I've noticed that you seem to be in charge of the Spanish elections side, so my question is if there are any plans around adding more results breakdown of the 2023 Spanish local elections, considering that it's been consistently done all the way up to the 1979 ones. For the latest w:Category:Results breakdown of the 2023 Spanish local elections, however, it's only been done for Asturias. Sincerely, 79.152.206.114 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2015 Catalan regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joan Herrera.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Spanish local elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Island council.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2024 disestablishments in the Basque Country (autonomous community) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted my change to the opinion poll table in this article. Please note that this table is transcluded in Opinion polling and seat projections for the 2024 European Parliament election, where including EP groups adds clarity and consistency. Mibblepedia (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mibblepedia: And? Opinion polls in Spain do not ask for European affiliations at all (and indeed, some of these parties comprise various affiliations). Adding them is misleading since it leads readers into thinking that European affiliations are actually polled. All info pertaining such affiliation (currently past and, in due time, future) is shown elsewhere in the article where appropiate, so this information is not missing at all (just located where it is key). "Transclusion" alone would not merit inclusion, such transclusion is not even required by a Wikipedia policy or whatever (since you can easily link to the actual article anyway), plus you shouldn't change the transcluded text only because it fits another article. Impru20^talk 14:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one suggest such a thing would take place? As the whole issue with whether or not pages should adopt one of two templates, I feel there should be a place where such a discussion should be held, rather than the talk page of a singular election. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, the issue has been discussed quite a few times (most of these at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, I think), and it has been mostly left out as a no consensus/case-by-case issue.

The main issue I detect is that the "case-by-case" is not being attained by explicit consensus in almost any situation (i.e. a discussion on whether the infoboxes for all elections in any given country should use TIE or TILE), but rather through imposition (enforcing the edits anyway, then re-reverting those who revert the original edit). We have currently an edit warring situation in many countries, and I fear there is no single solution for all of them: consensus will have to be attained in a case-by-case basis.

It's worth noting that this has worked in some cases: there was a discussion a long time ago on UK elections where it was agreed that TILE could be used for future elections as long as they hadn't been held yet. That is why 2024 United Kingdom general election uses TILE (but will resort to using TIE once the election is held). Impru20^talk 17:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God, that makes things complicated. Hmm... looks like another one is going to have to be made, or at least over all the country political talk pages for elections that use TILE without consensus. First few would be Japan (which I'm guilty of), France, Italy, and the Netherlands. Would be nice if the consensus was clear-cut, instead of being a half-way between using TILE completely or not. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going by this conversation, would you say there was consensus to change the Italian election pages to TILE? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, as consensus has to be gained to change infoboxes, does that mean the South Korean will have to too. I changed them all the TILE last year, and now the ones since 1992 are out of step with those before it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it makes the 2024 election an outlier since 1992, as the alliances were very messy. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, answering you by parts:

It's not that complicated, really, since I think the case-by-case basis has/would have wide acceptance. But that would require a proper discussion first with the specific motives why TILE should be preferred (taking into account that the discussion at South Africa seems to have layed some firm basis on the benefits of TIE over TILE and in which cases TILE could be helpful, which are not that many).

Italy: consensus there, as per this RFC, seems to be Option 2C for most infoboxes within the scope of the RFC, which are most Italian elections after 2018. Doesn't seem there is a consensus for using TILE for elections previous to 2018, since the driving motivator for TILE in Italy was the new electoral system that entered into force in 2018.

South Korea: Yes, consensus for using TILE should be attained explicitly. For South Korea it doesn't look like it was the case, so TIE should prevail until otherwise agreed for. The same applies to 2024 (plus, I don't see the alliance system was that messy looking at the "Results" section? It looks just as if the DP and the PFP used different names, but materially it doesn't seem really difficult). Impru20^talk 09:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa: I can see TIE being use from 1994 onwards, as the leader of a party can become President of the country

Italy: I agree that the discussion should've started in regards to elections prior to 2018, once the 2018 and 2022 RfC concluded.

