Talk:2021 Catalan regional election

Puigdemont's situation

@Togiad: Firstly, you should have abided to WP:BRD the first time you were reverted. Secondly, the 2018 Catalan government process already showed that a presidential candidate must be present in Parliament for his/her investiture. If Puigdemont is abroad or is detained (which would happen if returning to Spain), he won't be able to be elected President, meaning he would need to have another person getting elected in his place. So yes, it is relevant that he is in Belgium because he is fleeing from justice, and he is obviously not in Belgium on vacation or something. Impru20^talk 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. It’s clear that he should be present to be invested, but he can still run as a candidate, as he already did. The only thing that I don’t see clear is the expression “fled from justice”. It gives the impression that he’s hiding somewhere and justice is looking for him. But this is not the case right now, because he’s in Belgium, true, but the Spanish justice isn’t asking for him anymore, so he’s not escaping from anywhere. In any case, the situation may change until the next election so it’s not a big issue for the moment. Togiad (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of running as presidential candidate is to be able to be elected as President. This has been like this up until the last regional election, when Puigdemont tried but was unable to. If he runs as candidate for President but is unable to be elected, then this is something relevant. On the other hand, "flee" means "escape" or "leave", rather than "hide" (and I can hardly seem it can be understood that way when his current location is described).

the Spanish justice isn’t asking for him anymore, so he’s not escaping from anywhere The Spanish justice isn't asking for him outside Spain. He can't return to Catalonia without being detained because he is still sought inside the country, so he is obviously still an escapee from Spain. Which is the relevant matter here, because it is entirely irrelevant whether he is an escapee from the Belgian or German justice, but he fleeing from the Spanish justice means he can't return as a full presidential candidate. Impru20^talk 23:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Citizens (Spanish political party)

Here to discuss a revert by Impru20. The Citizens are cited on their Wikipedia page as being conservative-liberal, so I see no reason against adding this here. They are also cited on their page as being Spanish nationalist (see the infobox of their page). As for Spanish unionism, I understand why you reverted it but the issue of independence vs unionism in Catalonia is a major political issue and to have Catalan independence shown for other parties but not the counter position for Citizens seems an unbalanced position. Either we ignore the issue of Catalan independence entirely and remove ideologies based around it off the table, or we include the counter to Catalan independence for the sake of balance. This is also a major issue for the party and definitely contributes to its disproportionate popularity in Catalonia as opposed to Spain as a whole. I.e. the position of supporting unionism is a large contributing factor as to why it was able to win the most seats in the last Catalan regional election, rather than the last Spanish election where it finished 6th, a large difference. Helper201 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, conservative liberalism was there but not cited. The page had liberalism as a long-lasting ideology with its corresponding source; at some point it was seemingly replaced with an unsourced ideology, so I've reverted that change. On the issue of the other ones: Spanish unionism is a label/term used by some political actors, not an actual ideology on its own. This is explicitly described on the corresponding Wiki page. On the Spanish nationalism one, all Spanish parties have some degree of Spanish nationalism (PP, PSC, Cs, Vox, even CatComú with Second Spanish Republic symbols), so this is not really an ideology that makes them distinct from each other nor is one which is widely used by sources (except for the case of Vox, which already has the proper ideology linked correspondingly). Some parties have lots of ideologies linked in their articles, but the table shown in this article is not meant to copy-paste all of them here (just to note the most important one/s). Impru20^talk 21:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting the issue out of liberalism vs conservative-liberalism for Citizens, I was not aware of this inaccuracy. I understand your point about Spanish unionism, but please re-read my point above about it. The politics of Catalonia are significantly influenced by the topic of Catalan independence and whether a party is supportive of it or in favour of Spanish unionism instead. I think we should have some clear indication that the party is unionist / oppose Catalan independence. That, or we remove the ideology of Catalan independence for the other parties. I don't think it is giving fair balance to highlight those who support one side of this significant topic but not highlight those who support the opposing view. In regards to Spanish nationalism the difference with Citizens is unlike the other political parties it is specifically cited as supporting Spanish nationalism in the infobox on its page. If, unlike the other parties it is specifically cited as supporting this ideology then I see no reason not to include it. Helper201 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the political situation in Catalonia. Precisely because of that, when the issue of independence vs. unionism has been a most pressing topic ahead of an election, such an issue has been dealt with its own separate table, as done for 2015 and 2017. The ideology column in the main table for parties and candidates is not an appropiate place to highlight stances on specific issues (Catalan independentism is special because it is an ideology of its own that is core to those parties' political stances, but not Spanish unionism (which is a label; sometimes, even a derogatory label) or Spanish nationalism, which sources only highlight as a core ideology for Vox).

