagree with that practice. I don't see it as natural to put European polls in the national polling table and treat them like national polls. If the pollster explicitly says one set of numbers is both, then I suppose we would have no choice, but they didn't in this case.

In fact, in this case, it's explicitly a European poll. The question asks how voters would vote in the European elections. It didn't ask how they would vote in national elections, and the pollster didn't say it could be treated as both. The source also simply said it was a European poll. So I don't see how they weighted it as relevant to which table it gets included in. --4idaho (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

They do explicitly say it's a European poll. "ευρωεκλογές" = "European election" in Greek. "εκλογών" = just "election". The question asks how people would vote in the European election.

The polls absolutely are either explicitly legislative or European; that's why I explained which words were which and how to tell them apart. There should be no doubt about which is which. I also strongly oppose any attempt to treat legislative polls as European polls or vise versa, as that is 100% OR. If a pollster explicitly says to treat them that way, that would be different. But they didn't.

Yes it is stupid of Kapa Research to weight a European poll by legislative results. But that's just Kapa Research being bad at polling, it is indisputably a European poll. --4idaho (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still disagree.

I think you're reading far too much into the fact that they compared them in a chart. Just because the two subjects are related, and some sources may look at how they interact with each other, does not mean they are the same thing. We have two separate articles because they're two separate subjects. Just because a source compared the results of a poll of the national election to a poll of the European election, does not mean that they are the same thing.

Just look a the latest poll by GPO, with ND in the lead in the national election and SYRIZA in the lead for the European election. Clearly, it might be interesting to compare those two results. It's totally understandable to me why some pollsters (or newspapers or networks) would compare them. However, in my opinion, it contributes nothing to the Next Greek legislative election for us to compare them there.

The table and chart are supposed to show opinion polls for the national election, and it's precisely because opinion for the European election is different (the same reason why it's interesting to compare them) that the polls for one should not be in a table that is supposed to show opinion for the other. It's misleading, clutters the table, and contributes nothing (in my opinion.)

Perhaps we could include a "see also" link to the European article (although it's already linked in the footer), but I don't think it contributes anything to this table, and this article, which is supposed to show opinion polls for a different election.

They're different subjects, with different articles, and if people want to compare them, they can. But why should we clutter one article with what is, 1). duplicate information found in a different article, and 2). not directly related to the article anyways? --4idaho (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the issue at all.

They are two separate elections, and a poll for a European election is not the same as a poll for a national election. They're two separate elections, and just because they're compared in a chart somewhere does not mean they are the same thing. Nowhere does it say that they are.

You cannot have a "trend" between two different questions about two different elections, and it does not say anywhere that it is a trend.

And a table that is supposed to show opinion polling for the national election is not "incomplete" because it doesn't contain opinion polls for a different election.

Just like the article overall is not "incomplete" because it doesn't contain all the information in, for example, the parties individual articles. It makes no sense (to me) to include polls for a different election in the table. They have some degree of relation, but they are separate subjects with separate articles on wikipedia. Whether some pollster made a chart that showed the differences between a poll of a European election to a poll of a national election has no relevance whatsoever, as far as I can see.

If you remain convinced they should be included, I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk page of the Next Greek legislative election article about this. Lets get some other opinions, because I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. --4idaho (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I left you a message on Talk because you were curious about how to tell the legislative and European polls apart, I didn't see it as relevant to the article as a whole. The conversation has progressed and changed since then, obviously, and I think that it would now be more appropriate to move this to the general Talk.

Also, there's one more thing that I think can't be stressed enough: Kapa Research did not relate the two polls. They had a chart comparing them to each other, it did not say, anywhere, that the European poll could be taken as remotely informative about the outcome of the national election. They could have just as well have been comparing them to show how little they have to do with each other.

You're choosing to interpret this chart a certain way, but Kapa Research didn't say anything like that. --4idaho (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please start a subject at the article's Talk page. This conversation isn't progressing, so lets get some other people's opinions.

FYI, I never said they can't be compared -- I said that it didn't contribute anything to the article to do so. It would just clutter the table and be confusing. And, again, you're choosing to interpret the table to mean something that it doesn't actually say it means. It's not WP:CRYSTAL to disagree with you, because Kapa Research never said anything like what you're saying the table means.

This is my final reply until it gets moved to the general Talk. --4idaho (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Graph also in European Parliament election, 2014 (Italy)?

Hello Impru20, I know you are overloaded with and likely overwhelmed by similar requests, but would you upload in European Parliament election, 2014 (Italy) a graph on opinion polls like the ones you have uploaded (and constantly updated) in Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Swedish general election, 2014, Spanish general election, 2015, Next Italian general election and many other pages ? Thanks anyway, --Checco (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you please do that? Time span could be 7 days instead of 15... --Checco (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Help & instructions for making your graphs

Hi, I'm a big fan of your opinion polling graphs, and would like to add similar charts to more European election articles - could you perhaps give a short run-down on how you accomplish these magnificent charts? Much appreciated. HeadlightMorning (talk)

PSOE prime ministerial candidates?

Feel free to not answer and/or remove this, but how would you judge the PSOE prime ministerial candidates ideologically? Are there any major differences between them? --4idaho (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it was very helpful. :) --4idaho (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll definitely be watching closely. --4idaho (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Impru! I can support the removal of coat of arms of HoS. I always liked how List of Prime Ministers of Spain include heads of states, but having their coat of arms maybe really is a bit too far. Anyway, I'll include pictures of heads of state which are missing at the present, that's usually the case for earlier monarchs (early 19th century or before). --Sundostund (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Impru20, I'm Masssly. I want to thank you for your contribution. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Prime Minister of Spain with this edit but unfortunately you didn't give an explanation or tell us why.Please be mindful that unexplained removal of one or more words suggests Wikipedia:Content removal. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with at least an edit summary except in the case of a monor edit. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Feel free to contact me further if you need any assistance. Kind Regards...—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 14:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona (Spanish Congress Electoral District)

Hello again Impru. Thanks for the tables you've added to the Barcelona page. However I'm confused about your other changes. The page is about the parliamentary district of Barcelona, so why have you removed the results of the 2004 and 2008 parliamentary elections (which are relevant) only to replace them with the results of the European parliament elections (which aren't relevant?) The page should ideally have the results of parliamentary elections back to 1977. It's not a general page about elections in the province of Barcelona (which would be a useful and interesting page if you ever feel like turning your attention to it.) All the best, Valenciano (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Impru20. You have new messages at Valenciano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Impru20. You have new messages at Valenciano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please do not add original research (Podemos)

You added that Podemos is a big tent party. However, none of your sources name it a "big tent" party. This is original research - it is a conclusion which you made based on news articles which talk about the voter base of Podemos.

