User talk:Impru20

Ref issues at 1979 Barcelona municipal election

There are presently 8 Harv errors in this article - Refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8. Please fix these 8 citing errors so the article will no longer be in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. - Shearonink (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Acting presidency in Venezuela

Hi

Is it a strategy to avoid organizing new elections? Panam2014 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Notice

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2023 Spanish government formation is under review

Your good article nomination of the article 2023 Spanish government formation is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Second W. Misick ministry when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2023 Spanish government formation is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article 2023 Spanish government formation has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2016 Spanish general election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2016 Spanish general election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on April 2019 Spanish general election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page April 2019 Spanish general election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2023 Spanish government formation has passed

Your good article nomination of the article 2023 Spanish government formation has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2026 (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. Thank you. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

You ask why the Ashcroft poll was deleted. He always does it. Jakefolds2 is the user whose edit warring back in December was responsible for getting this article protected for a year. Yet he was back after a few days and has repeatedly deleted Ashcroft polls, which he regards as unreliable and biased. Meanwhile, I and others like me are locked out for the rest of the year. This is making a mockery of Wikipedia protection policy, which is not fit for purpose. See Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#Deletion of Lord Ashcroft Poll and User talk:Jakefolds2. ~2026-13144-75 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on 1987 Castilian-Leonese regional election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1987 Castilian-Leonese regional election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Government easter egg

Regarding this change, please raise your concerns about the consensus to undo "Government" easter egg at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Easteregg:_link_to_specific_cabinet_behind_"Government". - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I have raised your concerns there. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

And I have apologized there as well. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Spanish general election, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited November 2019 Spanish general election, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Equality was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1979 Spanish local elections, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Island council was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1987 Spanish local elections, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orense was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Wikcomm

This new user has been active on the infoboxes of left wing parties. I reverted the edit to Sumar, because it had no source and the consensus should be on left, with explanations of sources mentioning far or centre left.

However, I am less sure about the edits to the PCE and IU. They have removed references saying far left, and replaced it with one source (academic, yes) saying just left. I don't know enough about the subject or the sources, but it seems a particularly bold first edit, and maybe a compromise should be taken that gives due weight to all sources. The argument that parties that take part in elections are not "far" in their beliefs has also been bludgeoned by supporters of Vox, AfD, Front National for years now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

One-use templates: Spanish election polling

Good evening,

I was considering substituting some templates you've created like the following:

• {{Alternative scenario opinion polling for the April 2019 Spanish general election}}
• {{Opinion polling for the April 2019 Spanish general election (Graphical summary)}} (used on 2 pages)
• {{Party opinion polling for the April 2019 Spanish general election}}

Same goes for other similar ones.

My basic reason is one-use templates are unnecessary. In general, the fewer templates, the easier a page (and the wiki overall) is to maintain. With page-specific templates, it's harder to keep the page contents correct, because they rely on two pages. If a citation breaks on the template, it's less noticeable and requires understanding two pages to fix.

I fixed this citation issue, for example. --Retro (talk | contribs) 20:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Retro Thank you for the notice. Ok, let me check, these templates were created many years ago and I think some of the reasons that justified them no longer applied. I will be merging some of their content back into the main articles wherever possible so that this is done in an orderly way. Impru20^talk 08:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Mayor-Presidents of the autonomous cities of Spain has been nominated for merging

Category:Mayor-Presidents of the autonomous cities of Spain has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election

Hi

for Opinion polling for the 2026 Peruvian general election and 2026 Colombian presidential election, both potential run-offers should be colored. Panam2014 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election

There are two surveys that are not reflected in the survey chart: the CIS (Target Point) and the CIS (Ateneo del Dato). Mentoss740 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Elections notabilty.