South Korea: I can see why you may say the 2024 election doesn't look difficult, but it is. Unlike the 2018 election, DPK created a coalition (party by law) for the proportional seats, which in itself had a coalition called New Progressive Alliance (a party that renamed itself from Basic Income Party, as alliances are banned by SK law (someone told me, can't remember who)). Members of DA (including NPA) competed separately in constituency seats, causing difficulty with TILE, but certainly wouldn't be able to be solved using TIE. By using TILE, it is easier to convey the results of the election than using TIE, especially when you have independents winning seats (which aren't expressed with TIE (or very rarely). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independents are typically shown together for summarizing purposes but, unless they expressly act like so, they shouldn't be treated as an unitary group. So, justifying using TILE in order to acommodate independents is not really an argument. Infoboxes are meant as summaries, they are meant to make things easier for readers, not to complicate them further. For everything else, the issue is really easy to resolve: through consensus. There hasn't been a consensus of any kind to impose TILE in such a general way (and may never be outside of specific cases), which is what is causing the current disruption. Impru20^talk 10:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of these as a compromise? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2014 European Parliament election in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Astorga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the idea of Scottish TIE for Germany? Here's an example of how it would look for the 2021 election. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the election pages now? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was curious about the consensus around the commissioners appointed by the President of Catalonia to serve under government departments. Should they be added at all or omitted? Thank you! 79.152.119.138 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I noticed you reverted my edit in 2024 Catalan regional election to remove the {{Increase}} and {{Decrease}} templates and replace them with images. This limits accessibility, since the templates also contain alt text for screen readers. They are also used elsewhere around the site to demonstrate increases and decreases. Could you please self-revert or explain your edits? WMSR (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who reverted a stable version with no explanation whatsoever. These templates are not used for elections in Spain, I don't mind what is used elsewhere since election articles for each country have their own dynamics and circumstances. If alt text is needed you can add these to the images instead (Wikipedia uses a lot of images elsewhere and we are not removing them for accessibility issues, do we?). Cheers. Impru20^talk 07:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert anything. There is no separate iconography for increases/decreases that is specific to Spain, and you do now WP:OWN Spanish election articles. WMSR (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim to own anything. I noted you about modifying a stable version with no justification (which is exactly what you did), and did so in a polite way. I also explained why you were reverted and replied back to you with an alternative for your edits that also secured the alt text you were requiring. You could have chosen to reply in a constructive way. If your reply to this is to accuse me of OWNing just for disagreeing with you, then what I see is that you have little arguments to defend your particular edits or any will to behave constructively. Please, note that edits can be contested and that you editing an article does not mean you cannot be reverted by others, so be careful with launching unfounded accusations of OWNing because these could boomerang back to you. Impru20^talk 15:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I came across as impolite, but my edits caused no instability on any of the pages - they were simply changing a minor image to be more accessible (and removing the image link). The images are largely the same, convey exactly the same information, and my edits put these articles in line with every other elections article. I frankly do not understand why this is controversial. I didn't suggest that you asserted ownership of the pages because I disagreed with you, I suggested it because you repeatedly reverted what were essentially minor and constructive edits. WMSR (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits made a change; I disagreed with your change and reverted it. Simple WP:BRD. I don't understand why you complain on procedure and find it so controversial. "Minor and constructive edits" can still be contested because what you see as "minor and constructive" may not seem so to others.

