Talk:April 2019 Spanish general election

VOX in the political scene
Hello everybody, could it be possible to add VOX to the panel of parties and their ideologies? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.96.246 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it could be added as it is increasing its notability; however, in order to be fair with every party and as neutral as possible (so as to not breaching WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTALBALL), I think it would be best to wait a little, until more opinion polls come out and after Vox is granted a seat in the Senate by regional appointment (according to estimations, they would be able to win one senator after the new Parliament of Andalusia convenes). So far, only parties with current parliamentary representation in the Cortes Generales are depicted in the "Parties and leaders" table, and it would be best if we abided to such a practice. After all, we are not in a hurry. Cheers. Impru 20  talk 14:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's wait for them to get some consequent numbers first in national polls, consistently above the 3 % limit. The only reason to hurry it up would be if snap elections were called, in my opinion.--Aréat (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice too, in order to respect neutrality, to add Podemos a far left wing party in the aftermarch of 2015 Spanish elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.245.240 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would also change his political ideology: I wouldn't define them as "ultranationalism", since that is a pejorative term they reject, and this is supposed to be unbiased. I would rather change it to something more like "national populism", which is more in line with other new right wing parties in Europe. Same story with "neoliberalism", since this is used by left wing groups mainly as pejorative. I would change it to "economic liberalism", which sounds more neutral.

'Parties and coalitions'
I suggest that this table should show the support and opposition parties during the two governments instead of just the last one, like in the current version.

Such a layout shows in a clear and concise way, the essence of thousand-words-long paragraphs (about the Rajoy investiture, the motion of no-confidence, and the Sanchez investiture).

Impru20 doesn't want it because, according to him, the table should only be about the last government. However, both are needed to understand the background of the election--something acknowledged in the paragraphs and even in the intro.

