Jump to content

User talk:Impru20/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

I wondered if it was possible to have the graph updated for this page, as it hasn't been done for a couple of months now. I would be happy to help out... but don't know how it's done and expect you have a big spreadsheet somewhere.Saxmund (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I wondered if it might be possible to have the graph updated for this page on Thursday or Friday 22/23 May, before the results of the local and European Parliament elections are known. This would establish a baseline for how voting intentions change following these events. Thank you! Saxmund (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you update the graph again, it has been about a month since the last update! 174.19.225.113 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to put this I've managed to confuse myself having never had a wikipedia account before. I was wondering where you got the statistics from for your graphs on the opinion polls for the 2015 UK General Election? I would like to reference the graph in my dissertation but need to know where the actual numbers come from. Thanks in advance - myblindambition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myblindambition (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Impru20, I wondered if you will be updating the graph on this page a bit more rfrequently now we are into the official General Election campaign. Thanks, Saxmund (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC).

Hi Impru20, You've been doing excellent work updating the page. But could the YouGov models also be included in the main list. I understand why you've separated them into their own table. But I can't see any reason why the couldn't be in the main list as well. All the polls are models and not just a straight poll, so while the YouGov is a new method, I still think it should be in the main table. Especially as they are the polls with the largest sample sizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidermagicat (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

2013 polls

Hi Impru20, can you do your graphics of election polls also for the Italian general election, 2013? Here you find the data: Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013. Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, thank you very much for your works! -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The last request, that I asked to you. When you will upload the new version of the graph of the Next Italian election, can you change, if it is possible, the colors of New Centre-Right and Brothers of Italy, with the colors used in their metacolor? Because we have changed them since you did the graph for the first time. Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

EU election, 2014 (United Kingdom)

Hey, I've noticed some of the good work you've done for opinion polling graphs, especially the one for the Next United Kingdom general election. I was wondering if you could produce an identical graph for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) and update it every few weeks (or at least every month) as the elections take place in 4 and a half months time. This will be most useful as the page will likely pick up a lot more traffic soon and it would be nice to have a complete article for our readers. Cheers Owl In The House (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(coppied from my talk page)

It would be hardly possible, at least for the full 2009-2014 period; there aren't enough polls to even try to think about it. Polls available (the earliest of which, by the way, dates from Jan 13, when the last election was held in June 09) won't be enough to cover a single year, and the resulting graph would feel rather weird. Impru20 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken but there are going to be a lot of polls from various companies coming in over the next few months. I agree that it is simply not possible to do a graph across the whole Parliament or indeed over the whole of the data available. It does seem clear that there are going to be a lot more polls than there were for the 2009 election and that there will (in time) be enough data to do a graph to cover polling movements during the campaign starting from January 2014. I expect there will be a bare minimum of 25 further opinion polls but there could be as many as 50 polls, either figure over a 5 and a half month period would be more than sufficient to produce a graph. Perhaps we should wait until March before a graph for 2014 is started.

I notice a rather crude graph for the 2009 elections was done on a similar basis (graph starting from May 2009). The 2009 graph is better than nothing but as I say it is rather crude, maybe you could look at replacing that if you don't mind? And then look at 2014 when there is more data, perhaps in March. Cheers Owl In The House (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Polling graphs

You clearly get a lot of praise for all your work with various opinion polling graphs – let me join them in doing so, as you're indeed doing a great job! However, I was wondering how, exactly, do you make them? A lot of people keep asking you to make new ones for different countries and elections, but I get that it can get a bit much. I've made an article for the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017, and would really like to add such a graph to it :) If you want to keep it a 'secret' instead, then I would really appreciate if you could make one for the article I mentioned. What I'm trying to ask you is: what programme do you use to create the graphs? Thanks a bunch in advance! Nikos Malas (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Italian election graph

Hi Impru20, can you upload the graph of the polls for the Next Italian general election? Thank you, kind regards. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2014

Hi, Impru20! I noticed your excellent graphs and wondered if you would be willing and able to produce one for the upcoming Swedish election? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2014

Its result could be influenced in one way or another by the fact that there is a 4% election threshold and some parties might thus not make it into the parliament, according to some of the polls, so maybe it could be a good idea to highlight this percentage in the graph somehow? Thanks in advance in any case! Pcongre (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: There are more polls in the Swedish version of the page - http://sv.wiki.x.io/wiki/Riksdagsvalet_i_Sverige_2014 Pcongre (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi Impru20,