I've completely reworded my question on election notability, and changed it from a potential RfC to just a regular old discussion. However, your comments are still relevant, so I've left them in there, unchanged. Thanks for taking the time to join in! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Re AN/I filing: Disruptive behaviour by Howard the Duck involving AFD

Hi @Impru20 - I've closed your filing at AN/I with no action and the following comment: "Howard the Duck has acknowledged and is held to understand proper use of PROD; Impru is requested to consider that a challenge to "up the ante" does not necessarily require a response that ups the ante." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Aspersion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Iloilo City local elections

@Impru20 - your nomination statement included this: "Further, the article was created while a discussion on a similar topic was taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Iloilo City local elections (which has since resulted in Deletion, for GNG and SIGCOV reasons)." It might well be a factual statement, but it has no relevance to the question of the notability of the 2025 Iloilo City local elections article and imputes negatively (casts an aspersion) on the intentions of the creator of the article. In your AN/I filing a number of contributors noted the tone of your responses; I'd encourage you to reflect on that (as with my closing comment) and remember less can quite often be more. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Accusing someone of casting aspersions and of raising the temperature in an ongoing discussion is unnecessarily inflamating. I see that, far from just dropping it after my polite remark that I did not like such appreciation, you chose to double down on your statements, which seems weird if your intention is really to avoid "raising the temperature": so far, it is you the only one who have gone personal over this issue, and you the one who keeps "raising the temperature" in the discussion, so I am kindly asking you (for a second time) to stop. The AfD comes directly as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Iloilo City local elections, so yes, that is why I mentioned it. And yes, I felt that was necessary precisely because there is a direct connection. I did not mention anything else other than content and Delete arguments (GNG and SIGCOV), nor any other user, yet you have somehow assumed this is an aspersion for some reason. Please, assume good faith. Thank you and regards. Impru20^talk 07:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Next Andalusian regional election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Andalusian regional election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Andalusian regional election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Obi2canibe (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Next Aragonese regional election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Aragonese regional election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Aragonese regional election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Obi2canibe (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Next Castilian-Leonese regional election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Castilian-Leonese regional election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Castilian-Leonese regional election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Obi2canibe (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Next Extremaduran regional election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Extremaduran regional election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Extremaduran regional election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Obi2canibe (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

2027 Barcelona municipal election

Hi, I see you reverted my edit on 2027 Barcelona municipal election. Why? I changed an outdated 2025 source. The "Aliança.cat" abbreviation was used early when the party first contested, now most sources refer to it as "AC".

Regarding ideology, Aliança is hispanophobic in their autonomical purposes, but in municipal vision their main ideology is not hispanophobia, it is more of national conservatism (like the Vox party), as they reivindicate the local culture/businesses and want less taxes. I changed the term to a more adequate one for the ideology of the candidate. Srbuti (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, responding to your questions:

• The 2025 source is not outdated, it reveals Aliança's intention to contest the 2027 municipal election in Barcelona. Additional sources on new developments can be added, but I do not know why that particular one can be considered as "outdated" since AC did not change its intention to contest. In addition, the new source provided was a primary source, which are typically discouraged.
• It is not clear how the party's ideology is substantially different at the municipal level; we do not typically list different ideologies for parties at the municipal level because their platforms are usually the same and/or based on the party's global platforms. Only in very specific, personalist platforms could you conceivably argue that different ideologies are of application (i.e. Trias in 2023), but so far Aragonès's one does not seem a platform that is different from the party's one.

Impru20^talk 10:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1923 in Spain by month

A tag has been placed on Category:1923 in Spain by month indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1920 in Spain by month

A tag has been placed on Category:1920 in Spain by month indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1920 in Spain by month

A tag has been placed on Category:1920 in Spain by month indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1921 in Spain by month

A tag has been placed on Category:1921 in Spain by month indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1919 in Spain by month

A tag has been placed on Category:1919 in Spain by month indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1918 in Spain by month

A tag has been placed on Category:1918 in Spain by month indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Empty categories notices

Hello, Impru20,

You created a lot more categories that have now been emptied but I stopped posting notifications here because I didn't want to flood your User talk page with identical notices. This emptying of categories seems to be the result of a CFD closure that resulted in the deletion of categories that use to fill these categories. If you want to see the other categories, go to the 3rd page of the Empty Categories category or click here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Second government of Alfonso Fernández Mañueco when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