Por cierto, gracias por tu trabajo en los artículos sobre las elecciones españolas. Zozs (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Page moves

I see that you moved several Spanish regional election articles. However, it seems that you missed a few - the Madrid Assembly and Corts Valencianes articles now have two different titles as you didn't move any of the ones before 2003 (these are the only two I've checked).

Also, when you move them, could you fix the links on the templates like {{Madrid elections}}? Cheers, Number 57 12:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Elections and Referendums article tagging

Sorry to have to post directly on your talk page, but you may have noticed (on the WP:Elections and referendums talk page) that I am trying to get all the election and referendum articles tagged for the project. Unfortunately this is not making any progress, as people are claiming there is no consensus to do this, as no-one has responded on the Project talk page. Could you possibly comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject, as I'm getting rather frustrated by the attitude of the people at WP:BTR. Cheers, Number 57 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, Impru20. You have new messages at Timpo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Minor parties

Following on from our earlier discussion about this, I came up with a solution that I hope is acceptable to both of us. I have implemented it at Spanish general election, 1989#Congress of Deputies – basically the parties with less than 0.1% of the vote can be hidden in a collapsed table within the results table. The reader can then click it to expand if they wish, but in the meantime the table remains short enough to be legible (in fact I have hidden more parties than you originally removed, as I've raised the threshold from 0.00% to 0.1%). Your thoughts? Number 57 16:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent :) I might roll it out to some other countries that have stupidly long tables. Number 57 17:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Table issues

I think you should be aware that the current scrollable solution for really long tables of opinion poll stats isn't exactly ideal from a readability standpoint. I'm sensing that both you and Number 57 aren't taking me very seriously, and I suspect this is because I'm not a WP:WPE&R regular. You've got your established formatting standard and you don't seem particularly interested in discussing the merits of any changes.

You clearly have been doing a lot of useful, relevant improvements to election articles, but reverting clarifications with the motivation "is not necessary"[1] isn't constructive. Some of those standard presentation formats have room for improvement. For example, consider the point I made at talk:Swedish general election, 2014 about presenting largest-party-diffs in elections where they only have secondary relevance.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest Metroscopia poll

Why did you remove it off the graph? It's quite clearly a vote estimation The source has sentences such as: "porcentaje de voto declarado" and "expectativa de voto". It does not deviate too much from other polls other than for the PP score and PSOE rise. Zozs (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Separation table head-table

To separate the table head from the table in the actual Greek and Spanish opinion polling has the disadvantage that when zooming there is a growing geometric disproportion between table head and table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.79.126 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polling graphs

Hi Impru20! I noticed you made this graph with Excel and it turned out really good. I wonder if you could send me the Excel file so I can edit to make a version for the 2014 Brazilian presidential election. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Impru20, the graphs look good, but I have noticed an inconsistency. The one at Next United Kingdom general election is accompanied by text that says it is "an eight-data-point moving average.", while on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election it says it is a "15-day average trend line". At least one of these must be inaccurate. Which please?

In addition, it claims to represent opinion polling, but in doing so it doesn't represent the opinion polling data at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, by excluding both 'Greens' and 'Others'. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Italian election graph

Hi Impru20, excuse me, can you upload a new version of the graph about the Next Italian general election? Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Polling charts

Hello Impru20,

i have noticed your wonderful charts. I really like them and I wonder whether you could send me the Excel file so I can understand how you smooth out the data over time. Many many thanks and best regards.

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telezbysek (talk • contribs) 07:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

UK 2010-2015 Opinion Polling chart - time for Greens

Impru20, massive thanks for your work helping clearing up the mess of Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election that was created a couple of years ago by ip editors adding fictional UKIP shares. That was one of the side effects of the efforts to add Green shares. That effort is now as complete as it can reasonably be expected to get. Even the incredibly elusive October 2011 YouGovs have been found.

So, now, to be a genuine 'graphical summary', your charts need updating to include the Greens. Can you do so now, please? Thanks DrArsenal (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading above, I see that you never feel it is 'the right moment' to update the UK chart, because there are polls pretty much daily. I would suggest Friday-Saturday is the best option. It is the one point in the week where a period of more than 24 hours without a poll usually happens, from when Populus release their poll during the day on Friday until the polls for the Sunday newspapers come out - sometimes late on Saturday, sometimes on Sunday, and details such as the pdfs of the data tables may take even longer. DrArsenal (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's Populus now at Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election. So no UK polls expected for more than 30+ hours now, I think. It would be great if you could update the chart (but I realise you may have plenty of other things to do). DrArsenal (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You beat me here, Dr. Arsenal. I was going to ask for the inclusion of the Green party now that we have the numbers for them in the tables, as per the consensus reached on the talk page.--ERAGON (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sobre la mayúscula en «Presidente del Gobierno»

Hola:

En realidad, que tengas la posibilidad de escribir «Presidente» en mayúsculas depende de incluir el nombre propio de la persona a la que se hace referencia o no hacerlo —y en ningún caso es obligatoria la escritura con mayúsculas—. Además, en la mayoría de correcciones que he realizado no se hace referencia a una persona concreta, sino al cargo en cuestión.

Al parecer, quien editase la versión en castellano de ese mismo artículo también conviene en ello: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidente_del_Gobierno_de_Espa%C3%B1a. Por norma general se escribe en minúscula; no obstante, es posible —quizás incluso algo frecuente— escribir dichos cargos con mayúscula cuando uno se refiere a una persona concreta y no se incluye su nombre propio.

Un saludo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andoni199 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!