I would be great if you could update the graph with the latest data ASAP. As it is now it really misrepresents the current opinion, something that could affect the outcome of the election which is only a month away. You should perhaps consider a larger window for averaging than 15 days as that only includes the last measurement, i.e. a single data point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.115.13 (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you did it before I even sent that message. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.115.13 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Swedish polling table

I saw you were developing a table for polls for the Swedish general election, 2014 article. Thanks! One thing that's important to note is that the combined result of the "red" and "blue" blocs is much more important than the result of individual parties, so maybe have Red/Blue columns like in the Opinion polling for the next Danish general election article? --4idaho (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Italian election graph

Hi Impru20, can you upload a new version of the graph? Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Next Croatian General Elections

Hi. First i want to thank for all your work on opinion polling graphs. It is great and you should continue to work on this important contribution for Wikipedia. :)

I was wondering if you could do one opinion polling graph for the Next Croatian general elections?

If you are willing to do create a graph here are some helpful notes:


-last elections were held on 4 Dec 2011, center-left coalition won the elections, and 11 parties then had representation in the Parliament,

-it is a mess, 2 major parties (combined having 102 of 151 MPs), 3 other, and 6 small parties mostly with one or three MPs.

-in 2011 only one opinion poll was held on 27 Dec, on the graph you should show the results of all parties and coalitions shown at the bottom of the linked page (Next Croatian general elections); Kukuriku coalition, HDZ coalition, Labour, HDSSB, Grubišić et al, HSS, HSP-AS, HSP, HSLS, BUZ.

-if you think that 10 is a large number for a graph, you can remove HSP-AS, BUZ and HSS because later they will join the HDZ coalition, but it would be nice to see that change on a graph,

-in 2012 it is the same situation until 4 Dec, when HSP-AS and BUZ join the HDZ coalition, now we have 8 parties on the graph,

-in 2013 it is the all same until 24 Jul, when HSS joins the HDZ coalition,

-the situation does not change until 5 Dec 2013 when some new parties join the race and start gaining support, ORaH and NF,

-IL MB is an outsider, but if you want to put it on the graph it is ok,

-in 2014 from 8 Feb we have a new coalition, homophobic and conservative parties HDSSB and HSP joined with a bunch of "100 votes in elections" parties,

-and last, on 6 Mar NF and HSLS formed new coalition for the next european and possibly next general elections,

-so today we have 4 coalitions, 2 parties, and 2 independent lists.

-on the linked page you can see all the opinion polls.


I thank you in advance.

Tuvixer — Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


PS: From 25 Feb 2014 you should use the "If the Elections Were Held Today?" table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvixer (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NO NEED. But tnx btw. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvixer (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello. May I invite you to comment on the debate on notes in the opinion poll tables at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#20-21 February and 12 March? I believe your input would be welcome. Best wishes. --Wavehunter (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Government of the 9th Legislature of Spain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Manuel Chaves, Jáuregui and José Blanco
Government of the 10th Legislature of Spain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ana Pastor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Kapa Research poll

For context, the poll was comissioned by To Vima. Here is a To Vima article about the poll -- in English -- explicitly saying its an EP poll: http://www.tovima.gr/en/article/?aid=584344

I agree it's confusing that they compare it to parliamentary polls, but it is definitely an EP poll.

FYI, "εκλογών" = "election" in Greek. "ευρωεκλογές" = "European election". "εθνικών εκλογών" = "national election" (according to my translator, at least.) This is how you can tell apart the national and European polls in the government database. Polls that say national election or just election should be national polls. That should also conclusively show the Alco poll for 24-27/3/2014 was also an EP poll.

