Talk:Results breakdown of the November 2019 Spanish general election (Congress)
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Map
editThere is not a good reason to use the old template over the new template that was designed by @Erinthecute:. She made the previous one, which was updated to remove the jagged lines and made them smoother. Taking a close look at it shows that it is a far more suitable template than the previous ones, and there's no significant differences that bar any user from looking at old elections and not understanding the differences between the new ones. Given the backwards compatibility of this new template, and it's refined quality, this new one should be used for this election and all future elections. CosmicKanan (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- There is no good reason to use a different template than the one used for all previous elections (general and European ones), and I even asked Erinthecute for a reason about such a change yet did not obtain any response. The main issues with the new template is that your opinion that it looks better is a mere WP:ILIKEIT issue. My arguments against it are more practical ones: firstly, the new template breaks the consistency that had been achieved by Erinthecute herself for all previous articles for no good reason (understand that we can't keep randomly cherry-picking which template should be used for which article when all of them are intended to use the same one. It distorts easy comparison between articles). Secondly, because the new template has not been made editable for users through Inkscape, unlike the previous template (which means that, should one day Erinthecute wasn't able to keep going in the map-making effort, we wouldn't be able to make new maps/fix old ones because they would be uneditable). Further, I can't see how the smoothed lines are better: indeed, the old template fits much better for a pic which is shown so small in the article, because it highlights the provincial division, which is considerably more difficult to see with the new template. I'd vote for restoring consistency for all uploaded maps for the November election to the previous template, which is much more useful and visual. Impru20talk 19:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Impru20: Hello. I saw your comment and perceived it more as a pointed critique than an inquiry, but I'll give my reasoning here. In my more recent maps I try to avoid having visible white borders between divisions when possible for stylistic reasons, and for consistency with similar election maps on other parts on Wikipedia, both made by myself and others. I thought to modify the Spanish election templates I made back in April (both by province and by autonomous community/city) in this way. The new templates are just as editable as the previous ones, I suspect the problem you have might just be the fact that I used layers in the new ones whereas I did not in the old ones. You should be able to unlock them pretty easily in any vector editing software and edit the maps as before. As for the usage of the new template on the pages, though the aesthetic differences are minor, I understand your concerns regarding consistency. I would ask that you upload the versions of the maps using the old templates for usage on Wikipedia separately, rather than replacing my files. If it's agreeable I will modify the new template (ie making the gap between provinces/communities wider for visibility) and work through making new versions of all 70+ maps later on, and replace them all at once to avoid inconsistency. Erinthecute (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- The issue extends not just to the April 2019 maps, but to all Spanish general election maps going back to 1977 as well as all European Parliament election maps, which still use the old template. If you can accomplish this for all of them that would be nice. I don't know what's the issue with the white borders; maybe they can be made a little less visible, but keep in mind that for instances where scaled-down versions of the maps are used there may be serious issues at distinguishing internal borders when a party wins several contiguous provinces/regions (specially when party colours are striking), such as in the example below:
- @Impru20: Hello. I saw your comment and perceived it more as a pointed critique than an inquiry, but I'll give my reasoning here. In my more recent maps I try to avoid having visible white borders between divisions when possible for stylistic reasons, and for consistency with similar election maps on other parts on Wikipedia, both made by myself and others. I thought to modify the Spanish election templates I made back in April (both by province and by autonomous community/city) in this way. The new templates are just as editable as the previous ones, I suspect the problem you have might just be the fact that I used layers in the new ones whereas I did not in the old ones. You should be able to unlock them pretty easily in any vector editing software and edit the maps as before. As for the usage of the new template on the pages, though the aesthetic differences are minor, I understand your concerns regarding consistency. I would ask that you upload the versions of the maps using the old templates for usage on Wikipedia separately, rather than replacing my files. If it's agreeable I will modify the new template (ie making the gap between provinces/communities wider for visibility) and work through making new versions of all 70+ maps later on, and replace them all at once to avoid inconsistency. Erinthecute (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have noticed the layers now and could edit the images after unlocking them; that was seemingly what was causing the issue.
- Sorry about the replacing; I initally did it because I thought there was some error in the uploaded version. Then reverted a second revert of myself when I noticed it was fully intentional and uploaded it separately.
- Nonetheless, thank you for your efforts. Impru20talk 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Regional Breakdown of figures
editDisplayed figures for UP total to 36, not to 35! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optymystic (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed! :) Impru20talk 23:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Gracias! Optymystic (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
In the graph displayed in "Quick Facts"and, again, in the graph below "Nationwide", "seats" obtained by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party should be 111, not 120
editI think you should consider results in these 10 - N - 2019 Spanish election as they appear here:http://www.elecciones.mir.es/generales10N2019/index.htm
It's a page by the Spanish Ministry of the Interior. There you find:
(i) A link to "Resultados provisionales" ("Provisional results):
https://www.elecciones.mir.es/Resultados10N2019/#/Congreso/Total-nacional/0/es
These are the one you post: Spanish Socialist Workers'Party : 120 "seats"
(ii) A link below link (i) to "Resultados definitivos," ("Definitive results")(published):
Clicking on it, you'll find: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2019/12/02/pdfs/BOE-A-2019-17344.pdf
There on page 132098 :II CONGRESS, votes corresponding to the the parties, federations and coalitions that have been allocated "seats" in 10 - N - 2019 election, at the bottom the page, in the third column starting the count from the left,under the heading PSOE, Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, above, you'll find, as a definitive result, that number of "seats": 108
(iii) Finally a third link below (i) and (ii) leads to "Errors corrections" (published).
Clicking on it, you'll find: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2019/12/18/pdfs/BOE-A-2019-18147.pdf
These are minor corrections published on December 18th Wednesday in the State Official Journal. On page 136617 you'll find about the middle of that page, third column, etc ... "seats" obtained by PSOE, Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, remain the same: 108.
Provisional results in (i) are those provided by INDRA SYSTEMS S.A. and showed on the media the very night the election was held.
Definitive results in (ii) and (iii) are calculated by the Board, composed of judges and specialized professors, in charge of managing the electoral process, la "Junta Electoral Central," "Central Electoral Board". Guess they centralize the minutes managed by the "Provincial Electoral Boards," charged with the final scrutiny, the definitive vote recount in each province. (The electoral circumscription here is the province.) There are 54 of them. Provincial Electoral Boards. The JEC explains its procedures in the intro to (ii) and (iii), I think.
Maybe you should rewrite all the article, according to these data. A lot of work. But that change, is certain. In both graphs I mention, "seats" won by PSOE should be 111, not 120.
fernandosantamaria (fernando.santamaria.lozano@gmail.com) 176.84.204.85 (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- We show results as most sources depict them (and even the Interior Ministry does so as well at infoelectoral.interior.gob.es). The BOE source separates the PSOE candidacies from those of the PSC, but the two of them are sister parties, did not compete with each other and form the same parliamentary group in both the Congress and Senate. Virtually no other source shows them separately. And no source at all gives the PSOE 111 seats.
- PSOE-supported candidacies won 120 seats and that's a fact, so no change will proceed.
- Cheers! Impru20talk 10:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah. You're right. Adding those 12 "seats" the "Junta Electoral Central," the "Central Electoral Board," allocates to PSC-PSOE, to that other number, the 108 "seats" allocated by it to "PSOE," we get 120. Seems the JEC just confirmed "provisional results."
- fernandosantamaria (fernando.santamaria.lozano@gmail.com) 176.84.204.85 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)