There is much that is problematic about the terminology, wording of questions and choices offered by different pollsters. I think it all comes down to semantics. On the particular question that you have concerns about, I would say this:
(a) a question about performance as prime minister is about leadership approval, is it not? Other polls in the article have variations on the question "is Keir Starmer doing a good job ... as Prime Minister?".
(b) the "average" choice is simply offering a "middle way", analogous to other polls which offer e.g. "neither" (good/bad, favourable/unfavourable, positive/negative) or "neutral". The YouGov favourability polls may actually be outliers in not offering such a choice.
I think the polling questions fall into two main categories:
(1) performance related: approve/disapprove, good/bad job, doing well/not well, satisfied/dissatisfied, etc.
(2) likeability: favourable/unfavourable, like/dislike, positive/negative, etc.
As I said, it's a question of semantics. I think there should probably be a wider discussion about this, but the article's viewing figures are comparatively low these days, so I don't know how that would go. @Chessrat: also has some concerns about the article. ~2026-35481-50 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Template talk:Yes#Colour change

Hi! Are you able to give your current thoughts at Template talk:Yes#Colour change? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Government section

"Excuse me, but I am seeing you are editing a vast amount of articles across many countries (including those you list), so you cannot really use them as justification". Please, watch the articles before my edits, you will see that the government sections are the same, I added that section only on Italy, and it mirrors the section that you can find on other pages, so why should spanish pages have a different type? ToxinDemon (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

This monstruosity was "the same"? I also do not get this "other pages do this stuff". Design across countries is vastly different, and not even you seem to be following the same design across countries. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument to decrease the quality of articles. Impru20^talk 11:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Calm down. The page listed the opposition and coalition situations; it was incorrect in its previous form and did not accurately reflect the government arrangements either. ToxinDemon (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"You should really stop doing these unilateral edits once you know these are contested: this is disruptive". I made some edits and you proceeded to revert ALL the latest edits I made, even though they merely provided greater detail regarding the government situations, so I don't think I'm the one being "disruptive." ToxinDemon (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You are adding up to five rows per election to reflect the exact same information multiple times. Why do "Opposition (1958–1959)", "Opposition (1959–1961)" or "Opposition (1961–1962)" need different rows? What design or scheme are you following?

"even though they merely provided greater detail regarding the government situations" These are tables for election results, not to reflect "government situations", which is additional (not core) information. You are making these tables much more complicated and making election results harder to read (in some cases at the cost of adding misleading information yourself!). Impru20^talk 11:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Since many pages add not only the elections results but also the situation of the government (which wasn't usually stable during the years) I added the government/coalitions that there were, and in some cases it was also wrong (see the SPD page, I added some parts because it was wrong to say only "opposition", since it wasn't like this during all the legislature). Both the SPD and CDU page don't even link the government coalitions in which they were, that is why I added the links to them, same for the Left Alliance and the SKDL; I understand the problem that there was with Vox, but it's still a a version different from that of other countries (for no reason), when it could simply be standardized to match the others (beyond the question of recording any government it was part of, which for now is 0). ToxinDemon (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Note how you started saying that "the Spanish pages are the only different ones", and how you are now broadly acknowledging that pages across countries were actually different (this is something that can be easily checked in the articles' history, anyway). Government information is complementary in these tables, yet you are actively turning it into their main feature (even more than the election results). In some cases, such as Italy, you added this information where there was none. In most cases, you do so by adding unneeded information or overcomplicating situations that are very easily described in a simpler way.

Why should this be added there, and why should it be added your way? Impru20^talk 12:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

...no, the type of "government" section in the parties' pages isn't like the one of spanish pages (since irish, swedish, finnish, danish, german, british, dutch, scottish, luxembourgian, polish and other pages use the same type, simply not always they link the government in which they were). I fused the section of italian chamber and senate and then also the part about government because it was missing while in other countries there was (and if the others have it, why Italy should be an exception?); you could at best say that i specified every government, but that "government" section with the electoral results section is still usually present in parties' pages. ToxinDemon (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Basically what I'm asking is

1) Why spanish pages should have a "government sections" that doesn't match graphically the ones of other pages?

2) Since there's a "government" section that usually says "opposition" or "majority/minority/coalition/grand coalition/national unity government" (or other situations), and that section should represent what government there were and the position of the party about them, why not linking the cabinets/government?

3) Also, since in many cases the governments weren't just one government, but multiples ones, these governments should be specified.

I'm sorry for my earlier responses but I was upset by the rapid reverting of many of my edits even in case where they weren't so big ToxinDemon (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

1) Why should style match for different countries? Each country has a different political/electoral system, different dynamics, etc. Why should all of them be the same? Is there a policy or guideline requiring this? Please illustrate me.