As to whether the Kapa Research poll is really two separate polls, I'm pretty sure you're right and they're separate polls after reading the english article, so I'll separate them on the European Parliament election, 2014 (Greece) article. Cheers. --4idaho (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the weighting doesn't matter. It would be OR to say that because they weighted it by 2012 vote it can also be used for the legislative election, when the source says nothing like that, and explicitly says its polls "for the European election." I'm not saying its best practice to weight a European poll by the 2012 results (I actually greatly disapprove), but that's the way they did it, and they explicitly say it's still a European poll.
And there are many cases of voters expressing vastly different results in European elections and national elections. Just because you're polling the same pool of voters doesn't mean you're going to get the same result. If there's a pollster in Spain who does that, I greatly disagree with that practice. I don't see it as natural to put European polls in the national polling table and treat them like national polls. If the pollster explicitly says one set of numbers is both, then I suppose we would have no choice, but they didn't in this case.
In fact, in this case, it's explicitly a European poll. The question asks how voters would vote in the European elections. It didn't ask how they would vote in national elections, and the pollster didn't say it could be treated as both. The source also simply said it was a European poll. So I don't see how they weighted it as relevant to which table it gets included in. --4idaho (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
They do explicitly say it's a European poll. "ευρωεκλογές" = "European election" in Greek. "εκλογών" = just "election". The question asks how people would vote in the European election.
The polls absolutely are either explicitly legislative or European; that's why I explained which words were which and how to tell them apart. There should be no doubt about which is which. I also strongly oppose any attempt to treat legislative polls as European polls or vise versa, as that is 100% OR. If a pollster explicitly says to treat them that way, that would be different. But they didn't.
Yes it is stupid of Kapa Research to weight a European poll by legislative results. But that's just Kapa Research being bad at polling, it is indisputably a European poll. --4idaho (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still disagree.
I think you're reading far too much into the fact that they compared them in a chart. Just because the two subjects are related, and some sources may look at how they interact with each other, does not mean they are the same thing. We have two separate articles because they're two separate subjects. Just because a source compared the results of a poll of the national election to a poll of the European election, does not mean that they are the same thing.
Just look a the latest poll by GPO, with ND in the lead in the national election and SYRIZA in the lead for the European election. Clearly, it might be interesting to compare those two results. It's totally understandable to me why some pollsters (or newspapers or networks) would compare them. However, in my opinion, it contributes nothing to the Next Greek legislative election for us to compare them there.
The table and chart are supposed to show opinion polls for the national election, and it's precisely because opinion for the European election is different (the same reason why it's interesting to compare them) that the polls for one should not be in a table that is supposed to show opinion for the other. It's misleading, clutters the table, and contributes nothing (in my opinion.)
Perhaps we could include a "see also" link to the European article (although it's already linked in the footer), but I don't think it contributes anything to this table, and this article, which is supposed to show opinion polls for a different election.
They're different subjects, with different articles, and if people want to compare them, they can. But why should we clutter one article with what is, 1). duplicate information found in a different article, and 2). not directly related to the article anyways? --4idaho (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not see the issue at all.
They are two separate elections, and a poll for a European election is not the same as a poll for a national election. They're two separate elections, and just because they're compared in a chart somewhere does not mean they are the same thing. Nowhere does it say that they are.
You cannot have a "trend" between two different questions about two different elections, and it does not say anywhere that it is a trend.
And a table that is supposed to show opinion polling for the national election is not "incomplete" because it doesn't contain opinion polls for a different election.
Just like the article overall is not "incomplete" because it doesn't contain all the information in, for example, the parties individual articles. It makes no sense (to me) to include polls for a different election in the table. They have some degree of relation, but they are separate subjects with separate articles on wikipedia. Whether some pollster made a chart that showed the differences between a poll of a European election to a poll of a national election has no relevance whatsoever, as far as I can see.
If you remain convinced they should be included, I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk page of the Next Greek legislative election article about this. Lets get some other opinions, because I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. --4idaho (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I left you a message on Talk because you were curious about how to tell the legislative and European polls apart, I didn't see it as relevant to the article as a whole. The conversation has progressed and changed since then, obviously, and I think that it would now be more appropriate to move this to the general Talk.
Also, there's one more thing that I think can't be stressed enough: Kapa Research did not relate the two polls. They had a chart comparing them to each other, it did not say, anywhere, that the European poll could be taken as remotely informative about the outcome of the national election. They could have just as well have been comparing them to show how little they have to do with each other.
You're choosing to interpret this chart a certain way, but Kapa Research didn't say anything like that. --4idaho (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please start a subject at the article's Talk page. This conversation isn't progressing, so lets get some other people's opinions.
FYI, I never said they can't be compared -- I said that it didn't contribute anything to the article to do so. It would just clutter the table and be confusing. And, again, you're choosing to interpret the table to mean something that it doesn't actually say it means. It's not WP:CRYSTAL to disagree with you, because Kapa Research never said anything like what you're saying the table means.
This is my final reply until it gets moved to the general Talk. --4idaho (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Catalonian parliamentary election, 1992 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Noguera and Garrigues
Catalonian parliamentary election, 1995 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Noguera and Garrigues
Catalonian parliamentary election, 1999 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Noguera and Garrigues
Catalonian parliamentary election, 2003 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Noguera and Garrigues
Catalonian parliamentary election, 2006 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Noguera and Garrigues
Catalonian parliamentary election, 2010 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Noguera and Garrigues
Catalonian parliamentary election, 2012 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Noguera and Garrigues

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Graph also in European Parliament election, 2014 (Italy)?

