Talk:Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections

Electopanel/electomania
Electopanel/electomania opinion pollings should not be part of this article. They are simply an online questionary for voluntaries. Can someone delete them? The same for the regional elections. Miguelazo84 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As opinion polling, they'll obviously stay. Their method is not dissimilar to that used by some pollsters (i.e. IMOP). Further, they are frequently reported in reliable sources, which strengthens their inclusion. would like to highlight that just because some entries may not be liked by some people does not mean they should be removed; we should respect WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. Impru 20  talk 14:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Split
Can you explain how it was a careless split? I'm aware that these things can disrupt references but they are restored by the bots. What other way is there to perform a split? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As this issue is essentially the same as that of Talk:Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election (and indeed, this is being already discussed there) there shouldn't be a duplicated discussion here. Impru 20  talk 22:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, we don't need to complicate that discussion even further by involving the themes of this article. The splits are entirely different types. What I performed here was a section fork, while on the Italian article I performed a cut in half. Please answer my questions here as they pertain to this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You conducted two splits in opinion polling articles without any previous discussion and consensus, splitting different sections of the articles into new ones (under WP:CFORK, both would be content forks). I can't see any difference there; indeed, the splits were nearly simultaneous in time, with a difference of just mere hours, and with the split at Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election coming first, so that's the main venue for discussing this. Questions were already (and are already) being answered at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election, so I won't be duplicating the discussion here just because you can't assume you don't have consensus for your action. Impru 20  talk 22:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Editing "without any previous discussion and consensus" was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Reverting, for a good reason, is also acceptable. Reverting because someone edited "without any previous discussion and consensus" is most certainly not a good reason. Do you have one? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the user did not gave any reason at all in the edit summary for the split ; just conducted the split (it was not good nor reasonable, for instance). Certainly, it'd have been up for them to explain it, specifically when it created more troubles that it solved by removing references used throughout the article, and specifically when the similar move at the other article resulted in so much contestation; this shows the edit was little thought and conducted basically on a whimp. The section to be split was unilaterally cherry-picked (allegedly out of "size" reasons according to the discussion at the other article; why that one and not any other formula seeing several sections split, for instance? Why a split and not transclusion? And so on). Certainly, that's not a good and perfectly reasonable thing to do; such a massive edit would certainly have required a previous discussion and consensus on the if and how. Nonetheless and as said, I don't find appropiate to duplicate the discussion, as this is already being discussed at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election, an article where this user behave similarly previously to conducting the split here with an even larger split. Impru 20  talk 06:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the issue is that it wasn't explained in the edit summary then I'm certainly happy to explain it, you could have asked me. As already said, page splits and page moves can reliably be made boldly and should be treated as bold edits. There isn't a limit to how big in bytes a bold edit can be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked if you had a good reason for your revert of this page. If you don't, I'll reinstate the split. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The reasons for this page have been given, both here and at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election (that you may not like them is a well different thing), alongside an additional, alternative proposal (transclusion) which, as far as I see, has not even been considered. Because it looks the point here is to achieve splitting at any costs and for all purposes.
 * As I've been able to ascertain after some research, these are not the first or second situations where this situation has arisen, so the issue seems to be more relevant than a mere forgettal to explain the reasons for the split in the edit summary. Both of you happen to be co-ordinating yourselves throughout a wide range of list-articles aiming for their splitting, even if this means going against consensus in those articles (1 2 3 4 5, etc). It is frequent for both of you to meet opposition for splitting, so it looks unconceivable to me that you want people to believe that it was not predictable that such actions would be controversial (factually, both of you did engage in discussion yourselves for some earlier splits previous to conducting it, rather than later, so you yourselves are aware that this isn't so easy so as to split and go). As of now, not only are you causing more trouble that you do solve, but you are generating more opinion against the splits than in favour of them, which completely brings into question what is the purpose of this splitting-frenzy the two of you are conducting.
