User talk:Impru20

This is Impru20's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

1961 West German federal election

Hello. I wasn't sure who to turn to and came here after I saw you edit 1961 West German federal election recently. The numbers in the infobox for CDU/CSU (the 14,298,372) do not harmonize with the party's party-list numbers in the infobox (while the numbers for SPD and FDP do harmonize). The percentages are off as well. I am not sure if I'm missing something - I would appreciate it if you would look at it when you got the time. Thanks in advance. Semsûrî (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Semsûrî; I am not sure if I am getting it right, but you mean the infobox and the results table below? In that case, note that you must add the results of the CSU to those of the CDU (which is automatically done in the infobox, but they are separated in the results table). 11,283,901 (35.8%) + 3,014,471 (9.5%) on the party's list column gives you 14,298,372 (45.3%), which is what the infobox shows. Tell me if this was what troubles you. Thanks! Impru20^talk 00:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes that's the one. Of course I forgot CSU. Thank you though. Semsûrî (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"2024/2025 Romanian presidential election" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024/2025 Romanian presidential election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 20 § 2024/2025 Romanian presidential election until a consensus is reached. Shamrockwikiedit (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:May 2027

A tag has been placed on Category:May 2027 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!} 17:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 25 § Months from 2027 onward

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 25 § Months from 2027 onward on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 23, 2025 EKOS poll

Hello,

I don't think this poll, that you put back in after someone removed it, should be included since the source is just a tweet (WP:RSPTWITTER) and it is not published on the EKOS website like the other EKOS polls. CGP05 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have your answer here by another user. The source is not "just a tweet", but a tweet from the founder and president of EKOS himself. Further, the reason why I put it back after someone removed it was because the removal was based on an argument (that the tweet/source had been "removed") which was untrue: simply, it had been wrongly coded in the article, so I fixed the code. We don't remove polls from tables just because their findings seem weird to us. Impru20^talk 08:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2027 in Europe by month

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 in Europe 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polling page

Thanks for your input on the talk page, I think there’s more socks there than on my bedroom floor.Halbared (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Halbared: Yeah, not sure about how many people are actually in there discussing, but the edit warring and the sudden disappearance of editors (who came out of nowhere just to revert other users and then vanish) seem like a duck's quack to me. Impru20^talk 13:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Halbared: Just reported them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring with possible meat- and/or sockpuppetry following their latest revert. Impru20^talk 21:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the only way this will be resolved. I hadn't even clocked the 'bear' one. The talk page is just...a wall of 'I want this!!.' The one who I believed to be the master, maybe isn't. Hopefully an admin and a checkuser will step in. I think they're backlogged though.Halbared (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for taking the UK polling page to ANI - would've done it myself but have been on holiday :) CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 vote of no confidence in the government of Pedro Sánchez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alberto Rodríguez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

You reverted edits to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election for individual seat polling even though there is precedent for this in previous elections where by-election polls would be included as well (see: Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election)

It doesn't matter if its a by-election or not. 84.71.31.221 (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@84.71.31.221: Hi, let me answer you:

The article you link does not include any by-election polls (it does not include any constituency polling at all, actually).
Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election does cite constituency polling, but none are for by-elections.
Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election does cite constituency polling, but none are for by-elections.
Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election redirects to Sub-national opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election for constituency polling. None are for by-elections and, in fact, opinion polls for constituencies in where there were by-elections (i.e. Hartlepool, Mid Bedfordshire) relate only to the general election, with specific by-election polls being shown in the by-election articles themselves.

So no, you are blatantly wrong I fear.

You should also know that this issue has been discussed before, with current consensus being not to mix by-election polling with general election polling. Cheers. Impru20^talk 10:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Rajoy

I want to talk about the edit that you made on the former Spanish prime minister Mariano Rajoy about the name of his predecessor, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Yes, he is hardly referred to as J. L. Rodríguez Zapatero. But then what about people like William Lyon Mackenzie King, the former Canadian prime minister? He is referred to as W. L. Mackenzie King and if he is, then why not do the same with Zapatero? Richie1509 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King was referred like that because:

He himself tended to refer to himself like that.
"Mackenzie" was part of his given name, not a surname.