I didn't suggest that you asserted ownership of the pages because I disagreed with you, I suggested it because you repeatedly reverted what were essentially minor and constructive edits. Well, this is not true. I did not "repeteadly" revert you, I reverted you exactly once per article. Maybe the fact that you edited multiple articles looks to you as multiple reverts, but factually it's still one revert per article, which is logical (what the logic would be of opposing the edits in some articles and not in others? These were the same and equally unjustified in all of them). The ownership accusation here was entirely out of place and clearly intended in bad faith over the lack of meaningful arguments. I still proposed you an alternative solution which you have not even cared to address despite we being in the third exchange of opinions in this discussion. Impru20^talk 16:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was major, unconstructive, or in any way disagreeable about my edits? {{increase}}, {{decrease}}, and {{steady}} exist for exactly the reason I used them, and are in use in nearly 50,000 articles, including (as I said before) nearly every other election article. I have already justified my edit (it increases accessibility and consistency); your revert also requires justification beyond I just don't like it. WMSR (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency across all election articles in Spain for years (you somehow overlooked this when making comparisons and claims of "consistency", despite I having claimed it from the beggining). I proposed an alternative for accessibility, yet you ignored it (and keep doing it). Your persistence in ignoring this and continuing to attack procedure is striking; obviously I just don't like it is not reason enough for conducting edits, but so is I just like it: apply that to yourself (and, for the second time, be careful when rushing wiki guidelines into discussions because these can boomerang back to you). Impru20^talk 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never used that as a justification for my edits; rather I gave clear reasoning. The fact that something has been a certain way for a long time does not reflect a consensus nor a justification to keep it the way it is. If your concern is consistency across all Spanish election articles, I am glad to fix all of the articles. WMSR (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are bringing The fact that something has been a certain way for a long time does not reflect a consensus nor a justification to keep it the way it is right after you used an alleged consistency in other election articles (unrelated to Spain) to back up your edits. Wow. Third time that I must note you of not rushing wiki guidelines without care, otherwise these may boomerang back to you. I agree with you: we should not use other stuff to attempt to justify edits that go against well established version of articles. The fact that other articles use these templates does not reflect a consensus nor a justification to keep it the way it is (or, in this case, to enforce it upon other articles which have been stable like this for a long time).

Also, we are on the fifth exchange between both of us in this discussion and we are still discussing procedure (despite I having proposed an alternative on accessibility. This basically shows that the accessibility was a mere pretext to attempt to save the face in light of some unjustified edits). We are talking about dozens (maybe over 100) articles here that you want to change for... what, exactly? Impru20^talk 18:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, since we are discussing actual use, I will slightly deviate from the discussion on procedure:

1) Despite the many guidelines that you keep bringing (and that end up boomeranged at you), there is no guideline or policy requiring the use of the {{increase}}, {{decrease}}, and {{steady}} templates. These are widely used, yes, but so are the images you attempt to replace: Red Arrow Down.svg has a global use of almost 130,000, Green Arrow Up Darker.svg 13,000 (which is quite a lot considering there are multiple image versions of the green arrow up) and 43,000 for Arrow Blue Right 001.svg.

2) Accessibility for images is fixable. As I said before, Wikipedia uses a lot of images elsewhere and we are not removing them out of accessibility issues, do we?

3) Aside of in-country consistency (which is a relevant factor) these images' more stylized design allow for more flexibility and naturalness when depicting them next to numbers and figures; they are easier to adapt.

4) Factually, there has been some trend towards replacing the templates (which have been around almost since the beginning of time) with the images. This affects not just elections, but political parties, sport competitions and other articles as well. Maybe it's the images that should be used and not the other way around, have you not even thought about this possibility? Thus far, these are freely used, just as the templates.

5) The fact that something has been a certain way for a long time does not reflect a consensus nor a justification to keep it the way it is. This applies to the templates, too. Impru20^talk 18:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is going nowhere. I have restored my edits and made similar edits on all Spanish elections articles, which I hope will alleviate your consistency concerns. These are minor edits that help people access Wikipedia. If you take issue with that, I encourage you to seek recourse elsewhere. WMSR (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMSR Yes, I take issue with you coming to my talk page basically to insult me, make no attempt at real discussion or compromise despite my good will, the imposing your edits despite having pretended to reprimand me on a (false) repeated revert. This is insulting, from beginning to end. I obviously take to myself the right to seek any further actions that are deemed necessary. Impru20^talk 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quantifying the size of your disruption, which currently amounts to 297 articles. Doing this with no notice, in the middle of a discussion (in which you not even made the slightlest attempt to compromise or even reply to issues brought forward) and with no justification whatsoever for such a massive editing spree taking place immediately is bad, very bad. Impru20^talk 19:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm guessing that having seen the discussion above, it is related, but I was very confused by this edit (and the same made on a few other articles), as that article has only ever had the usual symbol in it. Number 57 20:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 I was confused as well. That's how this discussion started. WMSR (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess those articles got caught in the JWB tool when introducing the "general elections in Spain" category.