 * In order to avoid needless repetition of arguments and text-walling, I concur point by point with the reasonings given by at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election, together with a mention to WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:STONEWALL and WP:IAR. You can't pretend to argue you are defending Wikipedia's principles when your interpretation of WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITLIST and WP:TOOBIG is directly conflicting WP:CONSENSUS and is creating widespread disruption throughout Wikipedia list-articles. If it is required that this be brought to an higher, centralized stance or venue, then it shall be done.  Impru 20  talk 18:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all there is absolutely no co-ordination, and you should unreservedly withdraw that remark. Can you describe the problems that you are alluding to from these other articles you reference? Of those five, two of those examples are not split and one was split by neither myself or Pigsonthewing. As you can see, I don't really mind if there is opposition to article splits that I may do, or to any bold edit I make, in fact I welcome it constructively. We have a WP:BRD process where anybody has the right to revert a bold edit and bring it to talk page discussion, which has happened at least five times. The majority of the time though a discussion is not necessary and a split is easily done and not much is ever heard about it again. The claims of causing disruption, much less widespread disruption, are completely unfounded and basically seem to amount to the fact that I have made bold edits that some people didn't like and were then reverted and I let them revert.
 * Now with that out of the way, although I invite you to bring that to my talk page if you have any more questions, this discussion should pertain to the relevant article. This is not primarily about Wikipedia's policies, this is about how we present the information to the readers. The principles support actions such as splits of course, but the purpose is not to conform to principles or policies. I'm not sure what you are talking about me claiming I am defending Wikipedia's principles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is all about Wikipedia's policies and principles, from the very time you are bringing those into the fray when supporting your case for the split. You can't just wiki-lawyer Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to supporting your cause (even if it results in interpretations that go against the very essence of those principles you argue to defend), then discard those when they don't suit you. Concurrently, you can't pretend to enforce a general application of your own interpretation of splitting guidelines, then deviate the discussion by asking users to please focus on the singular article at hand; it was you who keeps bringing the generality of the issue into question in each article by automatically seeking to split large articles regardless of their configuration, rather than analyzing them in a case-by-case basis as it should be done. As per WP:HASTE, "sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". Indeed, splitting large list/table articles is not established as neither forceful nor automatic, and the opposition and arguments against the splits are so general and common throughout the various articles that you should maybe have a second thought on the issue of whether your interpretation of WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITLIST and WP:TOOBIG is actually the correct interpretation.
 * The problems? In all of those articles you have found opposition for the split. In some, such opposition came to the point of opening RfCs that resulted in a defeat of the split proposal. And, in one of them, curiously, the very exact issue of co-ordination between the two of you was brought (this is undoubtedly relevant when looking at this or nearly mirror behaviour exhibited in different discussions at various times (i.e )). I'm not withdrawing the remark as, in principle, there's nothing wrong with such behaviour unless it was proven that you were using it with malicious intents (i.e. by being disruptive or by aiming to influence a discussion's outcome). However, whether there is a co-ordination off-wiki or this is simply an implicit co-operation where both of you follow each other's edits to support the other, this is massive enough to raise concerns.  Impru 20  talk 15:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again this is just commentary about me and not about the article. I cannot see in anything you have written that relates to why this article should not be split or decreased in size.
 * I'm not sure what you are saying about these principles, but I have remained quite clear that these very large articles should be reduced in size, including but not always by splitting, for the convenience of the reader. I have said the guidelines and principles support this, but they are not the primary reason.
 * In every case of very large articles I have treated them case-by-case, including this article.
 * It's completely untrue that their has been opposition in all articles where I have sought to split or reduce the size. In the vast majority there is no such opposition. Of the five you mention, the first has not even been split, in the second I proposed a split and we found an alternative to splitting that I agree with, the third was split by someone else when I was arguing to remove unnecessary elements from the article instead of splitting, the fourth had total consensus for splitting, and so did the fifth.
 * Only in one article that I have been involved with on reducing article size went to an RfC which I proposed and in the end a split was not necessary since we found other ways to handle the issue.
 * This accusation of coordination between myself and Pigsonthewing really needs to end. Some other people have made this accusation also with no evidence and also claiming that such coordination isn't wrong. I believe I messaged them on their talk page once, and other than that we have simply made comments in some of the same discussions or edited the same articles, not always agreeing. Please outline exactly why you think there has been coordination. I gather from this evidence that you, Impru20, have actually be coordinating with Onetwothreeip all along.
 * Now if we are going to continue commenting on my edit and talk history, which I am very available to do, I suggest we move that to either your talk page or mine, and we let this talk page be an avenue for discussing this article, particularly its length and how we can mitigate it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot see in anything you have written that relates to why this article should not be split or decreased in size. I said that several comments back, but just as you keep doing in every talk page of the articles you seek to split, you wouldn't see any argument against the split (reduction?) even if they were repeated to you once and once again.