That's a different situation to Zapatero, whom no one referred to as "J.L. Rodríguez Zapatero". Also, such a presentation of his name would require it to be proven on its own merits, rather than on other stuff existing. Impru20^talk 12:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see @Impru20, thanks for letting me know. Richie1509 (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Sánchez

I see that my edits are reverted in the second and third government of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of Spain. And apparently, it was because of my caption. But what's wrong with the edit, @Impru20? Richie1509 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are inserting duplicated data, unnecessary links and a misleading legislative composition chart. I would guess this edit summary as well as previous ones are quite self-explanatory (and yes, I know some "other" pages wrongly do that, but other stuff existing is not an argument to keep repeating wrong edits elsewhere). Impru20^talk 05:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but isn't the chart corret though? Richie1509 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For which period? From November to December 2023, the government commanded 152 seats in Congress. That fell to 147 in December 2023 (Podemos' split), then rose to 148 in January 2024 (Verstrynge's resignation and her replacement by a Sumar MP), then fell again to 147 in February 2024 (Abalos' expulsion from PSOE). Do we add the four iterations to the infobox, thus cluttering it unnecessarily? Do we keep adding more changes whenever they happen? What should we do with parties providing confidence and supply? And what should we do with Senate seats, why are we leaving those out? The fact is that this infobox is not designed for adding legislative composition charts, yet for some reason some users have been adding those to some countries' cabinet infoboxes (without taking into consideration the multiple issues that come out of it). Impru20^talk 07:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks! Richie1509 (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting composition bars

Hello @Impru20, I noticed you started mass-reverting composition bars from government cabinet article infoboxes. While you provided extensive explanation, per MOS:VAR variations between styles can exist and the bot-like mass-enforcing of your edits in all related articles creates a WP:FAITACCOMPLI situation that is quite unfair to other editors, their established variation in styles, and their ability to challenge your changes. Please consider it. Tahomaru (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Tahomaru. On your insightful note I would like to highlight some points:

Firstly, these are not "variation between styles", but content openly in violation of a MOS (i.e. the removal of a "composition bar on legislative status" in an infobox, with such "legislative status" and "composition" not being in the articles (not even being their purpose), thus openly going against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored."). Thus, my edits are absolutely in good faith and in full respect of Wiki policies and guidelines.
Secondly, many of these composition bars were, by themselves, added in mass-enforcing edits without any discussion.
Finally, I am obviously open to discussion and for the edits to be challenged. I do not know how this specific case creates a situation "unfair to other editors", specially when it has been acknowledged that the edits provide extensive explanation and how none of these has even been reverted or openly contested as of currently.

I am, however, very much open to consideration in those cases where these edits are contested, as I have neved stated otherwise. Impru20^talk 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of variation in style. You're treating your interpretation of MOS:IBP as absolute, when in fact other guidelines like MOS:VAR and WP:CONSENSUS apply too. Just because you personally see the composition bar as "not fitting" doesn't mean it's a policy violation, especially when it had already been stable across multiple articles.

Saying "this isn't an article on legislative status" doesn't really work. Cabinet composition is political context, it's not unreasonable to visualise party balance or majority strength. Many editors clearly saw value in that, and these bars didn't just appear out of nowhere. This isn't some rogue formatting, it's something that had become common.

You're framing this as an open discussion now, but you only started talking after removing everything. That's exactly what WP:FAITACCOMPLI warns about. You didn't ask, you just acted,and then said people are free to challenge it, after the fact. That is not how consensus works. Tahomaru (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahomaru: The articles do not revolve around legislature composition, which is what these composition bars add. This, as a result, means that the infobox is supplanting information that is not to be found elsewhere in the articles, which is exactly a violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If "it's not unreasonable to visualise party balance or majority strength", then argue for it and seek a consensus to modify the scope of these articles, but so far the infoboxes were including information that was not to be found in the articles: i.e. a supplanting of information. This is not a personal interpretation: the information either is in the article or isn't. It's fairly straightforward.