1b) In the case you do think these should all have the same style (which basically seems what you think right now) why should all of these be adapted to your preferred style? You have actively made changes to the "similar" style in various articles, to the point that your "new" style is not the old one you say you are basing your edits on. You seem to be using the excuse of "several countries use different styles" to rearrange these to a new style of your liking, despite that new style not being in place earlier one. Why should your style prevail for all articles?

2) The government section is meant to convey additional information to election results, not to effectively supplant it, which is what you are accomplishing with your edits.

3) Why? These are sections on election results. Government arrangements are secondary. It may be useful to list if the party was in government or in opposition during a given period, but why should the exact cabinet/composition at every time be listed? That is not the purpose of the section, again.

You seem to be basing all your premise in "stuff exists, so do it elsewhere". You are not even considering whether one of these schemes may be wrong, you are just replicating it everywhere for no other reason than WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is not useful nor constructive. Impru20^talk 13:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Uhm... do you want to remove the "government" section from all Wikipedia pages about political parties, or just the ones I edited? Because that's what I'm seeing. In any case, I ask you: why shouldn't it exist on the Italian pages if it's present and accepted on the others? You should be the one to give me a reason justifying its absence and this exception. ToxinDemon (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Can I ask you what right do you think you do have to impose any edits on anyone else without discussing? Because your behaviour from the very beginning ("this must be done here this way because this is done in X way in this other place, and you must accept it") comes close to WP:OWN. You made some bold edits, and these edits were contested. You have been explained why these are contested, yet you keep going based on WP:OTHERSTUFF (despite your own edits having nothing to do with what was actually in place in many of these articles before you touched them). Other users have (at least, partially) reverted some of your edits as well throughout the last month because of them including wrong or misleading information. Why should others not be able to contest your edits, and why do you think you are exempted from seeking a consensus for these? Impru20^talk 17:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the edits are contested, I see it, I don't understand the motivation, because it seems to me there's no explanation for why the Spanish pages have a style different from the others, or why it's a problem for Italian pages to have government sections if in the others you accept it. And again, I understand the problem of many coalition/opposition parts in the same legislature, but I don't understand why you have problems only with my edits about this while for others you don't erase them. "Other users have (at least, partially) reverted some of your edits as well throughout the last month because of them including wrong or misleading information", yeah, I also thanked them, so I know. As with the PDS and Free and Equal, what exactly is the objection? The problem for me isn't that the articles are untouchable; but it seems to me that you are simply targeting every article where I’ve added sections. I would be happy to discuss the issue of consensus, if my edits aren't immediately reverted while I'm trying to figure out how to proceed. Also, if you tell me "what you included has nothing to do with the table," does that mean I can remove those parts for the other parties as well? It’s not a case of "what about the others?", but rather that the topic seems unbalanced in one direction.ToxinDemon (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"why the Spanish pages have a style different from the others" Many pages have different styles. And it is not that you are actually editing them to mirror any other country's style, but you have been adding your own style to multiple countries, in many cases overriding their previous ones. I have already told you so, but I repeat it again: this is not an excuse. You are also failing to explain why all political articles for all countries should have the same style, disrespecting differing electoral/political systems, government arrangements, customary practice, previous implicit consensus, and a long etc.

I have explained what is wrong with your edits: you are spamming "legislature situations" in election tables, effectively turning these into tables on government situations rather than tables on electoral results. In many cases, these edits have no sense (what do you mean that you need three or four consecutive rows for "Opposition" and "No seats"?). The usefulness of these sections is to be able to easily compare election results of a given political party across multiple elections. With your edits, you turn that into an unpleasant experience, basically forcing the reader to go through multiple rows (in many cases unneeded) just to be able to check results.