This said, we should not automatically assume the issue of independence is of core importance for every Catalan election. It was in 2015, and was partly true for 2017 (but then it was more focused on the direct rule vs. devolved rule issue). However, ahead of the announced 2021 election, it's COVID-19 taking the headlines thus far (or even the ongoing dispute between the Spanish and Madrilenian governments on the lockdown issue and its comparison with past Spain-Catalonia disputes). We shall see once the election is formally called and the Parliament dissolved, but the topic of independence seems poised to have a diminished importance this time around. Impru20^talk 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Junts candidate

Hi! The "effective candidate" of a party/candidacy/coalition/list is the one appearing in the infobox, because in fact there will be four different "leading candidates" (one per constituency), or at least this is what was done for Junts pel Sí in 2015. 2A01:CB19:8732:2200:F943:1F38:FF22:D6C0 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

How so? "Effective candidate" is a brand new term that has been picked up by some media and pro-Catalan independence supporters to designate whoever is chosen to succeed Puigdemont should he himself be unable to be elected. It's not an actual position or the post designating the actual leading candidate, so I don't know how can you interpret that this figure "is the one appearing in the infobox": it doesn't exist for any other party.

If Puigdemont is designated as the official candidate (just as happened in 2017, when he led the list but was ultimately unable to be elected), it doesn't matter whoever is elected as the one to take the investiture for him: he will be the "leading candidate", which is, in the end, the one who gets to appear in the infobox (obviously, with "leading candidate" we mean the person designated to be the official, presidential candidate, not those topping the lists in the various provinces). Impru20^talk 15:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What I interpret is that the official, presidential candidate is the one that the party elects and the one it intends to present in an eventual investiture vote. Mas was the initial one in 2015 for JxSí, Puigdemont was the initial one in 2017 for JxCat, and now these primaries' intention is to determine exactly this figure, the person that the party wants for president. Contrary to what happened in 2017, Junts and Puigdemont himself have ruled out the option of being a candidate in an investiture vote [1] 2A01:CB19:8732:2200:F943:1F38:FF22:D6C0 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and the official, presidential candidate may still (or may not) be Puigdemont. We don't know just yet, since sources are conflictive on the issue and it looks like Puigdemont himself has not fully made up his mind. Sources from 11 November show him ruling it out, but then the same sources from a couple days later say the exact opposite. Since the election has not been called and the exact election formula to be used by Junts is still unclear, your statement is not true. If (and when) we know that the person declared as the official presidential candidate is a different one than Puigdemont, then we may show such person in his place. Until then, customary practice in Wikipedia is to show the incumbent party leader

I know the examples of 2015 and 2017 very well because I was extensively involved in the set up of those articles; that's why Mas and Puigdemont (and not Romeva or Sànchez/Turull/Torra) are shown as the leading candidates there: they were the official leading presidential candidates in the election, even if the list was led by another person (in 2015) or personal circumstances made any presidential investiture under such candidate as legally impossible (2017). Impru20^talk 19:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Junts/PDeCAT formatting in the infobox

Please Wikivid21, don't edit war and follow the WP:BRD procedure. It's your edit the one having been contested and reverted, so it's up to you to seek a consensus for it before keeping re-adding it. Elaborate on your premise so we can discuss it here and see whether a compromise solution may be achieved. Thank you. Impru20^talk 12:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Good morning User:Impru20. As we are discusing, the party Junts didn't contest in the 2017 election, as it was registrered in 2018. Furthermore, the JxCat coailtion presented in 2017 was formaly an alliance between PDeCAT and CDC. That explains that nowadays the elctoral rights belong to PDeCAT. I think our objective as wikipedists should be realistic and attend to official data. Regards--Wikivid21 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikivid21! Yes, I am perfectly aware of the conflict around the brand and electoral rights of the late Together for Catalonia (2017) alliance (it was me who covered such issue in this Wikipedia in the appropiate articles, as well as who ultimately chose to create a separate article for the 2020's Junts, which ultimately saw all other wikiprojects following suit). But this does not pertain to the infobox (which only reflects electoral results).

You cannot make a direct electoral performance comparison between either the PDeCAT or the current Junts with the late JxCat in 2017, nor you can justify it based on who the current owner of the "electoral rights" is. The PDeCAT did not secure 34 seats in 2017, nor did it run on its own (since JxCat was a larger alliance comprising other actors), so that comparison is overtly misleading (also considering that the bulk of the late JxCat's electorate has been preserved by the new Junts, according to opinion polls). Under your proposal, you would ultimately have the PDeCAT losing over 30 seats in this election should polls be accurate, which is not reflective of the state of affairs in 2017 (that would include many members from the JxCat coalition in 2017 who were never members from the PDeCAT and who have ended up forming the lists of the new Junts as well).

