Talk:2015 Catalan regional election

CUP

Where is CUP in the infobox? --Davidpar (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Artur Mas vs Raül Romeva

The official candidate of "Junts Pel Sí" is Raül Romeva but some users have been reverting edits on the infobox and adding Artur Mas as the visible face of the infobox. I don't want to get into an edit wars so I kindly ask for your consensus. Which face do you think should be appearing on the infobox? --Kippelboy (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Romeva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jey (talk • contribs) 08:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I am not a fan of infoboxes before candidature proclamations or even elections (neither of doing synthesis from different coalition results from past elections to the next one), but I'll play the game. Romeva is announced as "cap de llista" for the province of Barcelona. That's the most "tangible" thing we can say about him (not much, as lists have been not proclaimed, and he is not "truly official anything" [for the purposes of the legal background behind the election process] either because of this very reason). Artur Mas's been announced as the candidate of the list in the run for the Presidency of the Generalitat (not much either, I'll grant you that!!). So then, the infobox photo is about being the announced cap de llista for the province of Barcelona (*not Catalonia, as such list doesn't [won't] exist in the 27-S), or about being the announced "candidate" of the party/coalition or whatnot for the Generalitat in the upcoming election? If we intend to liken this to other Wikipedia entries for elections, then I'll pick the later.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The "official" presidential candidate is Artur Mas. Romeva is the number one in the party list for Barcelona, but it means nothing as it has been already announced that the next President, in case Junts pel Sí wins the election, will nonetheless be Mas. http://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-rull-cdc-comparte-mayoria-absoluta-suficiente-ir-independencia-20150804110707.html

Factually, the fact about who is the number one for the list in Barcelona is a data of no consequence. For example, the presidential candidate could very well run as the number one for Lleida, Girona or Tarragona if he wishes, or in any other post, just as a prime ministerial candidate in a general election could run for another province different than Madrid; it is just not very frequent for it to happen so. But right now, the infobox shows presidential candidates, and Mas has been the one proposed for that. Impru20 (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there seems to be some arguing about Romeva being the "leader" just because he is (well, will presumably be) the number 1 in the Barcelona party list of Junts pel Sí while Mas is 4, but again, this is of no consequence, as there is no legal requirement for the presidential candidate to run in Barcelona's 1st place. The Junts pel Sí agreement states that the President of the Generalitat candidate would be proposed by CDC, and CDC confirmed the past week, just because of a disagreement with Romeva over who would be the presidential candidate, that it will be Mas. Source. Impru20 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It is uncertain to date who will be the presidential candidate (and it is not, by any means, official). Moreover, it is very certain who the first in Barcelona list is. This is about elections. We'll talk later about other things at List of Presidents of the Generalitat de Catalunya. Paucabot (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

¿Why do we have to put in the infobox the first in Barcelona list? That is not an argument. The presidential candidate is Artur Mas. If you want to put Romeva, I need better arguments than "he is the first in Barcelona".--P.G.Antolinos (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As said, that is not an argument. What would be the reason for putting the first in the Barcelona list and not, let's say, the first in the Girona list? There's not any legal requirements for the presidential candidate to be the first in the list of the most populated province. However, you have an agreement between several political parties and civil associations saying that CDC reserves for itself the right to choose the presidential candidate, and as of currently, CDC leaders have determined it will be Mas, as current CDC leader and incumbent President opting for re-election. It is sourced, and it has been explicitly said by CDC and even ERC: Mas is the candidate, regardless of his position in the list. And yes, it is official. Impru20 (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your comments. Reading your opinions, I am not sure enough that we have a consensus on it, so I will wait until August 17 when the official lists are due to be published. Then we can talk again. If someone else wants to take the lead on the discussion, it's welcomed--Kippelboy (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think all of you are mixing the legislative election (Parlament) with the executive election (Govern). We are talking about an election to a legislative chamber, whose leader is not the same of the executive leader or President. So it's true that the first in Barcelona's list is not the leader of a candidacy, but neither the proposed President for each party. The leader is who is taking the responsibility and duty of head each list. So, is for that reason we should set as leader of Junts pel Sí Romeva and not Mas. It's not about the list position or the executive leadership candidate, because this article is about a legislative election. --Pau Colominas (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not say that he is the "leader". Rather, I would say that he is a kind of "spokesperson".--P.G.Antolinos (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Customary practice has always been to have the presidential candidates in the infobox of legislative elections. Romeva is "leader" of nothing, his only notable feature him being placed as the number 1 for the Barcelona list (because Mas and Junqueras wanted to have civil/independent people placed in the first three posts, and someone would have to be placed in the first position because it can't be left empty). But again, being the number 1 for Barcelona has no legal meaning whatsover.