I don't question what Impru20 has brought to Wikipedia, but I'm calling for outside parties to voice their own opinion. Kahlores (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea for this table is to eventually turn it into something like this, adding the slogans once the campaign starts. You say your proposal of adding an extra column brings "the essence of thousand-words-long paragraphs", but that could be (and is already) solved through the use of footnotes and simplified text—occupying much less article space and size, which is always noteworthy and very relevant as these articles typically get very large—as well as mentioned where needed elsewhere throughout the article, as you yourself acknowledge. This is not an article about the 12th Legislature, but about the 2019 election, and we are already being too generous in the table about describing who was in the government immediately before and with which support (just note that election articles for other elections do not even include this information into their "parties and leaders" tables). Factually, the previous government is already mentioned in the table, and I don't see any benefit in your design other than adding an extra column just to have some additional coloured cells while consuming more space and size. Impru 20  talk 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well . . . It's not the end of the world. It's just one more column. But it gives the non-Spanish reader an immediate understanding of who is what, when. Colours have this advantage, over footnotes and text, of being evident. But they're not taking the limelight ; they're illuminating the whole article. I'd argue that the edited table is summarizing the events so well, that the reader will spend more time on the article as a whole, and thus the paragraphs.
 * Indeed, this is not an article about the twelfth legislature. But you know better than me that there are very few articles on legislatures that are something else than a list of MPs, and as such, Wikipedia articles on elections are sometimes inflated and contextualized beyond necessity. Yet, recalling as you did in the intro, and I in this suggestion, that there has been a Rajoy government, and then a Sánchez government, isn't what I would call generosity. It's the digest.
 * Kahlores (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So it won't be the end of the world for the column to not be added, right? As said, this may create issues when adding the slogans, and sorry but I can't see how this extra column gives more information than the current explanatory footnotes, and I say it sincerely. Colours will never be more informative than a footnote, since those are just mean as a complement and not as the main deal. Impru 20  talk 08:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nominated senators
I can't seem to find the info, as I don't speak spanish : when exactly does the communities elect the 58 senators? There is elections in most of them the month after, so do we know for sure whether it will be the new assemblies electing these senators, or the old ones? Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, each autonomous community elects its senators shortly after a regional election is held, though it may take a couple months; for example, Andalusian senators were elected in 6 February, with the election having been held on 2 December. It is the new regional assembly the one that elects them. In a general election only the 208 directly-elected Senators are at stake, and it does not affect the appointment of the regionally-elected senators. Impru 20  talk 16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the precision. So should we show the diagram of the whole 256 seats after this election, seeing as it will likely change next month, or show only the 208 directly elected?--Aréat (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article already with a Senate election table. For now, only parties currently having at least one appointed senator are shown (the Senate electoral system is too complicated and in the media and in the Interior Ministry page you typically only get seat figures for those parties securing seats), and the diagram shows the 266-strong Senate but with only 58 belonging to parties, as this is how the Senate will remain until the election is held. Once the election is held, the full apportionment of the 266 seats will be shown. Impru 20  talk 18:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Party ideologies
As a reminder for everyone (though I'm pinging on the recent clash about "Catalan independence/secessionism") this article is not for discussing the party's ideologies or their particular naming. What is shown here is merely a summarized reflection of what is listed and sourced in each of the political parties' articles. Here we may discuss which ideologies should be listed as the main ones for each party (there is currently a particular issue with Vox and "nationalism/ultranationalism") but not whether they should be named one way or the other or to add ideologies which are not sourced nor listed in each of the parties pages. Keep in mind that these summarized listings of ideologies are shown for these parties in many articles, and it'd be good for them to be as consistent as possible between articles; thus, changes in one article, if definitive, would mean changes to the others in order to prevent a break in consistency, unless the party in question has indeed contested each election under different ideologies. I've seen some random and wild changes throughout the last days which are really driving me crazy as to how and when to conduct these changes so I'd please request all users to at least seek some consensus on the issue before wildly changing any ideology; I know that the heat of the election date's announcement may be bringing this event into the spotlight but that should not require doing things in a hurry. Impru 20 talk 16:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am no fan of these boxes. But the significance of the 'populist' bit is actually disputed by actual experts (in the sense of the party doesn't put the people vs elite reduction of society in the centre of its discourse, as the uber-popular Cas Mudde's definition of populism states, this can be sourced). In the other hand ultranationalism is indeed actually highlighted by experts as the leading ideological feature of this party up to this point. Setting the notion of controversy subject to the meta-infighting of Wikipedia "users" seems ludicrous.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right-wing populism is a specific shade of populism which does not focuse so much on the people vs elite reduction of society but, rather, on the use of sentiments against specific 'threats': in some cases, it may be anti-immigration, in some others, it may be the defense of national unity. I think it is useful to define Vox as much as left-wing populism is useful to describe Podemos, as both are rather broad ideologies under which you may include some other more focused issues (anti-Islam, anti-immigration, ultranationalism, etc). On the meta-infighting of Wikipedia users, I know it is ludicrous and in the end I wouldn't have any issue if there was a broad consensus to include ultranationalism, but seeing how this is developing, with the ideology being introduced, removed, then replaced by others, I suggest that we either reach some form of written agreement on the inclusion (or lack of it) of such an ideology, so that it may be established elsewhere under consensus, or it'll be just pointless to keep on the fighting. Overall, I agree with your appreciations though: if it was just me, I would remove the ideology column entirely. However, it has become popular for other countries and it began to be introduced some time ago for some Spanish elections as well, so if it is to be added I'm of the thinking that it should be done in the most correct and troubleless form possible. Impru 20  talk 17:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Result table
What's the logic behind the Podemos coalition being the only one with separate lines for members of the coalition? --Aréat (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was like this in the 2015 and 2016 elections, with sources typically showing both separate and aggregate results for the "confluences".
 * I retained this scheme here merely because of that, though circumstances now are way different, with the confluence system now pretty much destroyed. I guess we could end up merging these into one single line once the actual coalitions and candidacies that will run are formally published in the BOE, depending on how it evolves. Impru 20  talk 16:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be in favor of subdividing Veus Progressistes into ERC as a subdivision, as 2016 SI, not yet now but then,

because unlike Navarra Suma only one active in at least one other region (ERC or PP & Cs) belongs to it Braganza (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. ERC is a minor party in the Balearic Islands. The major alliance partners are Més and MpM, and these two have not expressed an intention to run as a subsidiary alliance to the Catalan ERC, nor are sources depicting VP as part of ERC. Indeed, SI is shown within ERC in 2016 by historiaelectoral.com but not by other sources, so that would already be controversial enough... not saying to extend this to an unrelated alliance here. If sources do it in the near future then that would be different, but not the case as of now. Impru 20  talk 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Turnout
The Voter turnout table show a nationwide turnout of 69.83% at 20h in 2016, yet the page of the 2016 election show a final turnout of 66.48%. Isn't that a bit contradictory? It doesn't help that the table has no source.--Aréat (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The 66.48% counts the CERA vote, which isn't included until final results are formally published. The 69.83% figure corresponds to turnout on election day.
 * Source is this one. I'll add it to the table. Impru 20  talk 15:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