Ironically enough, when you check sources and opinion polls you actually see some of them comparing the results for the 2017 JxCat to those of the 2020 one (since they make the comparison between the "old" Puigdemont's bloc and the "new" Puigdemont's bloc). None of them make a comparison between the 2017 JxCat and the PDeCAT in terms of electoral performance. The current arrangement, giving the PDeCAT 14 seats in 2017, is actually quite generous in this regard, and already accounts for the fact that the PDeCAT helped provide much of the infrastructure required back in 2017 to bring that year's coalition to life (exactly, it accounts for the number of effectively elected seats that it had within JxCat's lists. No more, no less).

Anyway, the current presentation follows stable customary practice followed for elections in Spain when it comes to make a comparison with a previous, non-comparable situation (similarly as in 2017 Catalan regional election with the dissolution of Junts pel Sí, or in 2009 Basque regional election with the end of the PNV–EA alliance). Still, I think you make an interesting point and that could be added as some sort of explanative footnote in the infobox on the situation of the Junts/PDeCAT's affairs. How would that be? Impru20^talk 13:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I can understand the point of saying that PDeCAT didn't obtain 34 seats "de facto" in 2017, despite being a "de iure" reallity (as CDC, the other party of the coalition JxCat in 2017, doen't contest in 2021)... But how can you explain that Junts, a party that, as you well know, registrered in 2018, obtained 20 seats in 2017? That simple makes no sense... In any case, the party Junts did not contest in the 2017 election, and that has to be be reflected in the chart.

A good "agreement" solution could be, in any case, saying that Junts did not contest and not specifying the number of seats of PDeCAT...? If you cannot asume that JxCat is nowadays represented by PDeCAT (what is, indeed, a "de iure" reality), you cannot asume that the Party Junts obtained 20 seats in 2017 (that is not a "de facto" reallity, neither a "de iure" reallity). Regards--Wikivid21 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Both "de facto" and "de jure", the PDeCAT existed in 2017 within Together for Catalonia (2017). It did not comprise the whole alliance (the fact is that 20 out of the 34 seats won that year were neither from the PDeCAT nor from CDC). Obviously, that of 2017 was a weird situation since the "third entity" of the coalition, aside from the PDeCAT and CDC (which was in turn the PDeCAT's former self), were Puigdemont's allies (who at the time were unaligned to any party), but I think that is already covered in the current footnote: Totals for the new Together for Catalonia (Junts) refer to the 20 independent candidates elected within JuntsxCat's lists who ended up joining Puigdemont-aligned parties such as National Call for the Republic or Action for the Republic and, eventually, Junts itself. The explanation is quite straightforward.

Btw, about Junts being registered in 2018, you should know than that registration pertains to the JxCat's alliance in 2017, who became a party in 2018 (and whose registration has now been used by the new Together for Catalonia (2020) as its foundation). On that, we've already seen much more incredible things here such as the JxCat party being registered as a member of the JxCat alliance for the elections held throughout 2019 (in essence, being registered as a member of itself), or even at some point, the JxCat alliance for the April 2019 Spanish general election comprising: 1) JxCat, this is, the alliance itself registered as a party; 2) the PDeCAT; and 3) CDC, the PDeCAT's former self. It's not particularly difficult to explain that 20 of the seats elected in 2017 were not PDeCAT members but independent candidates who later went on to join Junts upon the party's establishment.

On your words that A good "agreement" solution could be, in any case, saying that Junts did not contest and not specifying the number of seats of PDeCAT...?, this is actually the solution that is currently in place: unlike all other parties, the "previous result" for both Junts and the PDeCAT does not show the share of the popular vote obtained in 2017, and no comparison in that respect will be made (in a similar fashion as done in 2017 Catalan regional election for both JuntsxCat and ERC-CatSí, whose comparable entities contested the 2015 Catalan regional election within Junts pel Sí). The difference comes with seats, because: 1) when you aggregate the totals of seats lost by the parties losing seats, and those of seats won by the parties winning seats, the overall result must be always zero (or, if the parliament size changes, must amount to a change that is equal to the overall change seen by said parliament). This is, you cannot really have "phantom" seats that are left uncomparable; and 2) the fact is that we can easily determine the allegiance of the seats won in the previous election, since elected seats are held by individual people, and those people are affiliated to a specific party (or to none at all). Impru20^talk 13:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As you say, "20 of the seats elected in 2017 were not PDeCAT members but independent candidates who later went on to join Junts upon the party's establishment.". Ok, but those 20 deputies were Independent candidates, it's a lie saying that those 20 deputies were part of a party that didn't exist in 2017! What I propose is simply saying that Junts as party did not contest, as they have been forced to collect signs in order to be able to contest in this election. So, my proposal is, ok, we can mantain that PDeCAT obtained 14 deputies that back then were affiliated to the party (in any case, as I said, "de iure" all of 34 deputies are going to be counted for PDeCAT for electoral rights as part of the coalition JxCat of 2017), but those 20 deputies were not part of Junts...--Wikivid21 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, as you said "when you aggregate the totals of seats lost by the parties losing seats, and those of seats won by the parties winning seats, the overall result must be always zero". I come from Spanish wikipedia and there, the criteria is based on a Legal Basis... I just saw that Wikipedia English is based on a "de facto" basis. For example, in the general elections of november 2019 the English Wikipedia combines ECP, UP an EC in an unique candidate (called "Unidas Podemos"), but in Spanish Wikipedia we separate them in three diffeerent candidates (following the official criteria of the Spanish authorities)... Ok, I'm sorry, I see now that English Wikipedia has more a "de facto" approach... I guess that at the end the approach is different, that's all! :D Have a great day, and sorry for the inconveniences User:Impru20--Wikivid21 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The current footnote explains it in a very explicit way than those 20 elected candidates—who joined Junts upon the party's formation—were independent at the time of the 2017 election (it's obvious that Junts did not exist in 2017, but no one is defending that!). We can reword it to make it even clearer if required, but I think it's fairly obvious that no one intends to say that Junts as such existed in 2017.