Trouble with Junts pel Sí is that there is not a single person leading the force, as it is usually frequent for political parties, but rather there are several main head people, in representation of different independentist organizations. In that sense, Romeva is no more important that Forcadell, Casals, Mas or Junqueras, who are placed just behind him. However, we know that Mas has been already confirmed as the presidential candidate and that we would be re-elected to the post if Junts pel Sí gets enough votes to do so. We must work with that. Impru20 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The attribute "leader" in {{Infobox Election}} says "Name of head of Party list or Party Leader. The number can be changed up to nine to display different Parties at the same time." It's not talking about "presidential candidate" as you said, but "head of party list". There are several references that define Romeva as Junts pel Sí's "head of Party list". Article should be mainly about the election and not XI legislature.--KRLS (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The customary practice in the English Wikipedia is to have the official presidential/prime ministerial candidate placed in the infobox, and only in the case of no official or visible candidate then the party leader/head of party list/whoever better fits the position. In this case, however, we have sources pointing to Mas being the candidate for office. There even was a public discussion between Romeva and CDC/ERC on this issue: when Romeva suggested that it was not said anywhere in the agreement that Mas would have to be Junts pel Sí candidate, CDC and ERC disavowed him and said that it was and that Mas was the candidate, with Romeva acknowledging the decision. Given that CDC and ERC together comprise most of Junts pel Sí , it seems obvious that their opinion does matter.

Also, as you may notice the infobox is oriented towards showing presidential candidates, as you can see in the lower section where it says "President before/after the election". On the description you point out, all templates descriptions are meant to be descriptive of each field's purpose, but obviously they are not meant as a guideline on what to do on election articles. If we were to take that definition to the letter, then we would have two problems: 1. Junts pel Sí is not a party (it is not even a lasting coalition, as its purpose is to stand just for this election), with no "leader" or even a single official "spokeperson" and 2. Romeva is the head of the Barcelona list, but there are three other lists (Girona, Lleida and Tarragona). The head of the Barcelona list has no legal higher status than the rest of the lists or the other candidates within the same list, neither does it have any other practical significance whatsover. The only special we have about Romeva are sources saying that he will indeed be the head of the Barcelona list. In essence, a meaningless and powerless position (except maybe for the fact that he has more probabilities to get elected than, say, the one in 30th or 60th place). Artur Mas, however, has been confirmed as candidate for the President of the Generalitat office, whose election through an investiture vote is the final purpose of a parliamentary election, in any case. Impru20 (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ballot papers photo

I would like that Impru20 explain why he considers that the ballot papers photo is "pointless here", as he said in this edit summary. If a photo of a part of the voting process is "pointless", then what kind of photos should be suitable for an article of an election? --Sfs90 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain what exact purpose has that image in the "Results" section? Please, elaborate, because it is not done in any other election article and, you see, those pretty much survive without it. What is the photo's purpose for being there? How is it meaningful to the "Results" section? Impru20 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The solution to this is not to put the photo in another section. What is the purpose of that photo? If it is useless in the "Results" section, it pretty much is in the "Electoral system" section. Can't see the exact purpose of having that photo there, as it does not illustrates anything there or there. Impru20 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That's why I put it at the beginning of the article and you continue undoing my edit. Could you please answer my question? I ask you about what kind of images should be acceptable on an election article. The ballot papers are an important part of the election, and they could be placed on the section of the electoral system or any other part where it could be suitable (I assume that maybe the "Results" section it's not the correct section to put it, but deleting the image it's not a very kind move by your part, as this image are illustrating part of the process; if you don't understand that, well, that's not my problem). I urge you to answer the question I made to you on my previous response. --Sfs90 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, let's delete the logos of CiU and CatsiqueesPot, because that aren't relevant on the election article itself (these are only logos, and CiU is the logo of a federation that doesn't compete in this election). See? How could you weigh in the relevance of an image? In the electoral system section, the ballot papers could clearly show to non-Spanish readers how is the voting system there. --Sfs90 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice, I'm fine with that. Done. Impru20 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Sfs90 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