"Many editors clearly saw value in that" Proof? I have made extensive research and I could not find any discussion or interaction where the usefulness of this information was discussed, only people (mostly IPs or newly-created accounts) literally copy-pasting the formatting from other articles (in turn copy-pasted from other articles) because they thought that this was the actual formatting to be used. Obviously in good faith, but also entirely unrelated to whether this was actually considered as "useful" or not (maybe it was for some, but they did not even care to justify or explain it). And this was typically done in mass-edits with no explanations at all, and I have not seen that these users were warned about WP:FAITACCOMPLI for their behaviour, isn't it?

Also note how in many of these situations the information given was outrightly wrong or misleading. In some cases, the composition given did not correspond to the actual composition at the time of the cabinet; in others, there were many more variations than those shown in the existing versions. Are we assumed to accept wrong information just because we have to think that some random person may think that it is useful? We even had situations of composition bars on "legislature status" during dictatorships.

We are in a WP:BRD situation where we have not even reached the R phase yet, as the edits have not been contested for the most part (and in the few cases they have, discussion is taking place normally; no unfair situation has been created). But seeing your reaction here, I would also expect from you to act in the same way to any other user who attempts to enforce any mass-edit of these (or other articles); most specially if those do not provide any explanation at all (as opposed to my extensive explanations). Thank you very much in advance. Impru20^talk 15:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I have spotted reverts to a limited number of my edits: namely, those affecting some UK cabinets. These have been conducted by three different IP editors with no previous edit history (probably the same person, this, this and this) who, despite having the opportunity to explain the reversion of justified edits, have not done so, to the point that one of these edits had been re-reverted by a third, uninvolved user, then reverted again by the IP without any explanation.

As a matter of fact, the "restored" edits go to the extent of being plainly wrong. Take this one: Johnson ministry's direct support from Tory MPs at the end of its term was 298, not 317. My edit (which, as Tahomaru correctly asserted, was extensively explained) did explicitly state that this information was wrong. The IP editor reverted it anyway and restored a wrong figure with no justification at all. Was this "quite unfair" to them? Cheers. Impru20^talk 20:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside how this was done, would you be willing to start a discussion on Template talk:Infobox government cabinet? Because I support your goal and would prefer a global consensus over a local consensus. Dajasj (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am, @Dajasj. Here you are! Impru20^talk 09:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20 I'm not questioning the content of your edits, I'm questioning the way you went about pushing them.

Also, not every article is the same. Take Cabinet of Petr Fiala. It actually does include a table with seat distribution in its body, so the infobox is summarising information that's already in the article meaning there is not MOS:IBP violation.

You're making a wide change to stable content without building consensus first, and you're using a justification based on rule violation that doesn't even apply to all cases. Tahomaru (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Karunanidhi ministry errors

Hi there, related to the above discussion about composition bars, please take a look at your recent changes to Fifth Karunanidhi ministry. I have no expertise or opinion on the removal, but this particular edit damaged the infobox in a way I'm not sure how to fix. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent polling by pollster

I want to know, what makes the topic unnecessary? The topic itself adds a lot of value to the article and the reader can see what the pollsters are saying. Noogometni urejevalec (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It adds exactly zero value to the article, as it's duplication of already existing data. Want to see what the pollsters are saying? Go to the "Poll results" section lol. Impru20^talk 06:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove them from the UK polling lol. Noogometni urejevalec (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument lol. Impru20^talk 21:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is, if you delete it from the Slovenian election, delete it from the UK or leave it lol Noogometni urejevalec (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UK one had specific discussions involving a sizeable number of users, with the issue likely to be re-visited at some point later on. You are basically the only one adding it to the Slovenian election page with no argument and no reasoning. Once again, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument: if you are going to do so, why don't you cite the vast majority of opinion polling articles throughout Wikipedia, which do not have such table? You are basically cherry-picking here. Impru20^talk 10:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montoro