	Time to share a beer!
	I thought those of us who worked to backdate Green shares at Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election and clear up the mess of the UKIP 2011 shares there should share a beer to celebrate finishing that task. DrArsenal (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polling

Hey. Your opinion polling graphs look amazing. May I ask which program/software do you use to create them? Thanks! Lmmnhn (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Podemos...

Hello! I saw that you recommended expansion of the "Reception" section of the Podemos article. I just wanted to let you know I got that information from the Spanish article as I had a quick read through of the existing, English Podemos article which somewhat read as a promotional article. Here is the Spanish article that has more information. Nice graph by the way, I'm a pretty big fan of using them. If you need any help, let me know!--ZiaLater (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

Podemos article

About my edit in (Spanish political party)

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

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 [2] 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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

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}}

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)

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:

• Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election
• Opinion polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2015
• Opinion polling for the Turkish general election, June 2015
• Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015: Here there is actually a separate section for the pre-campaign and campaign period, which I believe is even more accurate and correct.
• Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2014: Similar system with the previous article. A division of polls with a similar logic takes also place in Austrian legislative election, 2013.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Italian election graphs

Hi Impru20 and happy new year! I know that you have been so engaged with the Spanish general election in December, but when you have time could you update the graph about the next Italian election? And maybe, if you want, could you upload also the one about the 2013 election? Thank you very much and best wishes! -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, if you don't want to do it, or if you can't, you can also di tell me the website where you create these graphs, and I will do it. The one about Italian election, hasn't been updated since October! Thanks -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work creating detailed, informative and thorough articles on Spanish elections. Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits

It's sad that you're making very rude discussions about that. Even when you're editing an article almost entirely by yourself, it doesn't justify that you don't have to explain the changes that you're making on the edit summaries. Or do you think no one else could see them? Or that no one else wants to review the edits made on the articles? Please reconsider your thoughts, because you're not the owner of the articles (and as I looked, you're having very long discussions on other articles, in which you're imposing your point of view, and blocking any change saying repeatedly that "these are not valid arguments" [it would be very useful to all us here that you could explain what arguments are "valid" according to your thoughts]). Regards, and watch your type of expression. --Sfs90 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Again: If you're still thinking that you're the owner of the articles, you're going to have a lot of discussions (even more than the ones that you're currently having, and you have no capacity to give up against the opinions of other users, trying to believe that you're the only one who has the reason here in Wikipedia). Your "I'm the article owner, so don't mess" attitude is the thing that I criticise you (and I have all the right to criticise you in that way, as sure some users would think about that). The colors edits that I made (as you could verify), I made it with sources and other elements that could complement my edit summary (graphics manuals, references, etc.) things that you don't do at any of your color templates, giving arbitrary colors without any explanation (even, if we're going more precise, we could even criticise you why you put some shade of green for a party instead of other shade, and you couldn't give us any reliable argument more than "I created, and I'm the owner of the template"). Cheers, happy new year and be careful with your rudeness ;) --Sfs90 (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time discussing with you. It looks clearly to what point this is going to be if I continue discussing with you. Anyway, I repeat it: be careful with your attitude. Nothing more. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. --Sfs90 (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Undo

I find it fascinating how you have redirected all of your opinion polls to a different article, but you want a summary on the German one. Care to explain why? KevinNinja (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Edit: Not all of them, but on the upcoming spanish election this has been done.

Election graph 1986

Hi, could you please explain more why you reverted my edit? I explained that People's Coalition was comprised at a national level of AP, PDP and PL, not only AP. You said that "the other parties are not required here", but under what reason you say that? The thing that the AP was the major party doesn't represent the fact that the other two parties were also presenting candidates at all constituencies (even more, you could take a look at the paper ballots and posters from that year, and clearly do represent all three party logos, like this, this and this). I hope that this could clarify the aspect of having the logos on the tables. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for your work. Please ensure that years, dates, and common terms are not linked‚ unless there's a particular reason for doing that. Tony (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Votación sobre mapas

Buenas, compañero.

Te solicito que votes en la discusión de los artículos de Basque Country (autonomous community) y Valencian Community para elegir el mapa localizador de ambas comunidades autónomas, apoyando el tipo standar para todas las regiones del país. Algunos usuarios nacionalistas o abiertamente independentistas quieren añadir un mapa sesgado en el que no aparece todo el país (en el caso de Euskadi) o que aparece como si fuese una nación de la Unión Europea (en el caso de la Comunidad Valenciana). Esto es inadmisible.

Te pido que añadas "support" y tu firma en la opción Satesclop's red map. Mil gracias por adelantado. Satesclop 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Irish Election Polls Graphic

Impru

Could you perhaps remove the underlying poll data before 01 Feb 2012 as the graphic is excessively wide at this time and set to get even wider with 5 more polls incoming at least. Thanks. Wikimucker (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you.

It wasn't vandalism, from either party. Please stop edit-warring over your comments. --John (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Graphical Summary

Hello, dear Impru20! It seems like you are creating the most useful and informative graphical summaries, and I want to ask, is there any programme where I can do similar GS? Thanks. --Mirashhh (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Mirashhh

Impru20, is there some tutorials about creating graphs? Or at least adding dots to them. Now, I can do only things like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2019.jpg

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirashhh (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of logos on Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016

Hi, I noticed your [edit] on the page, and wanted to clarify as the same kind of format is used on Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, which I thought looks better, is used on that page too(and Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015). Are these in breach of non-free content criteria too and if not why? Also what was different about the Social Democrats logo that made it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranníocóir (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Re Ah, I see now, thanks. Ranníocóir (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of José Antonio Rodríguez Martínez

The article José Antonio Rodríguez Martínez has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this 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. GAB^Hello! 02:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Coalition color

Hi! I suggest that the color of Democratic Coalition would be some green color/tone, because that was the color they used on their symbols and election posters, like this and this. The coalition doesn't used the AP colors or any orange/yellow/mustard tones. I know that this could mean that the election apportionment diagrams, maps and other images should have to change the color for Democratic Coalition, but this change could give some more exactitude about the colors used by the parties/coalitions. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Italian 2013 election graph

Hi Impru20! Are the polling tables about 2013 Italian election ready? I saw that are some months which are in your sandbox, maybe if you need an help I can insert the missing pollings, even if I think that they are almost complete.