But if that was your problem, you could have removed those yourself, or discussed the issue here, instead of keeping adding an essentially meaningless photo in the article. Impru20 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Because you were the one that added the logo of CiU and CatsiqueesPot, and it would be a useless discussion (at that time) saying to you that these logos were "pointless" here, because you could've went to defend your edits with any possible and incredible reason. The fact that I added an image that (according to you) have the same "uselessness" gave the reason to me. Well, an article with less images would be more pretty, no? Regards :) --Sfs90 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Threshold?

What is the election threshold? Theofficeprankster (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference for Junts pel Sí in 2012

In the current version, the article states that Junts pel Sí won 58 seats in 2012, with 36.4%. An endnote explains that these numbers are the sum of ERC and CDC in the 2012-2015 parliament, therefore excluding UDC. This approach is not necessarily wrong but there is an at least equally valid alternative: if UDC's seats are not excluded, then the 2012 reference for Junts pel Sí was 71 seats and 44.4% popular support. Instead of winning 4 seats, the coalition would have lost 9.

UDC split up before this election, with one group joining Junts pel Sí and the other one running separately and getting zero seats. It is very difficult to determine what fraction of UDC's past seats should be allocated to Junts pel Sí and therefore which of the two sets of numbers above is the most accurate. Choosing only one of them can be a politically loaded decision. Most media in Catalonia and elsewhere prefer to report 2015 results without any direct reference to 2012: TV3, TVE, El Mundo

In order to respect the neutral point of view, I propose that the article displays both counts, at least in the infobox.

--Hispalois (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is that UDC ran separately for this election, so you must exclude them. In the 2012 election, CDC got 37 seats elected while UDC got 13. There is no reasoning (aside one of simplicity) for making a direct comparison with the sum of CiU+ERC, since CiU was dissolved before JxSí creation, and only CDC joined it. This is exactly what is done in other elections where such coalitions happened (i.e. the Italian general election, 1953 for the PCI and PSI).

Adding both would just be non-sense, since the infobox is not intended for comparisons with two results at the same time, and it wouldn't look good either. And it, obviously, must be compared to something. Also, in the Catalan and Spanish versions of the article, the comparison is made only for CDC+ERC, excluding UDC. Impru20 (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Impru20. I see your point but it is not so simple. As you well know, for regional parliaments Spain uses a closed list system where electors only vote for a set of candidates, with no possibility to opt for any one in particular within a list. The 13 seats that UDC got in 2012 did not reflect popular vote but just the fruit of internal negotiations between UDC and CDC. And again part of UDC seceded and joined JxSí. If one wants to understand how electors' choices have changed between 2012 and 2015, a comparison between JxSí and CiU+ERC gives the reader useful information that today is not easy to find in the article. For this reason, I have added the numbers of the comparison with the CiU+ERC reference in the corresponding endnote. --Hispalois (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But making the comparison with the full CiU would be inaccurate, since CiU as a whole did not joined the JxSí coalition (it dissolved in mid-June 2015, and JxSí was born in mid-July 2015). The part of UDC that seceded and joined JxSí is irrelevant, since we are making the comparison with 2012 results; the UDC splinter group was not-existant in 2012, and was not formed until mid-July 2015 (also 1 month after CiU's dissolution).