At first glance I appear to be the "you" mentioned in relation to recent edits. I agree that some of the text reads strangely, but if you look carefully you will see that you appear to be blaming me for words that were already there and were written by someone else. I am just trying to improve things, so you do not need to throw abuse at me. I suggest you assume good faith on my part.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am "blaming" you for this edit. I assume good faith and that is why I explained how reverting to that infobox text was wrong. Impru20^talk 08:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I am not sure what happened as I did not mean to change the infobox content. In fact, I would not have recognised the edit as mine, were it not labelled as such. I apologise.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State vs. civil flag

I'm wondering why you believe that the civil flag is more appropriate for the cabinet articles, when: 1) you yourself state that the state flag represents "state authorities" i.e. the government 2) it is the only flag flown on the parliment and all other government buildings? Skjoldbro (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) My full sentence was "a specific number of state authorities, royal family and war flag", not "state authorities" in general. Also, my edit summaries were descriptive, unlike the edit summaries for the initial change which basically did not give a reason at all.

2) Per the split flag's description itself: it "can only be used by state authorities such as the army and the royal family".

3) Flag of Denmark clearly depicts the civil/national flag as primary one, not the split flag. Infoboxes of cabinet articles use that flag, not other variants.

4) Of course, maybe a consensus may arise for the use of a different flag, but it is not the case here as of now.

Cheers! Impru20^talk 10:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Just so we are in agreement, the government is not part of the state/a state authority then?

2) "Such as" is a none-exhaustive word, meaning others might be included. Hence, why the government continue to fly the flag on parliament. Additionally, the Royal family use personalized versions.

3) The State flag (also called the government flag) represents the state, the government is the state, therefore the correct and more appropriate use, rather than the one arbitrarily chosen by Wiki editors.

4) There currently isn't any consensus, as half of the pages already use the state flag.

But have started one discussion at Talk:Flag of Denmark State vs. civil flag. Skjoldbro (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am not understanding your point here, really. It is as simple as the use for the split flag is limited to only a handful of state authorities.

2 and 3) Your reply to points 1, 2 and 3 hint at a strong WP:SYNTH-like thinking here. Seriously, it is not my fault: cabinet articles use the national flag; the state flag is not the national flag. You say the split flag is called the "government flag", where is this stated? Flag of Denmark does not say this flag is used by the Danish government as a whole. You also mix the parliament with the government here (nonetheless, note that the Folketing has its own flag and symbols...).

4) Then consistency must be achieved. I see that some of the pages using the state flag previously used the national main flag, but random users changed those without discussion or consensus. Probably that should be reverted, too. Impru20^talk 12:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On point 4, and doing some research: looks like the split flag was first added in 2018 to Thorning-Schmidt I Cabinet ([1]), Thorning-Schmidt II Cabinet ([2]), Lars Løkke Rasmussen II Cabinet ([3]) and Lars Løkke Rasmussen III Cabinet ([4]) by a now partially-blocked user (the block reason being "disruptive editing" and "refusal to communicate"). From here, its use for subsequent cabinets seem to stem from a pure copy-paste of previous articles (in 2019 and 2022), whereas for previous cabinets it looks like it was you who enforced it (again by a copy-paste of the infobox: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]). Not that this is a bad thing! You obviously did it in good faith. But then, many of the remaining pages using that flag is your doing, and it all seems to have started by unilateral (and unexplained) edits by a controversial editor.

I will wait for your feedback before conducting any further edit, but so for your knowledge, I have to insist on my previous reply to points 2 and 3: cabinet articles use the national flag, rather than any particular flag that may be used by "state authorities" or by the government itself. Check German (flags), Spanish (flags), Swedish (flags), Norwegian (flags), Italian (flags), etc. governments, where they all use the national flag (self-correcting myself earlier: the national flag is not necessarily the civil flag, though it is in the case of Denmark). Impru20^talk 18:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order