P.S. When you have time, could you update the graph about the next Italian election? Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically User:Impru20/sandbox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Impru20/sandbox

User:Impru20/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Impru20/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Impru20/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Podemos census called to vote

Hi, I suggest that you could look and not change again the total census of Podemos members called to vote, that is of 393,538, as stated here, and not only the 190,291 called as "personas inscritas activas" (that is, the people that had participated on at least one internal decision in the last year as said here). Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I thanked for your edit, because it seems fair to specify both "censuses". Also, it would be great if you could write some kind of explanation about that difference on the kind of voters in the paragraph above the results table (in case some readers that are non-experts on Podemos or Spanish politics could'nt notice the difference between both voters totals [active registered and the total stated at the end of the table]). Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Podemos - United Left merger?

Hi,

in the article Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, you've merged the columns and polling data for Podemos and IU. Can I ask, what is the background for that change? I've done some research, and can't find a single source stating that those two have merged, or even have an electoral pact going.

In my opinion, merging their data is misleading, and consistently puts them above PSOE, which is false (according to most polls, at least). Unless you have a good reason for conjoining Podemos and IU, I suggest you revert that change.

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Spanish election "declared" prematurely

You changed the title of the Spanish election page and declared it for happening based on an article, which only says the final consultations by the King are on 25-26, and that he afterwards will inform the Speaker that further talks are futile. Please be a little more patient and wait for a proper source, which actually says the election will happen. No reason to jump the gun.--Batmacumba (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Preparations for the election are already underway since 12 April, with more than a single article as source (check 2015–16 Spanish government formation#Road to a new election, which gives more links; I didn't wanted to repeat the same all over the 2016 election article when it already redirects to the other one). As per WP:CRYSTALBALL#1, for the case of future events: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

As of currently, we have enough proof of the event being almost certain to take place on 26 June (because the date is already set legally, parties are already campaigning, dissolution decree has been already prepared, Congress is gearing up for dissolution, most media and political pundits and even the King himself take a new election for granted, etc). Note how WP:CRYSTAL does not require to have 100% proof that the event will take place without the slightest of doubts. In the (rather unlikely, but still possible) event the election is not held, the article may still be moved back to its previous place, but currently there's enough documentation available to substantiate a basis for the 26 June election, and to consider that the "Spanish general election, 2016" denomination for the article may, under current circumstances, have more usefulness for searching users and to discuss current events. So not really "premature" in itself.

This would be akin to articles like United States presidential election, 2020 or United States presidential election, 2024 being already in existence, since there's still some room for those to not happen, but there's enough documentation proving that there's a near certainty that those will happen.

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I then simply disagree with the "Chrystal Ball" policy, but such policies are usually impossible to get scrapped. The last comparison is incorrect (and needlessly condescending). Elections scheduled to happen with regular intervals according to the constitution are different than this situation, where a constitutional deadline exists, but decisions by political parties can prevent that deadline from coming into force.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Batmacumba That's not relevant. The US Constitution could be amended before 2020 or 2024 and have the constitutional regular intervals lifted (or replace them for others). We may not know; that's possible, yet it's not a likely possibility. In this case, the constitutional deadline for the Spanish election to happen in 2016 is, theoretically, 2 May. However, the legal deadline would be tomorrow (27 April) at 16:00 CET (in order to have time for a full investiture session with two votings to be held in accordance to law). And, in practice, King Felipe VI has already set the 25–26 April talks as the deadline (and he is the one that must grant the Cortes' dissolution). Not really up to decisions by political parties any longer, or not just, with preparations being already underway for the event to take place. Impru20 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2016 graphical summary

Hello

Congratulations for your great job! I think it'd be really convenient if you could change in the file called OpinionPollingSpainGeneralElectionNext.png the horizontal axis to make it end in June 2016. It is now the official date for the next election and, also, it'd make much easier to see the lines.

¡Gracias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarzaal (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

XI Legislatura

Buenas, Impru. Te escribo en castellano al descubrir que eres español. ¿No se debería hacer algún artículo en especial para la breve XI legislatura que hemos tenido, así como hacer mención a ella en el artículo List of Prime Ministers of Spain?

En el artículo se podría incluir lo de Soria así como un resumen de los fracasos a la hora de formar gobierno. Un saludo y gracias por tu trabajo, es una gran referencia para seguir los sondeos políticos. Asturkian (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

De acuerdo. No sabía que lo habías enfocado como un artículo general. De momento lo que he hecho ha sido "modificar" algo la plantilla Template:Cabinets of Spain renombrándola "Cabinets and Legislatures" y añadiendo la XI legislatura como un enlace al artículo que me has indicado. Si te parece bien, la añado al artículo List of Prime Ministers of Spain haciendo constar claramente que Mariano ha sido un "caretaker", aunque ese término me suena demasiado futbolero y yo usaría lo de "Acting". Un saludo. Asturkian (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Catalan parliamentary election 2015

Hello Impru20. I have made some additions and re-arranged a little that article. Regarding your summary edit the other day pointing to the independence issue as the only factor leading to the election, I agree with you that this was the stated purpose and -to some extent- the major one. On the other side, we can not deny the importance of CiU being in minority with ERC lending only limited support and the legislature at a stalemate, basically producing pro-independence pieces while neglecting other pieces of legislation to avoid clashes between CiU and ERC. It's important not to forget that, while CDC and ERC are basically aligned when it comes to independence, they are bitter rivals in basically all other political issues. I think it is worth to address this issue of CiU lacking a majority as one of the factors in the background of the election.

I think we can improve together that article (which is not the worse out there, by the way). In case you have serious issues with my most recent edit, I kindly ask you to address it at the talk page there and we discuss it, sounds good? Best regards. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 14:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edition about podemos

Hi. I would like to ask you to undo your reversion [3]. What is sourced is the used of the term populist, but along the article it is clearly stated that it isn't a generally accepted qualification, and is mainly used by Podemos' rivals. --Fjsalguero (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Unidos Podemos logo

Equo joined the coalition on May 12, 2016, making the official logo, but check it in the Wikipedia in Spanish.--Carlitoscarlos (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC).