For Italy, in particular, the overcomplexity of government situations is a likely reason why these articles did not show such "legislature situation" columns, because that is not the point of these tables at all. But, instead of you analyzing the usefulness of your edits, you just keep going on, and on, and on, because "other countries do this that way", without even caring to address the merits of your edits, or even the merits of the other articles you are allegedly basing your edits on. Impru20^talk 18:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"As with the PDS and Free and Equal" For PDS: this and this are the objections. For Free and Equal: this and this are the objections. Stop pretending as if this has not been explained to you, both in the edit summaries and in this discussion. Impru20^talk 18:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve read it, would it be different if I said that the "government" section serves to explain the actions and positions adopted by the party following a specific election, given that this relates to the composition of parliament and the election results? ToxinDemon (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"the "government" section serves to explain the actions and positions adopted by the party following a specific election, given that this relates to the composition of parliament and the election results" So, instead of explaining this in the article's body (where such information would belong in), you think that a table depicting "electoral results" is the place to explain the party's varying actions during a legislative term (very poorly, because you cannot actually explain almost anything in such a short amount of space)? And you still do not understand how that does not belong in an "electoral results" section? Impru20^talk 18:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

That it's like saying that you don't need the infobox because you can explain everything in the body of the article... It's a summary ToxinDemon (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

That is a fallacy. No one has said that about infoboxes, which are actually meant to summarize the article's content. "Electoral results" sections are not meant to summarize what basically belongs to the political party's history, they are not summaries of the rest of the article. The "government" column is useful to depict whether an election result was enough for the party to go into government (or not), and this is what most of the articles on political parties depict. In some cases, you can show whether a party previously in government as a result of an election went into opposition with that same result (or from opposition into government). But the election result is still the focus of the table. What you are doing is to add dozens of rows explaining every year, situation, change, etc. even if it is entirely unrelated to actual election results, moving the focus away from what should be a simple summary of election results. Impru20^talk 18:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"In some cases, you can show whether a party previously in government as a result of an election went into opposition with that same result (or from opposition into government)." Oh, and that wasn't the case of PDS? The problem was the fact that It had more then one government? Then why don't just generate one single "coalition" section?

"What you are doing is to add dozens of rows explaining every year, situation, change, etc. even if it is entirely unrelated to actual election results, moving the focus away from what should be a simple summary of election results." So the "government" section makes sense only if the party had a consistent history during the legislature and shouldn't be added if there are changes that can't be summerized all in one "government/opposition"? Because in that case Italy is just... doomed ToxinDemon (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"What you are doing is to add dozens of rows explaining every year, situation, change, etc. even if it is entirely unrelated to actual election results, moving the focus away from what should be a simple summary of election results." So the "government" section makes sense only if the party had a consistent history during the legislature and shouldn't be added if there are changes that can't be summerized all in one "government/opposition"? ToxinDemon (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"Oh, and that wasn't the case of PDS?" No? For the 1992 election, you had "Opposition (1992–1993)" and "Abstention (1993–1994)" (despite this second, brand new category, still meaning the party was in opposition and not in government). The same for 1994: the party was not in government for the entirety of the legislative term, but you found it necessary to split it into two. For 1996: the party was in government for the whole period, yet you felt it required four different rows just because it was part of different governments. So no, that wasn't the case of PDS. You turned a really easy situation (which could be solved with three rows, one for each election) into an overcomplex one requiring eight rows.

"Because in that case Italy is just... doomed" Maybe that is why nobody else found it necessary or useful to add these? I do not know, it was you the one who argued that all political parties everywhere should follow the same style. Maybe it happens that not all political situations, not all countries, are prone to such arrangements.

"So the "government" section makes sense only if the party had a consistent history during the legislature and shouldn't be added if there are changes that can't be summerized all in one "government/opposition" Rather, when you find yourself making an overcomplex table in order to apply a "similar" style as other articles where this is done in a fairly simple one, that would be a call not to do it. The section is still about "electoral results". If you have to move the focus away from that in order to something to fit, then maybe that is not a good idea. Italy is problematic, yes. Impru20^talk 18:56, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Absteining doesn't mean being at the opposition, like "confidence and supply" doesn't mean directly being in government/coalition.

"The same for 1994: the party was not in government for the entirety of the legislative term, but you found it necessary to split it into two." At first it was in opposition and then it supported the government but ok...

"So no, that wasn't the case of PDS. You turned a really easy situation (which could be solved with three rows, one for each election)..." No? Absteining doesn't mean being at the opposition, and supporting a government I'm also pretty sure doesn't mean being at the opposition. ToxinDemon (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

That is not something for an "electoral results" table to elaborate, really.