 * Yes, you've remained pretty clear that you seek splitting (or reduction?). And I've been very clear (not in one, but in two talk pages) that your interpretation of Wikipedia principles about splitting is not correct and is causing more issues than it solves. Already pointed out why and how, in two talk pages. No opposition? Check again: 1 2 3 4 5, etc. Note that in some of these where you argue that the split was conducted without opposition, you actually conducted the split before or meanwhile discussion was taking place; opposition was voiced but in some cases it limited itself to mere resignation and wasn't pressed forward. You usually try to cave editors into submission, so that you may get away with your split proposal even ifthere is a majority against (this is specially true and shocking for Talk:Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election). Ok, not "split" jf you don't like that I limit yourself to that action, but "reducing them in size" (which would led us to the same arguments, really: why should size be reduced, and what is the need for it? If anything, this would involve some sort of split or information transfer in any situation, anyway).
 * I've provided evidence, and really, even SPIs typically pass with less evidence than that (which is not limited to just interaction. Really, nearly copy-pasting or mirrorring the other's comments, links of which I already provided, but I can provide many more if required, is something not frequently seen). I already told there won't be issue with that unless you were doing it with malicious intent (I don't see why you typically interpret this is the case). Good try with the editor interaction analyser to try to banalize my argument, the thing is that the two of us don't usually interact to support each other, but much to the contrary. Plus, we don't tend to mirror each other's comments. Impru 20  talk 05:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So why don't you think this article should be split or reduced in size? What you have linked has been to discussions about other articles, but I'm talking about this article and it's not a rhetorical question. If you are asking me why I think it should, it is perfectly reasonable for me to answer that.
 * I am sure you have enough experience to know the basic principles, particularly WP:BOLD. I am entitled to make bold edits, just as others are entitled to disagree and revert. I defend my right to do so, just I defend that right of those who may disagree with any edit I make, whether or not it pertains to splitting articles which certainly takes up a minority of my time on Wikipedia.
 * I see the accusation that I have in some way co-ordinated with Pigsonthewing (and vice versa) has become even dirtier. I urge you to open a SPI in this case, but it's very clear that you're bringing all of this up, as well as talk page discussions that you for some reason think make me look bad, are just attempts at trying to defame my presence and delegitimise my arguments. I strongly ask that you go to my talk page and post instances of "nearly copy-pasting or mirrorring" comments.
 * Most importantly of course, I'm blatantly a sockpuppet of Impru20 yourself, given this overwhelming evidence of all these interactions you've had with them! Or perhaps I'm a sockpuppet of the many Australian editors who also edit Australia-related articles as I do? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already stated why this article shouldn't be split. Some of these reasons are shared with other similar articles, as these are common reasons for all of them, so yes, lest you wish us to be bored into submission by being unable to acknowledge such arguments, I think we do not need to come over these once and once again every time you intend to act as if you didn't see those. As per your repeated arguments here and as per this, I don't think you actually care what is said against the splitting, as you'll press for it anyway. Further, you gave out slight reasons as for why this should be split (i.e. based on some interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, which btw happen to be the same arguments presented in every article you have sought to split) but this was already countered and left unattended by you, so I guess there is no reason for splitting the article.
 * You're entitled to make bold edits, but WP:BOLD doesn't cover conducting controversial edits under the knowledge they would be controversial, as you do. Justifiying your actions as per WP:BOLD basically means you acknowledging you are conducting controversial edits to check whether you get away with them without discussion, then if others complain ignore their arguments anyway. This is not what the basic principles of Wikipedia, particularly WP:BOLD, aim for. And please, do not patronize me.