Before I added another person put the logo but did not correctly and was not quality so the latest edition is mine.--Carlitoscarlos (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2016 (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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Fjsalguero (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jo Di opinion polls

Hi, I just saw you edit message for the Greek opinion polls page. I don't think it is a legitimate one, the first reason is the logo of Golden Dawn, they have replaced it by a swastika... the second reason is that on the graphic it says (under the main title) "The opinion poll was conducted electronically between 5 - 8 June on the www.easypolls.net website with a sample of 5,512 persons." Going to the website it seems anyone can create a poll without any control on the "demographics" of the voters... Orgyn (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have found the tweet where they ask their readers to vote: https://twitter.com/jodigraphics15/status/739563906696421376 https://twitter.com/jodigraphics15/status/739784675481255936 https://twitter.com/jodigraphics15/status/740234700564922368 https://twitter.com/jodigraphics15/status/740520043990126592 Orgyn (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Elecciones España 2015

Hola, te hablo en español porqué tengo más fluidez. Creo que en el articulo de las elecciones en inglés no es totalmente irrelevante poner las multiplicaciones, ya que el lector puede ver con claridad que todas las circunscripciones que hay en dicha línea tienen el número de diputados que se indica en la columna de la izquierda. Es mi humilde opinión, un saludo --Español34 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyediting for Spanish general election, 2016

Hi Impru, I agree with your revert regarding the fragmented parliament - the original sentence doesn't sound natural to me but I agree that my edit didn't help! So I agree to leave that one for now.

However, "at stake" is the wrong phrase for the first paragraph - it's a bit emotive and not as specific as "up for election". I'm gonna change it back.

Also, just to let you know I intend to copyedit the rest of the article too when I have time, as I've noticed several grammatical errors. Hope you don't mind! Great work on the article by the way - I wish someone would do the same on the other elections I'm interested in! Jdcooper (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

German polling tables

I could say the exact same thing for you. I made an edit and explained it, while you failed to come up with a single argument against – and just plainly reverted it. While it's clear that you took my "ownership" accusation personally – for that, I'm sorry – I was referring to a previous edit war we've been through on the French polling page, where you also repeatedly altered the layout of the table to suit what appears to be your preferred layout. Hence my accusation. Though like I said, I take it back as it was needlessly blunt. I stand by my point that the new version is easier to read, and unless you have major objections, and a better argument than "it makes comparison more weird", I'll change it back. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

German opinion polls

Hi, I've been very busy lately.. would you mind updating the polling results here? I will update the graph. Would much appreciate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_German_federal_election — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 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:

• On the Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 1993 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

La gráfica de encuestas en las elecciones de anteayer

Buenas, Impru. ¿No sería mejor que el gráfico de las estimaciones de voto fuese únicamente hasta los resultados del 26-J y no hasta el 20-D? Así está demasiado desaprovechado el espacio, vaya. Un saludo y, enhorabuena por tu trabajo en los artículos electorales. Asturkian (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Spanish general election, 2016

On 29 June 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Spanish general election, 2016, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 Spanish government formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ETA (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) 10:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Creating an aggregate polling graph for the next Slovenian election

Hey!

I've been trying to create a wiki page for the next Slovenian election polling as a summer pet project, seeing that there wasn't one already, and was asking around Wikipedia about creating one of those neat aggregate polling graphs you see on many election polling articles. I was advised to contact the author of one of the graphs, and seeing that you've created many a graph before, I was wondering if you'd be willing to create one for the article I'm working on or give me some advice on how to create one myself.

This is how far I've gotten; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jakob_tekavec/sandbox . I intent to submit it for publication after I manage to add the aggregate polling graph and make some further edits.

Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Jakob tekavec (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Jakob Tekavec

Italian constitutional referendum

Hi Impru20, how are you? As it happend many times in the past months, I have a request for you...could you create a graph about the Italian constitutional referendum, 2016 opinion polls? Maybe considering only Yes/No vote. Thank you very much and have a good day! -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you do it?

Do you use a script to insert poll data? Because you do a lot of work remarkably fast! Thanks for updating poll results, by the way! KevinNinja (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Basque parliamentary election, 2016

Como politólogo profesional Juan José Dominguez colabora en diversos medios como analista. Tiene metodología propia, no es un simple opinador. Aquí te pongo ejemplos de varias fuentes que mencionan su profesionalidad:

• http://www.diariovasco.com/politica/201412/07/arte-auscultar-realidad-201412071232.html
• http://www.lainformacion.com/politica/sorpasso-Podemos-PSOE-politologo-claves_0_933207678.html

Espero haberte aclarado tus dudas.--85.85.85.69 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

PSOE Leadership Crisis

Hi Impru, Ok I will do! Thanks for all the great content, it's very interesting. I live in Spain but my Spanish is not quite good enough to read newspapers comfortably, so you are my main news source! Jdcooper (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry I accidentally undid a couple of your changes due to an edit conflict. I will wait til you have finished! Jdcooper (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about <ouster> reversion. Really happy with the whole, just thought I would improve the sense of it. Stoorybrig (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Javier Fernández Fernández ‎

Hi Javier Fernández Fernández ‎is not SG but he is president of comeetee and for that, he is leader of the party. And according to the constitution, the leader of PSOE is head of opposition. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

JFF head the executive commeetee, so for that, he rules the party. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 October

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

• On the 2015–16 Spanish government formation page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Líder de la oposición

Hola, Impru20. Perdón por el desajuste de la tabla de esta tarde, pero intenté cuadrarla por todos los medios y no fui capaz de resolver el lío de ninguna manera. Confiaba en que aparecieras pronto y supieras arreglarla, como así ha sido.