I understand the point of making the CiU+ERC comparison, since it is more simple to make, and it would also somehow fit the post-election feel that JxSí did not meet its self-imposed objective of obtaining an absolute majority (which CiU and ERC had obtained together on every election since 1984). But there's also a feeling that it wouldn't be accurate, as that would also result in listing UDC as a "new" party not contesting the previous election (which it obviously did). Also, making the comparison with CDC+ERC and not with CiU+ERC will bring coherence to future elections; CDC and ERC are not expected to stand together in the next election, as the JxSí coalition was organised only for this occasion. Once that happens, the issue would arise about how to make the comparison with this election, and something akin to the CDC+ERC solution would have to be done.

Anyway, I feel it is okay to list the full CiU+ERC comparison in the footnote, for informational purposes. Impru20 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

President of Catalonia vs. President of the Generalitat of Catalunya (premier)

Mechordeus misunderstood my edit. As the article stood, it said the election would determine the President of Catalonia, with a link to President of the Generalitat de Catalunya. For most readers, this would be confusing because President of [Place] almost always refers to a head of state, like the President of Germany, rather than the head of government. I don't see anything at the target article that says this person is also called President of Catalonia, but it in any event has a high chance of causing confusion. So I removed the pipe text of "President of Catalonia", leaving the full title. Then, simply as clarification, I added the generic term "premier" as a parenthetical. It is not meant to suggest the title is Premier; indeed, that is why it is lowercase. The point was to help people understand that the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya is a premier, not a speaker or some other sort of official. -Rrius (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

On the CiU issue

moved from User talk:SMP

Convergence and Union was disbanded on 17 June 2015. Even if you wished to consider CiU's parliamentary group as a valid criteria (which it wouldn't, since election infoboxes show party affiliations, not parliamentary group affiliations; but just to hypothesize on it), it was dissolved upon the Parliament's dissolution on 3 August 2015. There is absolutely no way for CiU to make its way into the September 2015 Catalan election infobox. It did not exist anymore (and for a while) at the time of the election. Impru20 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In my oppinion, both of your claims are incorrect:

1. Infoboxes should not show party affiliations but the lists where the Members of Parliament stood as candidates. For example, check out Catalan parliamentary election, 2012: In the infobox, Artur Mar appears everywhere as a CiU member, not as a CDC member, because CiU was the name of his list on that election. You can also see that Joan Herrera is mentioned as an ICV-EUiA member because that was the name of his list. In fact ICV-EUiA does not have member affiliations because it is not a party but a coalition, and Joan Herrera is a member of ICV, but this is not relevant to the infobox data.
2. CiU did not exist at the time of the September 2015 Catalan election, but it did exist at the time of its previous election in 2012, and that is why it can appear in a section named "President before election". In that section the name of the list used in the previous election should appear. A good example to compare it is the United States presidential election, 1828, where we can read President before election/John Quincy Adams/Democratic-Republican because in their previous election (1824) Adams had stood with the Democratic-Republican party even though in the 1828 election Adams actually stood with the National-Republican party (and this is obviously reflected in the rest of the infobox). --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 22:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion, but that is not what is done in infoboxes. What is shown there is the President previous to the election, not the one elected in the previous election. That is, the President that was in charge at the time of the 2015 election, the outgoing President. And at the time of the September 2015 election, CiU did not exist. So it is just wrong to put them it, that is. The 2012 election is the 2012 election, and the 2015 election is the 2015 election. Of course CiU is mentioned in the 2012 election everywhere, because it did exist at the time (as ICV-EUiA), and was the most voted party. But neither CiU or ICV-EUiA contested the 2015 election as such, and in the case of CiU, it was disbanded on June 2015. It did not exist at the time of the 2015 election; you can't put it as previous party. That would be an anachronism, and is just plain wrong. There was no party to put in the infobox.

You are putting a wrong example. Aside from the fact that is a presidential election (not a legislative/parliamentary one) It is not the party that the President did stood at the election but the party it did belong to at the time of the (current) election (not the previous one). See Greek legislative election, September 2015, for example; Tsipras is not put as previous PM despite him having being elected in the January 2015 election, but rather, the interim PM that briefly succeeded him. Same happens in Greek legislative election, June 2012, or in the Portuguese legislative election, 2015 (where Passos Coelho is shown as belonging to the PSD, NOT the PSD/CDS-PP alliance). Also Italian general election, 2013, where Monti appears as the previous PM (because it was) despite not being elected in 2008. And the fact that the field is named "Prime Minister/President before election", not "elected at last election". The template itself shows that in the field's description: "The leader in power before the election, labeled incumbent if the election is yet to take place" (Template:Infobox election#Usage).