 * I'm not accusing you of being an SPI, that's your own claim. Again, you intend to distort my own arguments in order to counter them with an outright fallacy: I've not said you are cooperating with Pigsonthewing based on editor interaction alone, but that you are cooperating because you both happen to intervene in the same discussions within short frames of time, defending each other's stances and typically even mirroring or closely paraphrasing each other's comments. As per this, I won't be addressing the rest of your comment as I would rather prefer not to give importance to your attempt to mock my arguments in order to downscale the fact that somehow, both of you happen to be on a crusade to split articles based on size alone since some time, even distorting Wikipedia principles and guidelines to do so. My recommendation would be for you to analize splitting articles on a case-by-case basis, i.e. giving out specific reasons why this specific article should be split and the urgency for it (which would be coherent with your own stance seeking specific reasons against split in this article) and why it should be a split and not any other solution, for instance. Impru 20  talk 13:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the particular issues here are that the article is much too large, it's needlessly harder to download it and to navigate it, particularly on mobile devices. The largest section is the polling for local governments in Andalusia at 81,000 bytes, which on its own would be a fairly big article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are bringing the very exact argument to every article. This has been already countered, so you better find something new so as to why this specific article should require a specific split of the Andalusia section (and this, as opposed to alternative solutions) and why. As said, this applies to readable prose, not tables, and there is no policy or guideline enforcing splits in these cases. We can go around and around on this issue on this and multiple other articles, but it'll be the same. Impru 20  talk 13:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Countered with what? And what alternative solutions? It's not like only prose articles can be too long, obviously any article has the ability of being too long, and the problems that I said existed with this article still do exist with this article. I don't think I've ever suggested on any other article that the Andalusia section should be split out from it, but this section makes the most sense to split out since it's the largest. We can still have alternative suggestions though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you repeating the same arguments once and once again and not caring to read what others actually say. You've not explained what are the specific problems related to this article: you're bringing the very exact argumentative in all the pages, not bringing the specific issue. You're now proposing to extract one section from the article based just on wiki markup size. Again, no Wikipedia policy backs this. I already offered alternative solutions and you did mention them, then ignored them. Read the discussion and you'll find them. However, an alternative solution would be needed only when a problem is actually demonstrated, something you still have not done here. Impru 20  talk 21:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The specific problem with this article, Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections, are that it is longer than it needs to be, where it takes longer to load and harder to navigate, particularly on mobile devices. These are problems with this article, how can I make it clearer? The section on Andalusia is the largest section in any way that it can be measured. If you don't think Wikipedia guidelines support splitting large articles then I recommend you read WP:SPLITLIST but you have said previously you don't want to use the guidelines and you have accused me of only supporting what I am saying based on guidelines, so I would rather draw attention to the specific problems I raise. What are these alternative solutions that you have offered? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, how it doesn't need to be so large? What you propose is to disaggregate several sections from the article in a random way, and you do not even make it clear why this needs to be done. These opinion polls are meant to be shown together, all of them comprising the same topic: opinion polling on 2019 Spanish local elections.
 * WP:SPLITLIST says that Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy. This does not only not support your own claim, but actually is a defense of the tables' integrity and cohesion.
 * Transclusion. Have you already forgotten about it? Impru 20  talk 22:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not random to split the article in a way that the article is already split into sections, which is the most natural possible way to split any article. I'm not at all suggesting that these tables themselves should be split into smaller tables or anything like that. You're only appealing to the present existence of the article. It would be very usual for this article to have sub-articles. How would you propose to transclude the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's random to selectively choose which sections should be separated from the article based on size alone. All of the sections share a joint topic and are of equal relevance to each other, so Andalusia is no different from other regions to have it separate. You still do not explain the specific reasons that require a split of this articles. You now say it would be "very usual" for this article to have sub-articles, but there's no precedent for this elsewhere in Wikipedia: opinion polling articles for regional polls are not usually divided into sub-articles for each region, so your assertion is not true. You also fail to consider that this article is already a sub-article of 2019 Spanish local elections.