• Las referencias sitúan los comienzos de Borrell como líder de la oposición en diferentes momentos ([4], [5]), debido a la complicada situación de bicefalia en la que se encontraba el partido. Sin embargo, creo que lo más acertado es considerar su inicio al frente de este cargo no oficial en el momento en el que fue elegido candidato a la presidencia.
• He dado por hecho que la dimisión de Felipe González y la creación de la Comisión Gestora presidida por De Carvajal se produjo el 21 de mayo de 1979, pero no puedo asegurar con total seguridad que estos hechos se dieran ese día. Puede que ambas cosas ocurrieran el 20 del mismo mes.
• Sobre Marcelino Oreja, albergo serias dudas de que en algún momento fuera líder de la oposición. Nunca he considerado que lo fuera y tampoco encuentro referencias que lo justifiquen, cuando en ningún momento fue líder del partido ni candidato a la presidencia del Gobierno. Es cierto que Historia Electoral así aparece, pero creo que deberíamos apoyarnos en alguna fuente más sólida, fiable y que fuera a ser posible de la época. Esta misma web no recoge por ejemplo a Herrero de Miñón como jefe de la oposición, cuando desempeñó esta función de forma bastante más clara. Lo mismo ocurre con De Carvajal o Chaves. En principio, no estoy de acuerdo con su inclusión.
• Sobre cuestiones meramente formales, me gustaría saber si hay alguna opción de que el recuadro de Calvo-Sotelo como presidente ocupe la mitad del espacio correspondiente a la segunda casilla de Felipe González como jefe de la oposición. También, consultar la posibilidad de que la fina barra con el color de los partidos no se interrumpa en los límites de cada casilla, sino que forme un continuo cuando determinado partido tuviera dicha continuidad histórica (por ejemplo, que Rubalcaba, Sánchez y Fernández aparezcan bajo una misma barra sin interrupciones.

Un saludo y gracias por tu atención y ayuda. --HermanHn (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Normalmente, lo más habitual ha sido ver a Fraga ocupando la jefatura de la oposición en 1989. Es verdad que ya estaba en el carril de salida, y que eso choca en parte con la situación de los líderes que nombras (no hay duda de que Aznar, Rajoy o Rubalcaba fueron líderes de la oposición antes de liderar sus propios partidos), pero, ante esa especie de vacío, pienso que seguramente sea quien aún ocupaba la presidencia del partido quien deba aparecer en su lugar. Sobre todo cuando no hay una alternativa clara y la situación de Marcelino Oreja es cuando menos endeble. No encuentro ninguna referencia más que le ponga en ese papel, más allá de su condición de posible delfín (como ha habido tantos otros). Es más, el líder parlamentario del partido en ese momento parecía ser Herrero de Miñón ([6]), circunscrito a la actividad de la formación en el Congreso. Y la presidencia del correspondiente grupo parlamentario tampoco garantiza nada, como puede verse en el caso de Almunia durante el periodo de Borrell; tampoco la condición de diputado (Hernández Mancha no lo era). En fin, el análisis no es fácil, pero creo que yo no pondría a Oreja. --HermanHn (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Algo que no comparto en absoluto y que espero que pueda ser replanteado es la inclusión de Pablo Iglesias como jefe paralelo de la oposición. Puede que algún día lo sea, pero actualmente no lo es. Nunca lo ha sido. Es verdad que recientemente se ha autoasignado ese papel, pero no se puede dejar esa consideración en manos del político que decida arrogársela. Tampoco es la primera vez que ocurre; lo hizo incluso cuando Podemos aún era un partido extraparlamentario ([7], [8]). Se trata de una mera cuestión dialéctica, de marketing político que no puede tener una plasmación enciclopédica. El líder de la oposición es aquella persona que encabeza el primer partido de la oposición, ni más ni menos. Por eso, no tengo ninguna duda al catalogar a Javier Fernández pese a su situación interina, puesto que se trata de la máxima autoridad del PSOE y del interlocutor válido de Mariano Rajoy en este partido, al menos a día de hoy. --HermanHn (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hola, Impru20. No estoy de acuerdo con la decisión de retirar a Fernández de la tabla. Pese a la abstención del PSOE, cosa que complica un poco más las cosas puesto que nunca se había producido hasta el momento y lo imprevisible de la situación en la que se encuentra este partido, lo cierto es que sigue formando parte del bloque de la oposición, siendo además la primera formación del mismo a no ser que se produzca un buen número de bajas en su grupo parlamentario. Y Javier Fernández no deja de ser su líder, aunque lo sea con carácter interino como otros muchos de sus predecesores. Habrá que ver lo que ocurre con el liderazgo del PSOE y el trato que dan los medios de comunicación a Pablo Iglesias, pero creo que lo más probable es que el secretario general que salga del próximo Congreso del PSOE termine siendo considerado líder de la oposición. De la misma forma, Fernández lo es ahora pese a la reivindicación de Podemos. De hecho, ha asignado públicamente ese papel a su propio partido ([9]), por lo que debería aparecer mencionado como líder de la oposición quien actúa como cabeza de la formación de forma provisional. En cualquier caso, creo que la fórmula adoptada hasta este momento era adecuada y mostraba información sobre la situación política y la rivalidad en este puesto con una gran fidelidad, por lo que me inclino por volver a ella. Eso sí, yo no diría que Pablo Iglesias tiene ese papel de líder desde el 7 de octubre (uno de los muchos momentos en los que ha reclamado para sí ese rol), sino que me inclinaría por el momento en el que el PSOE quedó sin secretario general o bien por el día de hoy, en el que Rajoy será previsiblemente investido.

En relación a Fraga, y sin contar con una total certeza, creo que lo más prudente y acertado es su inclusión como líder de la oposición hata la llegada de Aznar, como ahora aparece. Herrero de Miñón era únicamente el líder parlamentario, como Antonio Hernando en el actual PSOE, y Oreja era un hipotético sucesor que no llegó a serlo. Si bien, creo que no estaría de más mencionar la situación de ambos en una nota al pie.