CiU was a party federation, with party membership, party structure and its own leadership, and it functioned as a party in itself. But it disappeared in June 2015. Gone. CDC and UDC succeeded it. And Mas was from CDC. I already put in a compromise solution, adding both CDC and JxSí in both fields (JxSí does not function as a party, it's just an electoral coalition, so it'd be wrong to put it alone). But adding CiU is just entirely wrong. Impru20 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

footnotes not working

I'm not sure why the footnotes aren't working (as of this edit). If I add a {{notelist}}, I see a "Cite error: The named reference CDC.2BERC.2BDC was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." but they appear to have been defined correctly.

In addition to fixing this, I'd like to know how to fix this type of issue going forward. - Paul2520 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Alignment issue

@Impru20: This is what I see with your version of the table:

File:Table alignment issue.png

As you can see, everything from the blank ballots row and down is 5px too wide. The edits I was making fixed it. I've tried another way of doing now to see if that makes any difference for you. However, whilst it has fixed the overall width issue, it still leaves the blank ballot cell 1px too wide. Number 57 23:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Number 57. I know what you're referring too, but strangely, the alignment issues you claim that is happening to the table only appears to me after your changes. This is what I saw after your first edits: http://oi68.tinypic.com/119pllc.jpg

I've checked it several times, and I'm pretty sure that I only see this after your edits. The blank ballots" row looks distorted. The previous version (as I edited it) looks normal for me. I checked it on my laptop just in case and the same happens. I use Chrome in both of them as well.

However, after your last edit (this one) I see no change overall and all rows fit perfectly. Impru20 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: Although my latest edit fixed the overall width, the blank ballots cell itself is now 1px too narrow on my screen. See below. I am going to bed now so we can continue to discuss tomorrow if you can't work out why one of us sees it and the other doesn't. Number 57 23:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Table alignment issue2.png

@Number 57: It's quite weird, because I ain't seeing what you see.

The last edit you made only affected the width of the white box in the "Notes:" section. 750px is the maximum under which, in normal circumstances and under the table configurations, it would stretch out to the border without distorting the table. However, somehow it's affecting you. Just to ask, but just to rule out all possibilities and looking at both the size of the font and the height of the rows and in your pics: is it possible that you may have the zoom in your browser activated? The current table setting works well for a 100% zoom level (the one usually used), but it might not work too well for other zoom levels.

I think it may have to do with your browser's settings, because the design for this table is currently in use for all (or most, at least) Spanish regional, general and district elections as well as some local ones and it hasn't caused any trouble until now (unless there's something specific to this article's table, but I can't find what could it be). As I said, I checked it on both my PC and my laptop (both of which use different screen widths) and both in Chrome and Firefox, and I saw no issue with the table. I can only see something close to what you depict when I use the zoom. Impru20 (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I have 100% zoom on, and I see the same problem on other Spanish regional elections (I remember trying to fix one a while ago, which you reverted immediately and I then forgot about). I will check on my work computer later to see whether I see the same issue there. Number 57 07:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: So, I checked at work and it's still the same - 1px too narrow. However, I think the reason may be the skin. I use the Monobook style, but when I changed to the others, I got completely different results; Cologne Blue has the "Parties with less than 1.0% of the vote" row much too narrow and the ones below much wider than the top half of the table; Modern and Monobook both have the 1px issue I can see, whilst Vector has it lining up perfectly. I assume you use the latter? Number 57 12:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Just checked, and indeed, it's exactly that! I changed to Monobook and got exactly your issue, while in Vector it's all perfectly lined up. I assume that's why no one but you noted on such issues, since Vector is the default skin. And yes, every skin shows different alignment issues as you say. However, I fear there's no way to set the table so that it fits for one skin without issues revealing in others. At least, we know now what's causing the misalignments. Impru20 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)