 * A transclusion proposal can be made only once you justify the need for this article to be re-formatted, of course. Impru 20  talk 10:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I have already justified how this article is too large. There is absolutely precedent for articles to be split into sub-articles, but this article is breaking precedent being the largest article on Wikipedia anyway. There is also nothing to say a sub-article cannot have its own sub-articles, per our guidelines this is natural as the scope of the article grows and grows. It's not random to suggest that sections of this be split based on a certain reason, which is the opposite of random. The reason for splitting the Andalusia sections are the same for splitting the other sections as well, it is just the section that we should start with given that it is the largest. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That one article is "the largest in Wikipedia" does not justify splitting alone; obviously, there will always be a "largest article in Wikipedia", so this is very redundant. I have not said a sub-article can't have its own sub-articles, but you have not justified why should that be the case here, nor are you justifying why should there be a sub-article of just the Andalusia section (it's the largest section, and? That by itself does not justify mutilating that section away from the article). This comment of yours leads me to believe you only want to split the Andalusia section away in order for this article to stop being "the largest in Wikipedia". Such a motivation for split is not supported by any WP policy or guideline and indeed, seems to be splitting merely for the sake of splitting without discussing actual arguments that revolve on how such split would improve the article's actual content, as exposed. Impru 20  talk 11:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying? I'm convinced you're doing this deliberately now. I agree that an article being the largest isn't a reason to split the article or to do anything particular, but it's indicative since it's not as if there aren't any articles that are too long on Wikipedia. I've gone through the reasons, and it pertains to the article being too long to read, download and navigate, as I have expanded upon before. I have also never said that only the Andalusia section should be split, it's just starting somewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not misrepresenting you, but I'm now getting convinced that you are deliberately ignoring my own arguments and suggestions (as you have been shown to do in most, if not all, the talk pages of large articles you've intervened). You have not brought up any reason specific to this article for splitting: just that it's large, and based on mere hypothesis and what-ifs and on a deliberate distorted interpretation of WP policies and guidelines. No reason has been brought for splitting away the Andalusia section specifically, just that it's the largest (now you try to "amend" it by suggesting that more should be split, which basically does not help your cause any further, as it would result in further mutilation of the article). And no reason has been brought as to why splitting should be preferred over other proposed alternatives (that, nonetheless, would still require the fulfillment of the previous points). So, I'm very sorry about this, but I can do nothing but to fully oppose this. Impru 20  talk 19:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This specific article is large, and that brings issues to this article as it would to articles of similar size. Splitting sections from articles is not mutilation. The best solution would be for the significant sections such as of Andalusia to constitute subpages of the 2019 Spanish local elections as well as of this article. It's quite unfortunate that readers have to download and navigate this entire article, particularly mobile readers, when they would only want to know the polling results for one or a few municipalities. You haven't attempted to justify other alternatives so I can't comment on that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Being large is not enough of a reason to split an article (again, there is no such requirement for list articles under WP guidelines and policies). Again, you bring "download" and "navigation" reasons that 1) have not been raised as issues by anyone but you, nor technically demonstrated, and 2) they happen to be the same arguments for splitting you bring to every discussion you raise in every article you seek to split. Is this really an issue or just a generic argument you bring to discussions?
 * Splitting sections from articles is not mutilation. It is exactly that. The article is about opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections. Your suggestion is to split sections away from the article; thus, rendering this very same article as useless, because if the information contained within is to be re-located elsewhere, then you'd be jeopardizing this very same article's purpose for existence. Reasons against the split have been exposed, but reasons for it have returned to the same "it is large" base reasoning.
 * You haven't attempted to justify other alternatives so I can't comment on that. Obviously, I'm not the one pushing for reducing the article's size. It is you. So, it is up to you to 1) justify the need for such a reduction (which you haven't done aside from the generic "hey this is large so let's split it now!" argument, and 2) address the possible alternatives for size reduction, of which there are various rather than just splitting. I've raised the obvious and most visible alternative to splitting, which would be transclusion, yet you have ignored it repeteadly by arguing that it's up to others to justify it; well, no. I can make my point further on this alternative once the need for size reduction is demonstrated, but you're not even showing any willingness at addressing the benefits of any alternative to splitting when you, as the one wishing to reduce the article's size, should. This basically demonstrates that your only intention here is to split large articles, just for the sake of splitting, regardless of any other reason but just for being large, without even caring to address possible alternatives. And this despite splitting having been demonstrated as not an enforcement coming from WP policies and guidelines nor the only solution for size reduction provided in such guidelines. Thus, what gives? I'm just starting to see an user with a problematic and unconstructive behaviour here... Impru 20  talk 16:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Logo Extremeños.png

Large page
Hey team, I have seen some talk on this artocle and its overall size and offer a partial solution, please view My SB, there is no loss of functionality and reduces each table be about 1/7th or more depending on number of entries, it is a bit of work to implement, although someone with excel and the skills could do it in 20 minutes or so, thoughts?The Original Filfi (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not very functional.