SVG
, what's your reason for reverting me once again? Almost every country has an SVG based electoral map. You don't OWN the page. --RaviC (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not consistent with all other elections in Spain, and you keep removing the image while I'm trying to update it with the results. You don't OWN the page either, nor do you have any right to unilaterally use your image over consistent practice. Impru 20  talk 20:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We discussed this before, and I specifically edited this image months ago (with your agreement) to make it consistent with the previous PNG images; it's almost identical to them. It would have been nice had you been honest to me that you had no real intention of co-operating back then. Furthermore, the preference of vector images is a Wikipedia-wide policy. If you don't like my image, fine, but use an SVG image of your own choice then. --RaviC (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And I asked you to make improvements and you did none. And I told you about the consistency issue and you seemingly didn't care. Frankly, if you are going to impose a .svg file just for this article, then maybe it's better to keep consistency with all other articles. Impru 20  talk 20:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You obviously never checked this file, in which I made every single edit you requested. It is completely consistent with previous images. --RaviC (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That file, which is not even fully edited and which is almost impossible to edit for people not fully experienced with .svg management. It is not even close to consistency, and understand that we can't use different files for one election and others for other elections. Impru 20  talk 21:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is missing? Furthermore, if you use Inkscape, it is as easy to edit as any raster image - I would be happy to help you if you ask. Furthermore, "we can't use different files for one election and others for other elections" is not a policy on Wikipedia but your personal opinion. --RaviC (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The file uses the legend for the 2016 which can't be easily edited to adapt it to all other elections; it is much more difficult to edit than .png files, and frankly, I thank you for your help, but we would need files that anyone could easily edit; otherwise, making any minor change could turn into a nightmare for most users.
 * And yes, consistency is important in Wikipedia, yes. Impru 20  talk 21:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The legend can be edited easily, I could have shown you how to had you asked. In fact, the "edited easily" point is a moot one; find me any other country which still uses PNG files for its' election results. --RaviC (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not "any other country". Consistency with all the elections in the same country is key, and you have still not proven this format can achieve that. Impru 20  talk 21:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like this discussion is going around in a circle again. The image is visually identical to the PNG one, something that you even acknowledged previously. I suggest we do an RfC and resolve this once and for all. --RaviC (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: vector images for election maps?
Should a vector image be preferably used over a raster image here for creation of the electoral maps illustration when possible (as described here)? An editor on this page has continually resisted the move towards vector maps here for a number of reasons, which seem to be incoherent and contrary to accepted practice. --RaviC (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is false. All Spanish elections use these images, and you want to impose your image on one article to break established consistency. I asked you to make proper improvements and you did not conduct them, I asked you to guarantee consistency and an easy way for editing these files and you provided none. So please, at the very least adhere to the truth. Impru 20  talk 22:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to see what the truth is, they can check here and here. --RaviC (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you provided any answer to anything of what has been proposed to you? Or have you been keeping yourself trying to impose your own image at any cost? Answer yourself that question. Impru 20  talk 22:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We've just had this exact discussion in the section above. Let's see what other people have to say. --RaviC (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've seen, user has done an exceptionally good job by creating SVG files for all elections, thus achieving consistency and harmonizing all articles. I like this design and I like that this has been made to encompass all elections, working perfectly with all of them, so I think we may have a consensus here if no one objects to the use of these SVG files.  Impru 20  talk 06:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Perfect, I think we have a consensus. --RaviC (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Again Vox
Are you sure whe should describe Vox directly as "far-right". Looking to their article and with the aim to be more neutral, it says "the party is described variously as right-wing, right-wing populist, or far-right"; so it does not seem the most neutral option to write "far-right" if there are several descriptions to them. Asturkian (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very widely described as "far-right" by most reliable sources:         to cite a few.  Impru 20  talk 11:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with : they are most often described that way. Bondegezou (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reporting figures
Given that all seats have been delclared I don’t feel it’s necessary to include it in the infobox Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  23:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The CERA votes still need to be added to the final count (final results have not been published yet), so it's still not 100% reported yet.  Impru 20  talk 07:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)