It's best/logical IMO for the % to come first as putting after the seats may make people think it is % of seats, not % of votes (e.g. that "38 seats, 18.3%" means 38 seats was 18.3% of the total). Number 5 7 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the order in which several things are listed in in Infobox election is stupid IMO. Like running mate not appearing directly below the main candidate. Would make much more sense for seats to follow votes, as in the results table. Has been on my long-term to-do list to propose a more logical ordering of the infobox parameters... Number 5 7 18:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it has been like that since I first have memories of Wikipedia, and that's at least 2011; in that time, I don't recall any major (or even minor) incident arising because of people mistaking it, particularly when the % just below clearly relates to vote share and the swing is very clearly shown to readers. Plus, it makes little sense to change only one article; this format is used almost everywhere. I know what your position is about TIE and you not liking some features, but probably that should be brought to the TIE template talk page itself? Impru20^talk 18:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The % first is quite widely used; I'll put up a discussion at the infobox or E&R page on it soon. Re the infobox itself, of course it requires a discussion; the issue is almost where to start given the fallacies. Number 5 7 18:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

secularism

why? liberal party claumed for secularism Adrián Pérez García (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference issues in 1910 Spanish general election

In this edit you changed a cite web to a harvnb without providing a target reference or a complete citation for the harvnb cite to anchor to. Template:Harvard citation no brackets explains the various issues editors can run into when using this format, see the "Possible issues" section there. Presently there is only a Harv error for Ref#4, I fixed the 3 Harv warnings.
If you're wondering how or why I can see these Harv errors & warnings, take a look at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. It explains the Harv errors script & how to install it. - Shearonink (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1914 Spanish general election revert of my edit

You changed my correct edit at this article and have re-instituted a Harv errror. That particular Sfn cite - {{sfn|Fernández Almagro|1943|p=415}} has no target reference or complete citation to link to. The article either 1)needs a complete cite book or cite web or whatever for the Fernández Almagro| reference to work OR 2}the Sfn cite should be removed. If the Sfn cite error isn't corrected somehow the 1914 Spanish general election article will remain in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. - Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Oops sorry, I thought I had added the source. I did it now. Thanks for noting! Impru20^talk 18:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1869 Spanish general election

You reverted my edit saying my academic source didn't state the 8.743.286 vote figure.

This is stated on page 121, all vote figures are explicitly stated on the tables presented at the end of the article, I'm going to reintroduce these data as the academic source I ppresented is way more credible than the historiaelectoral webpage. Troopasturbador (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Troopasturbador: Oops sorry, my bad; I searched the source and it did not give me any results for voting figures, but it happens this was due to this being formatted differently in the source. Indeed, an academic source (when available) is much better! Impru20^talk 18:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Impru20.

I was wondering why the "Aftermath" section is considered to not belonging on the page. There are some election pages which include an aftermath section, what's the criterion used to determine if an aftermath section is to be added to an electorala rticle on wikipedia? Troopasturbador (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sfn cite issues at 1871 Spanish general election

Your recent edits to 1871 Spanish general election have caused several Harv cite errors & 1 Harv warning. I was able to correct the the Harv warning but not the Harv errors. The following sfn cites are causing Harv cite errors because they do not have a complete citation to target:

Ref #1 - {{sfn|Roldán de Montaud|1999|p=246}}
Ref #7 - {{sfn|Ortega Álvarez|Santaolaya Machetti|1996|pp=84–85}}

Also these Sfn cites are malformed and have the complete authors' names listed instead of just the last names. Per Template:Sfn, they should look like this:

Ref #1 - {{sfn|de Montaud|1999|p=246}}
Ref #7 - {{sfn|Álvarez|Machetti|1996|pp=84–85}}

If you would add complete citations for the de Montaud reference and for the Alvarez & Machetti reference and also correct the Sfn cites that would remove the article from Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. - Shearonink (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, the article missed the references for #1 and #2 (it was an error, it has been solved now).

The sfn cites are not malformed. "Roldán de Montaud", "Ortega Álvarez" and "Santaolaya Machetti" are the last names, not the complete authors' names (which are Inés Roldán de Montaud, Luis Ortega Álvarez and Pablo Santaolaya Machetti). Under Spanish naming customs, last names are made of two surnames. Impru20^talk 07:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Mea culpa! Thanks for adding the complete citations, that got the article out of Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. - Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1871 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slave trade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Javier García Jiménez

I can see why you moved this page. Is there a titling precedent for the subject of Spanish politicians when two have the same name? The recent moving of the Riojan Socialist to "Javier García (Spanish politician)" was causing false links referring to the Navarrese. User:Ortizesp can contribute to this discussion as well. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknown Temptation: This is normally determined on a case by case basis, but from my experience:

The use of the profession as disambiguator is typically used when: 1) there are several people under the same name; 2) the main name without the second surname is the widely-known WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. Manuel Chaves (politician)), and 3) there is no more than one person with that profession. If 1 and 2 are met but not 3, you could always use the country as disambiguator ("Spanish politician", for example), but that is also problematic in some cases, so you have to use the second surname as disambiguator (i.e. Pablo Iglesias Posse and Pablo Iglesias Turrión).
"Javier García" is just a too common name in Spanish, so that by itself can hardly serve as a WP:COMMONNAME (check Javier García, it is crazy). The only excepctions I have seen of this is when the person going by that commonly-used name is notable enough himself/herself to clearly have such a name associated to them (i.e. Pedro Sánchez or Felipe González), but that is not the case for either "Javier García". "Spanish politician" could be used if there was only one Spanish politician going by "Javier García", but that is clearly not the case either, so the move of the Riojan Socialist politician's page to "Javier García (Spanish politician)" was clearly wrong.
Using a regional disambiguator ("Navarrese", "Riojan") is not helpful here either, because 1) English-speaking readers may not be familiar with the names of particular regions in Spain, and 2) particularly for the case of "Riojan", there is more than one Rioja!

Thus, my conclusion here would be to use the second surname as disambiguator in both cases. Impru20^talk 15:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I dabbed them per birthyear per WP:NCPDAB. They're not well known by maternal surname in English sources, so birthyear is the recommended disambiguator. I've listed them both on the Javier García dab that I've tried cleaning up.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you went to the birth year as a disambiguator too quickly: WP:NCPDAB uses one-surname people as examples, here you have a second surname that can serve by itself as a disambiguator while complying with WP:CONCISE (and honestly, no one is going to know who is the 1982-born Spanish politician going by the name "Javier García", so just use the second surname anyway). Impru20^talk 15:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see that Ortizesp has used WP:NCPDAB to justify the move, but: 1) they have not explained how the year of birth makes the topic more identifiable than using the second surname; 2) they have not explained how Javier García (politician, born 1982) meets WP:CONCISE better than Javier García Ibáñez, and 3) they have not explained how this topic is more identifiable as "Javier García" than others (most people going by "Javier García" use their second surname as disambiguator; even Pablo Iglesias Posse and Pablo Iglesias Turrión use it). I have attempted to revert the article back to Javier García Ibáñez, but I cannot due to the move conducted by Ortizesp. Honestly, this is now a mess. Impru20^talk 15:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"They're not well known by maternal surname in English sources" - We're dealing with people of such local interest that I highly doubt there are any published English sources about them. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp: Have you moved Javier García Jiménez to Javier García (politician, born 1985) unilaterally and with an ongoing discussion? Are you serious? Impru20^talk 15:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think it's controversial. No one in Spain, let alone in most English wikipedia would be able to disambiguate them with their maternal surname so COMMONNAME doesn't apply, and NCDAB already outlines how to proceed. You're free to open a discussion if you disagree.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's controversial you say in a discussion started because it was controversial. Impru20^talk 16:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both these Pablo Iglesias should be similarly disambiguated IMO. Ortizesp (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not without a consensus first; particularly for Pablo Iglesias Turrión, I myself attempted such a move in 2020 and the consensus was overwhelmingly against it, and we were talking about a widely-known politician worldwide back then. What you did at Javier García (Argentine footballer) (three moves in less than ten minutes because you did not get your facts right in the first place) should be enough of a reason to trounce you for such reckless behaviour. Impru20^talk 15:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2015 Spanish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sfn cite issues at 1876 Spanish general election

Ref #1 isn't working - Roldán de Montaud 1999 (no complete reference to link to or to target), Ref #12 isn't working - López Domínguez 1976 (again, no complete ref) & Ref #20 isn't working - Decree of 14 December (1868)/(no complete reference). The article is now in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. - Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Solved! Impru20^talk 07:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Next Andalusian regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Periódico.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]