Hello Impru20, I know you are overloaded with and likely overwhelmed by similar requests, but would you upload in European Parliament election, 2014 (Italy) a graph on opinion polls like the ones you have uploaded (and constantly updated) in Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Swedish general election, 2014, Spanish general election, 2015, Next Italian general election and many other pages ? Thanks anyway, --Checco (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you please do that? Time span could be 7 days instead of 15... --Checco (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Help & instructions for making your graphs

Hi, I'm a big fan of your opinion polling graphs, and would like to add similar charts to more European election articles - could you perhaps give a short run-down on how you accomplish these magnificent charts? Much appreciated. HeadlightMorning (talk)

Reference Errors on 14 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

PSOE prime ministerial candidates?

Feel free to not answer and/or remove this, but how would you judge the PSOE prime ministerial candidates ideologically? Are there any major differences between them? --4idaho (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it was very helpful. :) --4idaho (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll definitely be watching closely. --4idaho (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Parliament election, 2014 (Spain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Impru! I can support the removal of coat of arms of HoS. I always liked how List of Prime Ministers of Spain include heads of states, but having their coat of arms maybe really is a bit too far. Anyway, I'll include pictures of heads of state which are missing at the present, that's usually the case for earlier monarchs (early 19th century or before). --Sundostund (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello Impru20, I'm Masssly. I want to thank you for your contribution. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Prime Minister of Spain with this edit but unfortunately you didn't give an explanation or tell us why.Please be mindful that unexplained removal of one or more words suggests Wikipedia:Content removal. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with at least an edit summary except in the case of a monor edit. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Feel free to contact me further if you need any assistance. Kind Regards...—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 14:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Venezuela

Hello again, Impru! I wondered would you be willing to help at Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela#Reformatting and expanding the article? Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona (Spanish Congress Electoral District)

Hello again Impru. Thanks for the tables you've added to the Barcelona page. However I'm confused about your other changes. The page is about the parliamentary district of Barcelona, so why have you removed the results of the 2004 and 2008 parliamentary elections (which are relevant) only to replace them with the results of the European parliament elections (which aren't relevant?) The page should ideally have the results of parliamentary elections back to 1977. It's not a general page about elections in the province of Barcelona (which would be a useful and interesting page if you ever feel like turning your attention to it.) All the best, Valenciano (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Impru20. You have new messages at Valenciano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Impru20. You have new messages at Valenciano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spanish general election, 1993 Map

Where did you copy the code for the map? There is something wrong, that should never be in there. I fixed it in your articles, but I'd like to track where you copied it from and fix it there too. Bgwhite (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish general election, 2015, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Regionalism and Enric Morera. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing minor parties from results tables

At least discuss the matter on talk rather than repeatedly removing them. Irrelevancy is subjective.