"then it supported the government" From opposition, right? Anyway, this is useful information that should be included... in the body of the article, not in a table for "electoral results".

So, what part of "this is a section for electoral results" is not seemingly understood? Because I think there is a basic problem there. You fail to grasp that whatever information on government/opposition arrangements in such table is supplementary, not the focus of the table. Impru20^talk 19:25, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"From opposition, right?" Not necessarily? It wasn't an opposition party of the Dini Government.

"You fail to grasp that whatever information on government/opposition arrangements in such table is supplementary, not the focus of the table." And the fact that these information are supplementary doesn't mean they can't be added. ToxinDemon (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"It wasn't an opposition party of the Dini Government" It was not in the government. It does not matter what particular form of opposition and/or external support it did assume. It was not in government. As simple as that.

It can be added. It is added in many articles, Spanish ones too. Just we do not need a thousand rows to describe very simple situations. That is what you fail to grasp. Impru20^talk 20:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"Maybe that is why nobody else found it necessary or useful to add these?" I find it useful and added for all major Italian parties - PDS, DC. It wasn't as elaborate as ToxinDemon's approach, but was reverted anyway.

We could find a middle ground and/or keep the good parts of the edits (like rework of the table of PSDI) instead of reverting all and whole edits. From my perspective:

1) Listing every government separately with direct links to respective cabinet, while not necessary, is convenient to check the parties forming cabinets. It also illustrates the instability of Italian governments. If this is too much information, it can be shortened to single "government" per election (unless it wasn't a full term in government).

2) Adding "opposition" for every government is redundant and should be compacted to a single line.

3) "Support" and "Abstention" - it's a matter of deciding whether voting with the government and abstaining from the vote to lower the majority threshold should be marked in the same way. Leo0502 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

What you describe is something that is already done in pages like List of prime ministers of Italy, where you can see every government composition and the stability of each cabinet. An "electoral results" section of a single party page is not the place to adequately do that (nor is its scope to actually cover "the governments stability"), because you cannot do that there without massively changing the scope of the table and section. Whether a party is in government or in opposition should be left as simple as possible in that section (even in a simple Yes/No way if possible), then actually explained in more detail elsewhere, where appropiate. Impru20^talk 07:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Constitutional Court etc. etc.

Re this: did you mean to say that Constitutional Court ruling on the 2006 Catalan Statute of Autonomy could serve towards a compromise solution? That is the title that is closest to a consensus, having two !votes (me and Theorolyst) out of four participants. A support !vote from you would make a consensus. On the other hand, if you seriously mean Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy – which you previously rejected out of hand ("You can drop the Statute date if you add the date of the ruling, dropping both is incredibly imprecise") – it will virtually guarantee that the RM will eventually close as not moved, or as no consensus to move. Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Scolaire: No, I meant Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy. I see both Constitutional Court ruling on the 2006 Catalan Statute of Autonomy and Constitutional Court ruling on the Catalan Statute of Autonomy as imprecise, but the logic behind why I would prefer the one without the year is because 1) if WP:PRECISE cannot be achieved (which none of them fully do, per my view at least), let's use at least the one that better fulfills WP:CONCISE. I may drop one of either PRECISE or CONCISE as a compromise, not both, since the purpose of RMs is to improve titles and not fully meeting any of them is not an improvement; 2) arguments made by other users in the discussion seem to treat the topic as a COMMONNAME by itself (meaning there is no other widely known Constitutional Court ruling on a Catalan Statute of Autonomy). If we take that premise, the year would not be required; 3) C'mon, both are your proposals, and you actively campaigned for the one without the year. If this ends up being closed as no consensus because you are unable to support your own proposal, I am not sure how I should regard your behaviour there. I have moved from my original position several times because you kept changing your stance throughout the discussion, I am supporting the one alternative proposal (out of the many that have been made) that I see as the less illogical under WP:CRITERIA, out of good will for seeking a compromise, but that is my absolute red line. Impru20^talk 13:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I did propose it, as you say, and I quickly changed my mind because of your immediate response, which I saw the logic of. I have changed my "stance", as you call it, to try to find some common ground between us, whereas your attitude throughout has been to cast me as villain. Well, I'm not going to play your game any more. I'm going to say nothing more, either here or there, and the RM is going to fail, and it's going to be nobody's fault but yours. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You supported an earlier proposal of mine, then inexplicably backtracked on it once I committed myself to defend it as an alternative. I then proposed a different alternative, and you backtracked on it as well. And, in all of this chaos, you have been unable to defend the current title (which was your doing), but have persistently worked towards preventing any alternative from succeeding.