Por último, creo que sería acertado incluir también a los líderes de la oposición durante la Segunda República. Es una idea que se me acaba de ocurrir y todavía no he estudiado suficiente las circunstancias de la época en lo que a este tema se refiere, pero tengo idea de hacerlo en breve y determinar quiénes ocuparon este cargo no oficial. Un saludo. --HermanHn (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Bueno, digamos que no me parece del todo incorrecta la decisión de considerar vacante el puesto en dichas situaciones y, eso sí, nombrar al dirigente de turno que lideraba al partido de forma interina. Sigo pensando que, puestos a considerar cuál es el líder de la oposición, este debe ser el que desempeña oficial y provisionalmente la función de principal autoridad del partido, es decir, Javier Fernández. Pero, como digo, apuesto por aceptar la configuración que has fijado. De hecho, me gustaría tarsladarla a la Wikipedia en nuestra lengua, dadas las carencias que presenta la tabla actual, pero creo que me voy a encontrar con la oposición de otros usuarios, especialmente en lo que se refiere a la catalogación de Pablo Iglesias como tal (algo que, por otra parte, me sigue generando dudas notables). Lo que sí creo es que, a pesar de que el puesto se encuentre vacante por falta de líder o provisionalidad del mismo, podría aparecer el nombre del principal partido de la oposición en el correspondiente recuadro. --HermanHn (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Not the first and I imagine not the last Barnstar for your extensive and extremely high-quality coverage of Spanish politics! You should be proud of both 2015-16 Spanish government formation and 2016 PSOE crisis, among the best English-language news sources on the web! Muchas gracias! Jdcooper (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

First Rajoy Cabinet

Hi It haven't made sense to divide the composition between composition and caretaker because it is the same. Reagrds. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment

You may well indicate that protocolary recognition in the lead, but not as an office in the infobox because it is not an office and you mislead readers into thinking there is such thing in Spain as there is in the UK or Catalonia.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Such thing exists, but not as an office to hold.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see sources that verify "Leader of the Opposition" is an actual office and that Sánchez was appointed for it and when he ceased to hold that office. Surely that information should be featured in the Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales. I suggest you to search for it in there and I wish you good luck too.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see myself ranting that much actually. Maybe you are projecting?--Asqueladd (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to acknowledge what an office actually is. It is not necessarily about downplaying the thing; the case we are dealing is not an "office" but a protocolary recognition (yeah, with privileges), probably notable for the lead, but not an office to include in the infobox. I have indicated you the place to look for evidences for that thing to be an office and to look for the extent of the term of Mr. Sánchez in it. Hint: offices in Spain are sworn upon.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Putting the burden of the proof on me. Not cool. You need to prove he swore an office, when he assumed that office, et. al. I've already told you the place to search for it is the Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

PDPC

Yes, the coalition it's not registered anymore, but we could search the official results published in the Ministry of the Interior website ;) (http://www.infoelectoral.interior.es/min/busquedaAvanzadaAction.html and selecting the Congress election of 1977), in which you could clearly see that the acronym given to Pacte Democratic per Catalunya was PDPC and not PDC. --Sfs90 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Second Rajoy Government

Hello Impru20! I want to clarify why you are translating Ministerio de la Presidencia y para las Administraciones Territoriales as Minister for the Presidency and of the Regional Administrations. On the revision history page, you first pointed out that translations are taken from La Moncloa website, which I think is a perfectly valid criteria. The thing is La Moncloa website uses "of" as the preposition in all instances, and Ministerio de la Presidencia y para las Administraciones Territoriales in particular is translated as Ministry of the Presidency and of the Regional Administrations. Then I made changes following the same criteria, but you reverted them pointing out consistency with previous cabinets, and basically introduced the "for" preposition intead of "of" in all instances save for "of the Regional Administrations". If La Moncloa website's English denominations for the current cabinet use the same preposition on both ends in the denomination of this ministry – Ministry of the Presidency and of the Regional Administrations –, isn't it more consistent to translate it as Ministry for the Presidency and for the Regional Administrations on both accounts? Baskesc (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Impru20! Baskesc (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Program

How to make the graphs about the intention to vote, Impro20? With what program? I would like to help you, but I wanted to do the same design as you. Thank you very much and answer me when you can! --Oriololmo (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Graph of the Next Italian general election

Hi Impru20, how are you? Could you update the opinion polls' graph about the Next Italian general election? From July to December, lot of things had changed, please update it :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Seats and Vote Share in Opinion Polls for Next Spanish Election

Hey, the new design that puts the the estimated seats below the percentage in one field isn't really helpful for two reasons: 1) It's impossible to sort. 2) Following the trend isn't as easy as it used to be. This is what you see if you want to follow PP vote since December: 33.9 151/153 35.9 34.7 144 34.1 154/159 36.9 34.5 139 33 34.8 134 32.1

The previous design, the one showing both data in side by side columns, didn't have the sorting problem but made comparing parties in the same poll a bit harder. I don't think having two separate tables was such a bad idea. Sohailjan (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Spanish election articles

Hey, Impru20! First of all, congratulations for your work; I know it's a lot of time and effort and I believe it's worth it.

Obviously, my intention isn't to hamper or disturb your work, so I'm glad you told me where I can go wrong. I only want to help where I fairly can, and sometimes I added some things to some articles to see if they fitted, but never with an aim to impose my way of doing or editing.

To start with, I'm going to stop uploading images, or at least the most controversial ones. If I can help with some articles, I'll be pleased, but also knowing that I too have little and scattered time.

Sorry for the inconveniences and good work! :) Cheers! --Togiad (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Candidato "alternativo" en Podemos

Muy buenas, Impru. En el artículo 2nd Podemos Citizen Assembly comentas que únicamente Pablo Iglesias se ha presentado como candidato a liderar Podemos y, sin embargo, en los medios ha aparecido un candidato alternativo (Juan Moreno Yagüe) que si bien sabemos que apenas tiene posibilidades, igual sería necesario mentarlo. Nada más, como siempre, agradeciendo mucho tu aportación en los artículos electorales y de encuestas. Un saludo. Asturkian (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing Spanish Prime minsters

You stated you used http://boe.es/ as a source for the list of PM under Franco Spain. However I find that source to be wrong with various errors in it.