I've also started a discussion on the 1989 article's talk page about the inappropriate formatting. Cheers, Number 57 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that showing a party with zero votes is pointless, but anything with one vote or more should be shown (I don't see how removing 8 parties from the already-long list on the article is a massive improvement). I'm rather confused by your comments about German elections, as those articles do show every single party. Even if they didn't, poor practice elsewhere isn't an excuse for continuing it! Number 57 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
In the 2013 German elections I see a sizeable 143,000 votes in the "Electoral groups and independents" section. In the 2014 European German election all parties below 0.6% and not winning 1 seat are not shown. And this just for Germany, we could talk about plenty of other countries' election articles were this is done. Also, the "Poor practice" is a pretty subjective term that you are applying here without a substantial justification. I don't see how it can be "poor practice" to sum all 0.00% party results in an 'Others' section which, at least, give them some more %. In fact, this is usually done in Wikipedia in order to synthesize information and show just the most relevant (if you want to check the results for every single party, the link is already provided for you to enter and see). I could agree on having them in if at least Spain had less parties (see Italy), but I believe that adding parties up to 0.01% is already going too far.
Furthermore, realize that this table format is being applied for all Spanish election articles. And while you may be right for 1989 that there may be just 8 parties polling 0.00%, if you check the 1993, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2011 elections, you will see that then there were 29, 22, 27, 28, 36 and 20 parties polling 0.00% (respectively). So yes, it can become that long. Impru20 (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Electoral groups are not political parties - they're citizen groups - effectively groups of independents.
The reason why it's poor practice to put all the minor parties in a lump is that you're denying the reader information that is available and can be provided without a problem. Number 57 17:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
"Electoral groups are not political parties - they're citizen groups - effectively groups of independents." In Spain, the list of parties in the table do include electoral groups and independents separately. In the UK too. In Germany they have decided to put them all together in an "Other parties" section (with another name, of course, but it's technically the same). So I don't get your point here.
"you're denying the reader information that is available and can be provided without a problem"
It doesn't deny anything because the link to access all information is made available. Furthermore, I had clearly stated one of the major problems with it: table length. I don't need to repeat the number of 0.00% parties in the elections going from 1993 to 2011, which is quite a lot and would potentially greatly enlarge the table. For instance, in the case of the 2008 (the best example of it) adding 36 parties that together account for around 0.06% of the vote just for the sake of doing so could be even more confusing than helpful to the reader. As it is presented now, the reader knows that there are "Other" parties that together sum up 0.06%. If he/she wants to learn more, the link is there, clearly visible and accessible. Impru20 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems neither of us is going to convince the other, so I suggest the matter is raised at WP:E&R. Number 57 19:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Impru20 (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spanish regional elections, 2011 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add original research (Podemos)

You added that Podemos is a big tent party. However, none of your sources name it a "big tent" party. This is original research - it is a conclusion which you made based on news articles which talk about the voter base of Podemos.

Por cierto, gracias por tu trabajo en los artículos sobre las elecciones españolas. Zozs (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Spanish local elections, 2011
added links pointing to Mérida, Toledo, Cuenca, Santander and Vitoria
Spanish general election, 1989
added a link pointing to Welfare system

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Page moves

I see that you moved several Spanish regional election articles. However, it seems that you missed a few - the Madrid Assembly and Corts Valencianes articles now have two different titles as you didn't move any of the ones before 2003 (these are the only two I've checked).

Also, when you move them, could you fix the links on the templates like {{Madrid elections}}? Cheers, Number 57 12:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Elections and Referendums article tagging

Sorry to have to post directly on your talk page, but you may have noticed (on the WP:Elections and referendums talk page) that I am trying to get all the election and referendum articles tagged for the project. Unfortunately this is not making any progress, as people are claiming there is no consensus to do this, as no-one has responded on the Project talk page. Could you possibly comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject, as I'm getting rather frustrated by the attitude of the people at WP:BTR. Cheers, Number 57 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Fernando VII of Spain

I understood the was the felon King because of his treason at El Escorial Conspiracy and the subsequent Mutiny of Aranjuez (where I live. He returned by popular acclaim when Joseph could no longer sustain the British assault on the Napoleonic occupation - is this erroneous?Timpo (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, Impru20. You have new messages at Timpo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Minor parties

Following on from our earlier discussion about this, I came up with a solution that I hope is acceptable to both of us. I have implemented it at Spanish general election, 1989#Congress of Deputies – basically the parties with less than 0.1% of the vote can be hidden in a collapsed table within the results table. The reader can then click it to expand if they wish, but in the meantime the table remains short enough to be legible (in fact I have hidden more parties than you originally removed, as I've raised the threshold from 0.00% to 0.1%). Your thoughts? Number 57 16:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent :) I might roll it out to some other countries that have stupidly long tables. Number 57 17:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi. I am writing to you as one of three parties recently edit warring on Swedish general election, 2014. You are all receiving the same message. As evident from the recent page history, there have been disputes in recent hours. The edit warring must stop immediately. Further edit warring may result in a block without any further warning. Please see my note on the article talk page regarding the Request for Page Protection that was received. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Table issues

I think you should be aware that the current scrollable solution for really long tables of opinion poll stats isn't exactly ideal from a readability standpoint. I'm sensing that both you and Number 57 aren't taking me very seriously, and I suspect this is because I'm not a WP:WPE&R regular. You've got your established formatting standard and you don't seem particularly interested in discussing the merits of any changes.

You clearly have been doing a lot of useful, relevant improvements to election articles, but reverting clarifications with the motivation "is not necessary"[1] isn't constructive. Some of those standard presentation formats have room for improvement. For example, consider the point I made at talk:Swedish general election, 2014 about presenting largest-party-diffs in elections where they only have secondary relevance.