I have worked towards a compromise and attempted to defend a proposal that meets CRITERIA as best as possible, even when it was not my proposal, and even when I have openly defended other proposals as better than that one. Still, the one I proposed was an improvement over the current title, which at this point seems the bare minimum. Now, understand that I am not going to swiftly support any other random proposal of you that is made in response to my own position, particularly as you have been shown to be untrustworthy when it comes to sticking to one. Just to remind you: you called me "naughty" for inadvertently not including in the poll the proposal that you are now rejecting (and you have not even apologized over it at this point). Putting it in crystal-clear words: I cannot trust you to consistently support a single proposal in a serious discussion. That is your doing, no one is treating you as a "villain".

"I'm not going to play your game any more" My game? I just made a proposal to stick to one of the alternatives proposed in the discussion, argumenting it, then you came here to my talk page to taunt me. Do as you wish, it is not that you have stopped doing it ever since you unilaterally moved the article in the first place.

If the RM fails under these conditions, then fine. Nonetheless, it will serve to take note on these changes and put them into consideration in case any future RM is opened and such behaviour happens again. Impru20^talk 15:39, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Word limits

FYI you have exceeded the 1,000 word limit outlined in the CT/PIA remedies in the 2026 Iran War requested move -- by my count at least 4x over. This is just a friendly reminder, while IMO you aren't stonewalling or bludgeoning, it could easily be seen as that too. msk 14:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip, was not aware of it. Will take it into account! Impru20^talk 14:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Case in point, this comment msk 14:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, we seem to have noticed it simultaneously, glad it wasn't just me. Impru20^talk 14:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@MSK: Huh, just commenting it because of your above notice, but: am I allowed to complain about this egregious and gratuitous personal attack? Thanks. Impru20^talk 14:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

At this point just ignore them. msk 14:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@BrechtBro: With all due respect, what you just posted is entirely untrue. The comment you link makes absolutely no mention either at bludgeoning nor at the number of comments made (by either of us, as you have been quite active in the discussion as well), and it was just you claiming you were not going to respond to my question. You know I will not engage in that discussion again and cannot defend myself there, so doing what you have just done seems quite unfair. Impru20^talk 15:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

A link to the bludgeoning essay in response to your statement about repeating yourself is pretty clear. It seems rather bold to me to claim I'm making a false statement about my own statement. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, particularly when you did not openly speak of "bludgeoning" until I had refrained from commenting there and could not answer you. That was not the context of that discussion, and you know it; do not try to retroactively reframe it as if you intended what you did not. Impru20^talk 15:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You do not know what I know, nor know what my intention was -- which was to politely warn you, apparently too subtly -- and I'd suggest you walk away from this. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I know what the discussion was about because I was in that discussion. Yes, if your intention was to "warn me", then you did it in such a subtle way that no one noticed. My talk page was (and is) open for everyone, also you, if you thought that a formal warning was required and that discussion was not the place.

I am gladly walking away from this, as long as you agree not to inflamate the issue further. I only pinged you because of this comment after I had agreed to step out (twice), knowing I was not able to respond to you there. Impru20^talk 16:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You do not get to ask for tit-for-tat agreements for you to obey policy, and in case you have not been told, please read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I have been told, thank you. In case you have not noticed, I have already acknowledged my error multiple times and agreed to quit from the discussion right after I was told in this talk page (also multiple times). I thought WP:AGF was a thing, did you read it? Thank you. Impru20^talk 16:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

"I am gladly walking away from this, as long as you agree not to inflamate the issue further. ", no you have to totally walk away. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You say this after coming here to lecture me on what I had already conceded? Impru20^talk 17:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

just OBEY the infallible wikipedia policy 😂😂 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey, two days since the discussion died down. You are also invited to check the also infallible WP:DROPTHESTICK essay, unless you have something actually productive to provide here. Cheers! Impru20^talk 07:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)