Fidel Dávila Arrondo was Chairman of the Technical Board of the State (Prime Minster) from 3 October 1936 – 3 June 1937

Francisco Gómez-Jordana Sousa was Chairman of the Technical Board of the State (Prime Minster) from June 3 of 1937 - January 30 of 1938

On the page it states Franco became Prime Minster on 30 September 1936, however on Franco's on wiki page it states he became Prime Minster on 30 January 1938. I think we need a new source for the Franco era Spanish PM's if that's the source. There are to many conflicts and several different sources don't match the wiki page. AHC300 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

En Marche! template colour

I've left a message at Template talk:En Marche!/meta/color that you might be interested in. Katya2017 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Encuestas regionales para las próximas elecciones

Hola, soy el usuario anónimo que ha editado el artículo de "Regional opinion polling for the next Spanish General Election" hoy varias veces, completando la información que faltaba. Quería saber el porqué de cambiar el formato de esa sección y si tendría su permiso (para organizarnos, me refiero) para volver a editar la página y establecer las comunidades que faltan (Comunidad Valenciana y Navarra) con el nuevo formato que ha incorporado (que por lo que veo es el mismo con el que cuenta el artículo "Opinion polling for the next Spanish General Election"). Un saludo. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Edito: Siga así, está haciendo un trabajo inigualable en Wikipedia en términos de política española (e internacional). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.34.154.217 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

The IP you reverted a couple of times (so did I) has just been blocked at es.wiki for doing the same thing. Gracias por estar atento, --Maragm (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Corsaris Democràtics

The correct name for the party is Corsaris Democràtics (Democratic Corsairs in English). [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] There may be an error in the Ministry of the Interior page. In Argos the name is the right one.

Comment

Don't worry, I didn't think you were rude. I understand the amount of work you have, and I'm sorry to increase it. Anyway, it's OK if you tell me to stop editing some pages, as it's not my intention to bother you more than I already do. I sometimes make some testings in some pages, so if you think they're not right, just tell me. Thanks for everything and my apologies.--Togiad (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the type of treemap

Hello Impru20. There is a discussion going on about using which type of treemap for 2016 United States presidential election in each state articles. Please join the discussion, so the dispute can be resolved. Thank you. Ali 03:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016.The discussion is about the topic United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Thank you. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Actualización de las gráficas

Buenas tardes, Impru. Me dirigía a usted con la única intención de sugerirle que quizá se deberían ir actualizando las gráficas de evolución de intención de voto para las próximas elecciones en España, Italia y especialmente Grecia, cuyo artículo se encontraba completamente desactualizado hasta que añadí las últimas encuestas que publicó Electograph. Un cordial saludo y siento las molestias (concretamente, la edición del artículo de España de hace unas horas). 5.34.154.217 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Mélenchon second-place color

A poll was just released placing Mélenchon in second place (awaiting the publication of a notice from the polling commission) – could you please generate a hex color code for second-place Mélenchon? Thanks! Mélencron (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Gilles Duceppe

Quite right, thanks for the correction. I was flipping back and forth between the 2011 and 2015 elections and got confused. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Alliance

Just wanted to apologise for my last edit on United Kingdom general elections, 2017. I realised that the ordering of the tables had changed from when I last looked from alphabetical to seat numbers. We must have both attempted to make the same edit moving alliance down to the bottom of the table at the same time. That my edit appeared to be revert of your changing the width parameter was completely accidental - sorry. Ebonelm (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Updating the Italian polls?

I've noticed the opinion polling graph on the Next Italian Election graph has not been updated for 4 months, was just wondering whats going on with that. WolvesS (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC) WolvesS

Infobox election fixes

I'm so sorry you've had to fix several of my infobox edits and just wanted you to know that I appreciate it. I'm going back through my last run now and making my own corrections, thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Next Italian election graph

Hi Impru20! Excuse me, could you update the graph regarding the Next Italian general election, whose last update dates back to December? Thank you so much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest polls

@Impru20: I see you updated for ICM. Great! According to ukpollingreport.co.uk there are also new polls from Panelbase and Kantar Public, with final Ines also due from YouGov and Survation. I am unable to update for these as only have mobile at the mo. Boscaswell talk 20:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

France

Hi Stop now, I haven't violated 3RR. Saying that is a lie. But you and another user have edited the article without consensus. For the rest;A contributor involved in an editing war can not shout at the (fake) violation of the 3RR. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you revert me again, you will violate the 3RR. Also, Baroin didn't run for the election. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Panam2014, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Just to let you know I have reverted your reversion. Per WP:BLANKING, an editor is allowed to remove (almost) anyting from their page, and to revert them on their own talk is somewhat frowned upon  :) I note from your edit summary that you are concerned that the other party will 'pretend' they have not seen it; rest assured, that the act of removing a notice is taken to implicitly mean that they have read it before removing. It is then not possible for them to claim ignorance in any defence. The same, conversely, of course applies to you too. FYI. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Question.

Uh... is it alright if I ask you a question bello? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Cite error message: Andalusian regional election, 1990

I note you have undone my work to improve the layout of Andalusian regional election, 1990, but would you please at least deal with the red Cite Error message that now appears at the bottom of the page: Noyster (talk), 14:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Noyster It was dealt with about one hour and a half ago. The revert was done precisely to re-format the page and add the group="p" refs in a separate section, which was done immediately afterwards. Impru20 (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Menorca

The English spelling for Menorca is Menorca. If those are recent history WP:CONSISTENCY would require using the modern English name not the British colonial name. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I rather think all these "Minorca" names are invented anyway. This is more typical: Secessionism: Identity, Interest, and Strategy. Reliable modern English sources appear to give the names of those parties in Spanish or Catalan. There isn't an invented English translation, and if there is it would be with Menorca, the modern English name as newspapers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you please return Santo Tomás, Minorca back to Santo Tomás, Menorca where it was. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Regarding this Don't you think it would be way better putting as founders the full "7 magníficos"? Cheers--Asqueladd (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

ANC

Hi! The ANC did not actually call for bringing estelades, here is their official statement on the demonstration. Unfortunately, El Pais's coverage of the attacks has been notoriously biased. Thanks a lot, --Townie (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In the statement, they mention that if you want to bring such flag, people should do that; in no way is it a call to bring estelades. Actually, even ANC's president said that the claim was false. --Townie (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In their official statement, they did not encourage bringing flags, note that the proposition begins with an if.

Since Jordi Sànchez called for people to bring flags (he did not specify which ones, estelades or senyeres - or even rojigualdas ;) -, so we should stick to the generic "flags") with the black ribbon, a possible way to phrase the sentence could be "[...], and Jordi Sànchez, president of the ANC, called for bringing flags with a black ribbon. Signs accusing the Head of State of trafficking with weapons were also present." In the interest of balance, I believe we should also add that anti-independence groups gave out Spanish flags for free in the demonstrations. --Townie (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)