Peter Isotalo 08:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest Metroscopia poll

Why did you remove it off the graph? It's quite clearly a vote estimation The source has sentences such as: "porcentaje de voto declarado" and "expectativa de voto". It does not deviate too much from other polls other than for the PP score and PSOE rise. Zozs (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Separation table head-table

To separate the table head from the table in the actual Greek and Spanish opinion polling has the disadvantage that when zooming there is a growing geometric disproportion between table head and table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.79.126 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polling graphs

Hi Impru20! I noticed you made this graph with Excel and it turned out really good. I wonder if you could send me the Excel file so I can edit to make a version for the 2014 Brazilian presidential election. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Impru20, the graphs look good, but I have noticed an inconsistency. The one at Next United Kingdom general election is accompanied by text that says it is "an eight-data-point moving average.", while on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election it says it is a "15-day average trend line". At least one of these must be inaccurate. Which please?

In addition, it claims to represent opinion polling, but in doing so it doesn't represent the opinion polling data at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, by excluding both 'Greens' and 'Others'. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Next Navarrese parliamentary election may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | style="font-size:80%" | 6(8

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Italian election graph

Hi Impru20, excuse me, can you upload a new version of the graph about the Next Italian general election? Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish general election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Mundo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zapatero II Cabinet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manuel Chaves. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Polling charts

Hello Impru20,

i have noticed your wonderful charts. I really like them and I wonder whether you could send me the Excel file so I can understand how you smooth out the data over time. Many many thanks and best regards.

Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telezbysek (talk • contribs) 07:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

UK 2010-2015 Opinion Polling chart - time for Greens

Impru20, massive thanks for your work helping clearing up the mess of Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election that was created a couple of years ago by ip editors adding fictional UKIP shares. That was one of the side effects of the efforts to add Green shares. That effort is now as complete as it can reasonably be expected to get. Even the incredibly elusive October 2011 YouGovs have been found.

So, now, to be a genuine 'graphical summary', your charts need updating to include the Greens. Can you do so now, please? Thanks DrArsenal (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading above, I see that you never feel it is 'the right moment' to update the UK chart, because there are polls pretty much daily. I would suggest Friday-Saturday is the best option. It is the one point in the week where a period of more than 24 hours without a poll usually happens, from when Populus release their poll during the day on Friday until the polls for the Sunday newspapers come out - sometimes late on Saturday, sometimes on Sunday, and details such as the pdfs of the data tables may take even longer. DrArsenal (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Today's Populus now at Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election. So no UK polls expected for more than 30+ hours now, I think. It would be great if you could update the chart (but I realise you may have plenty of other things to do). DrArsenal (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You beat me here, Dr. Arsenal. I was going to ask for the inclusion of the Green party now that we have the numbers for them in the tables, as per the consensus reached on the talk page.--ERAGON (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sobre la mayúscula en «Presidente del Gobierno»

Hola:

En realidad, que tengas la posibilidad de escribir «Presidente» en mayúsculas depende de incluir el nombre propio de la persona a la que se hace referencia o no hacerlo —y en ningún caso es obligatoria la escritura con mayúsculas—. Además, en la mayoría de correcciones que he realizado no se hace referencia a una persona concreta, sino al cargo en cuestión.

Al parecer, quien editase la versión en castellano de ese mismo artículo también conviene en ello: http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Presidente_del_Gobierno_de_Espa%C3%B1a. Por norma general se escribe en minúscula; no obstante, es posible —quizás incluso algo frecuente— escribir dichos cargos con mayúscula cuando uno se refiere a una persona concreta y no se incluye su nombre propio.

Un saludo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andoni199 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!

Time to share a beer!
I thought those of us who worked to backdate Green shares at Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election and clear up the mess of the UKIP 2011 shares there should share a beer to celebrate finishing that task. DrArsenal (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polling

Hey. Your opinion polling graphs look amazing. May I ask which program/software do you use to create them? Thanks! Lmmnhn (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Podemos...

Hello! I saw that you recommended expansion of the "Reception" section of the Podemos article. I just wanted to let you know I got that information from the Spanish article as I had a quick read through of the existing, English Podemos article which somewhat read as a promotional article. Here is the Spanish article that has more information. Nice graph by the way, I'm a pretty big fan of using them. If you need any help, let me know!--ZiaLater (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish general election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breach of trust. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 29 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Impru20/Archive_4&oldid=1065787840"