 * Nonetheless, much has changed since the discussion took place. Basically, that the article has been enlarged by a further 150 kB (not including some polls which have been moved into their own election articles, which would probably make the enlargement worth 200 kB) as a result of dozens of new local opinion polls having been published in the last weeks going into the election. At this point, navigation in the article itself is troubling due to its length, so some more radical solution should be needed (though if it comes to splitting, it should be done in a more logical and structured way than what was proposed earlier). Impru 20  talk 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Impru 20  talk Re functional all I was saying is my ver. (on my SB) has the same functionality as here. However, I had a think overnight and believe that the article should be split into approx 136 separate article, one for each election area and past and future results and polling's need to go there, tilled something like "Local body election and polling results for Algeciras"  with a lead about the local establishment, when, size etc, a second para on local politics itself, a third para on the local area with see also's to main article if exist, and a fourth para on latest election background etc. which can/should? be templated to read the same on all), and any local news or incidents tacked on the end, add some local images for colour. Then below all this a table non collapsed, for each result and polling listed newest to oldest. And redraw this article in one sortable table showing results only, this brings all items into true notability and makes it much easier to keep up to date  and valid for the encyclopedia style and we lose no information already here. Bit rambling as I am trying to answer before rushing to work, any Q's or thoghts? cheeers The Original Filfi (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Splitting it into 136 articles is too excessive and very unpractical. Most municipalities have only a few polls, so they obviously don't require a full article to cover each one of them (further, it would be a nightmare for anybody to have to go to 136 articles in order to see all polls). Possibly, one article per autonomous community would do the job instead, though I have some concerns on autonomous communities having only one or two municipalities (i.e. Navarre or La Rioja).
 * 2019 Spanish local elections, which would be the article covering some of the aspects you mention, already exists btw. Articles for election results breakdowns also exist or will exist shortly. This discussion should be limited to how to properly handle this article's content; everything else is already done. Impru 20  talk 05:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems excessive and it will be laborious short term, however when the '22 and '26 polling and results need to be published and the relevant readers that wants to view the relevant article(s) and be directed/guided/linked to more info it is available, no one would want to read the whole thing as it stands, locals would read their entire history, hence relevance and notability. The tables are beautiful btw. The Original Filfi (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with these tables, what's changed? Now that the elections are over and the article is much larger than when myself and others raised concerns about its size, the time is still right for the article to be split to articles by region, which can be sub-articles of the main local elections article. These articles would certainly be large enough on their own. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the need of splitting this into (I highlight it) 136 articles. Much of this information is relevant when put together into the wider context of the 2019 Spanish local elections, but one article for each small-sized town is excessive and won't meet WP:GNG for stand-alone article creation. Only the largest municipalities have independent articles, because those are the ones getting a large coverage from independent, reliable sources, in a much more intense fashion than others before, during and after the elections.
 * I agree to a regional-based splitting, that has much more sense to me. I don't know, however, whether the split-offs should be named like "Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections ([autonomous community])" or "Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections in [autonomous community]". Impru 20  talk 14:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be 136 articles either. I'm not very concerned which of those two they were titled and there is precedent for both, and there is also some precedent for omitting reference to Spain and simply calling them for example the "2019 Catalan local elections" or "local elections in Catalonia". I would also duplicate the polling of Barcelona and Madrid into the split articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm against the names you propose because these are not region-wide local elections and may lead to confusion to readers. Further, I'm also against duplicating the Madrid and Barcelona polls into the split articles. That was done before and resulted in much wasting of size and space, which is pointless when we have their own articles for that. Impru 20  talk 08:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you're against both of the title formats you mentioned, or that you're not sure out of the two you mentioned? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I said that I'm not sure which one of the two I mentioned should be used, though if I have to choose between the two of them, I would probably prefer "Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections ([autonomous community])" for consistency with other articles. On the alternative names you mentioned, I commented against them because local elections in Spain are regarded as a whole by sources, with the rules and laws under which they get regulated being nationwide ones (unlike regional elections in Spain, which do have their own, specific regulations and timings). It has much more sense to refer to the "Spanish local elections" held in a specific part of the country than referring to the Catalan/Aragonese/Castilian/etc local elections, which would only add confusion and possibly raise WP:NPOV issues. Impru 20  talk 10:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer titling the articles as Spanish local elections. I'm fine with Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections (Place). Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Logotipo EAJ-PNV.svg