User talk:Nanwe01

Spanish general election, 1893
Hi! Yeah, this is great and a nice addition to the map. Several petitions, however:
 * 1) There is any chance that you could use English for these maps as well? It's the English wiki here, so English maps would better do the trick.
 * 2) It would be nice if the map formatting could resemble that for modern period-general elections (such as this). Obviously, with the required adaptations to a FPTP system.
 * 3) Could you also use the colour scheme used for each party in the English articles? Otherwise it looks quite chaotic (also, I don't think I have seen the Liberal Party being represented in orange...).
 * 4) Finally, maybe darker shades could be shown as less darker? Currently a lot of districts look almost full black so you can't clearly distinguish party affiliation there.

For affiliation attribution, I indeed did use guesses by newspapers (and consistency over time and among newspapers themselves) to make party affiliation; so far that's the best we can do. You can check detailed results here and in subsequent userspace articles (which I intend to move to mainspace once fully finalized). Also, maybe numbers don't match because I distributed Cuban UCC and Puerto Rico's PIE results to their mainland parties, which makes their totals to go up.

Thank you for your work!  Impru 20 talk 20:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can easily switch to English, it's not an issue.
 * As for the map formatting, what do you mean exactly? As in removing the list of districts on the left side (easily done, so not an issue) or the placing of the gradient? I was inspired by other modern-day maps but I can move things around. However, the problem is that the colour scale is very different - except for like 5 constituencies, no winning deputy obtained less than 35% of the vote (well, let's be real, "vote"). I can probably stick closer to the style of, say, the map in 2019 Canadian federal election.
 * I can make the colours change yeah, not a problem, my only concern then is to make the possibilists and the republicans stand out better.
 * On point 4, I can try to just use the "basic" party colour for unopposed seats, that should solve the issue.
 * Ah perfect, thanks for the link. I have elaborated an Excel with the results (also with the losing candidates and their vote share) that I obtained from talking to the Congress Archive. I would be happy to send it over (or all the pdfs Congress shared with me), if you want to check. I already noticed looking at your page, that we have different affiliations for some people (bound to happen though), like Silvela's cousin in Avila, whom you marked down as a liberal whereas in my list he's a silvelista. I also have the results for the Senate, although I still have to make the map. Nanwe01 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you :)
 * I meant making it look less cluttered (yeah, I think removing the districts on the left side and the numbers in districts could do it; I think this could work if we require a fully-detailed map, but not for an infobox one, such as the one in 2019 Canadian federal election as you say. Or even 2021 Japanese general election) as well as the gradient, as you say (specially making it on a 5-step scale). As for the colour scale, numbers are not an issue: for example, in the map for the 2011 general election, the scale is slighly different (going from -30 to +60 rather than from -25 to +50). That can be adjusted at leisure if required.
 * As for the colour scheme, feel free to make any adjustments to colours as you see fit to make them stand out better if that's an issue, but my primary concern is for the base colour of each party to be the same as the one in the article). For Republicans/Possibilits, maybe you can use a more purplish-hue for one of them and a more violetish-one for the other, but they should be identifiable in the article.
 * You can use a dark shade for unopposed seats, that's not an issue (in fact, it's preferred); the issue is that the dark shade is almost black, so you can't really distinguish which ones are from one party and which ones are for the other (in fact, at first glance I thought those were seats of unknown affiliation or something).
 * Oh well, that is perfect! One of the reasons I have not yet moved these tables into mainspace is because I still want to review whether everything is right (I remind Silvela's cousin's affiliation was one of my concerns, but there were others as well. Not a big deal, but you could still have a few seats flipping around). If you could share this with me to check inconsistencies I would greatly appreciate it! :)
 * For the Senate, the long-term goal is to have a map for it as well. However, as you see for modern-time elections, these are not yet made not even nowadays, so we are not in a hurry.
 * Thank you for your good work! :)  Impru 20 talk 07:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, took me some time to reply, but as you saw, I made the changes (although I'm still concerned about the 10-point increments for the scaling as I think it loses granularity, but it'll do for now as it is). I checked the inconsistencies and I think the main ones are:
 * - Ramón Castillo-García y Soriano in Piedrahita. Only La Época reports him as a possibilist. El Imparcial, La Iberia, el Correo Español and El Estandarte report him as a regular liberal.
 * - Bernardo Carvajal y Trelles in Castropol (who I see you had marked down as a Conservative), but all the press has him as a Liberal
 * - Francisco Martín Sánchez in Utuaudo. From Varela Ortega's (ed.) El Poder de la influencia it is indicated that he won as an independent (unconditional independent) against the PIE's endorsed candidate.
 * - Francisco Javier Mª Acisclo Los Arcos y Miranda in Aoiz, I see you have him as a canovista, but the press widely reported he was a silvelista.
 * - Conversely, Fernando Soriano y Gaviria (Peñaranda) and Juan de la Fuente Álvarez Cedrón (Vitigudino), you have them marked down as silvelistas, but the press marked them as ordinary conservatives (aka canovistas).
 * - There are also the cases of Alejandro Mon y Landa (La Cañiza) and Raimundo Fernández Villaverde (Puente Caldelas), who I had as canovistas and you as silvelistas. Mon y Landa is reported as a canovista by most newspapers (but not El Día) whereas Fernández Villaverde is reported as a canovista by La Época (the official Conservative newspaper) but as a silvelista by the rest of the press.
 * As for different winners:
 * - In Miranda de Ebro, I marked Gaspar Salcedo y Anguiano (Con.) as winner over Baldomero Villegas (Lib.) because in 1894 the Congress' Comisión de Actas reviewed the election results and threw away enough votes to change the winner.
 * - In Vergara, I marked Sánchez de Toca (Con.) as the winner because the original results which declared Altuve y Letamendi (Lib.) as victor was annulled and Sánchez de Toca was proclaimed winner instead, as he mounted a campaign denouncing the irregularities of his opponent's victory in a much-publicised campaign - https://www.euskalmemoriadigitala.eus/handle/10357/1639
 * - In Oviedo, I have as winners the Marquis of Canillejas (con.), the Marquis of Campo Sagrado (lib.) and José Mª Celleruelo (Possibilist). Originally Pedegreal (as you have it) was declared elected instead of Campo Sagarado, but the Comisión de Actas twice reviewed the results and threw away sufficient votes (as it was a particularly dirty election) to change the results and left Pedregal out of Parliament.
 * I checked Francisco Agustín Silvela y Casado too, and all the press (the republican El Días, the liberal El Imparcial and Iberia, the conservative La Época, or the traditionalists La Época, El Estandarte and El Correo Español) reports him as a Liberal, guess it's one of the instances of politically-divided families as with the Figueroas. Nanwe01 (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)