No, that's not how this discussion started lol what are you saying. Impru20^talk 21:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread. That said, I can't help but take offense to your characterization of my edits in your edit summaries. My edits replaced an icon image with a nearly-identical icon that incuded alt text for accessibility. To call such edits conscously bad-faith and disruptive constitutes a personal attack, which you have now done on nearly 300 pages. Despite knowing about the existing accessibility issues, your edits have now actively made these pages less accessible for users with visual impairments. If you believe my conduct is disruptive, please request administrator assistance rather than coninuing this back-and-forth. WMSR (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to have a polite discussion with you, to understand your motives and to seek a compromise (proposing alternatives which, as of currently, you are still ignoring), and for the whole of it you attempted to outmaneouver my good will with OWN accusations and by rushing wiki guidelines into the discussion as a way of somehow threatening me into outrightly accepting your edits without complain (guidelines that end up being appliable to you as well). Then, you resorted to massive edit warring by editing nearly 300 articles in a whim, with no agreement for it and in the middle of a discussion, while replying to me that I should basically just accept it and "seek recourse elsewhere" (plus, in no time of the whole ordeal you attempted even a serious attempt at justifying your behaviour). This is very bad.

Yes, your edits were bad-faith and that's the reason they were reverted. Don't want to take offense? Then behave normally and don't offend others, because this is reaching the point of being insulting. You cared little when I told you I felt insulted by both your comments in my own talk page and by your behaviour. No matter how strong you feel about the issue: yours is still a content issue, and yours is not the only way to achieve accessibility. Rather than being collaborative, you refused to listen to alternative viewpoints and attempted to rudely enforce your view even if it risked disrupting Wikipedia with such massive, unconsensuated edits. If you want to have a polite discussion, I'm available. If not and you want to keep behaving this rudely, go to ANI yourself (beware of WP:BOOMERANG, though). Cheers. Impru20^talk 08:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it's actually quite funny that you linked to WP:Manual of Style/Icons#Remember accessibility for people with visual impairment, which clearly states how to add alt text to icon images to make them accessible (it tells nothing about templates), then ignore it altogether.

Following the example in that MOS page, we would have this:

• "[[File:Green Arrow Up Darker.svg|10px|Green arrow up]]", which would give
• "[[File:Red Arrow Down.svg|10px|Red arrow down]]", which would give
• "[[File:Arrow Blue Right 001.svg|10px|Blue arrow right]]", which would give

Which pretty much solves the accessibility issue. Impru20^talk 09:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manuel García Prieto, Marquis of Alhucemas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page José Canalejas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate you accusing me of "consciously bad-faith edit" with 0 context (from earlier this month) followed by falsely accusing me of "massively" editing "hundreds of articles after being warned" (today). I see that you're reverting edits from a discussion that I was not aware of until right now, so I do not appreciate the comments you're throwing at me with 0 context in the edit summaries. You could have at least written different messages for the only 2 elections I've even touched (1967 and 1971), which the editors you're coming to a consensus with haven't touched. Thank you. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 07:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I used JWB to edit the articles by generating the list through the "General elections in Spain" category. While I mostly attempted to leave out those articles unaffected by the editing, it's possible that some got away with it. Obviously, you shouldn't feel those edit summaries had nothing to do with you and you shouldn't feel affected by comments that had nothing to do with you. Cheers. Impru20^talk 17:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WMSR (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the results of any national or sub-national election. This is a standard message to inform you that the results of any national or sub-national election is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Impru20,

I think you misunderstood my comment on your ANI complaint. When I said you were working "solo", that wasn't a slight, I meant that if there was a problem here, you needed the support of other editors. It was my way of seeing if other editors who frequent ANI could review your complaint and look into this problem. I didn't meant that only you saw a problem, I meant that only you were addressing what might be a serious issue and you could use some more editors investigating this. That's all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz sorry, I misunderstood your appreciation there. It came after banging my head against the wall by several days with no one doing anything, so it was a moment of frustration. Impru20^talk 06:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]