Yes, I see what your point of view is, since I have seen what has been done in the Spanish wiki. Firstly, wikis don't need to follow what other similar wikiprojects do, so this actually would pretty much settle the issue, since the English wiki approach is different in this sense (not just for Spain, but in general, though I know the most about the aspects pertaining to Spain). Personally, I do not agree with such a legalistic approach, because is not flexible enough and sometimes leads to weird situations (i.e. such as separating Unidas Podemos's confluences despite the overwhelming majority of sources and opinion polls showing them together as a bloc, which they, in essence, are), and because sometimes, well... shit may happen that not even laws can account for.

Here, we have an entity, the 2017 Together for Catalonia alliance, which split into two in 2020. Neither of the current entities can be considered as the full legal successor to it: the PDeCAT retains the electoral rights of the alliance, that's true, but the new Junts party has the legal property of the brand (to the point that, well, it has retained the name "de jure" despite the PDeCAT's attempts to foil it). We are not speaking of a party split (such as Vox from the PP, i.e. a new entity coming out from a previously-established entity that retains its existence and autonomy), but of a full break up in which an electoral platform dissolved and gave way to two "new" entities (the PDeCAT is not really new in terms of party lifetime, but it is when it comes to electoral contests) that co-share legal aspects of the former self. Otherwise, the issue (and the comparison) would be much simpler for all of us, believe me. xD Impru20^talk 16:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Collapsible lists

@Impru20: why is it necessary to make collapsible lists for "coalitions" with only one member? Braganza (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Braganza: Intra-list consistency (it just looks weird to have a mixed bag of collapsible and non-collapsible list for one same column, considering how different does all of it show up) as well as table formatting (having uncollapsed lists makes that column much wider than required, with collapsed cells showing up a lot of wasted white space). The column is not just for "coalitions", but for "parties and alliances", meaning single-party blocs get the same treatment than others. Impru20^talk 11:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Makes sence thx Braganza (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Opinion polling graph

@User:Impru20 If you're going to link WP:BRD, you should try to understand BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Still, I don't mind discussing, so please provide a reason why you believe no polling graph is better than having one since I've never seen that kind of argument. --Gbuvn (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gbuvn: BRD means that when an edit gets contested, the onus is on the proponent to seek a consensus for it, not the other way around as you did hint. Indeed, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting something because one doesn't like the changes; likewise, you shouldn't be making changes to a page just because you like them, and engage in a potential edit war when reverted just because you seemingly think it's the other party that should cave in to your demands. That's why BRD exists.

no polling graph is better than having one since I've never seen that kind of argument It's you the one that should discuss the merits of having a chart, isn't it?

You were already reverted one year ago for the exact same reasons (a revert which, at the time, you didn't even contest). Reasons against using charts for regional elections in Spain derive mainly from the "low frequency" polling throughout regional parliaments (and you are aware of it, since you pointed it out in the chart description itself until you removed it... yesterday). I myself have attempted to do such charts myself in the past (so, not true that "nobody has bothered make a graph"), but it was just impracticable, because as you yourself did notice, you had to resort to incredibly large moving averages in order to obtain something minimally consistent (and this for Catalan elections, which so far are the regional elections receiving the most opinion polling attention out of the 17 autonomous communities in Spain).

You have now changed the graph to use local regression, which would be fine... except that it goes incredibly awkward and not local regression at all for polls since late October 2020 (the best evidence of it is the weird shape of the Cs trendline since then, which looks like a compilation of straight lines rather than any sort of regression. This is mirrored, though less prominently, in the shape of other parties' lines).

Still, I'm not explictly against using charts for regional elections. But if done, it should be easily exportable to other articles so that it allows for consistency to be achieved. Otherwise, you would just be struggling with low quality charts and graphs that add little compared to the problems they would raise. Impru20^talk 16:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted you in the first place was that your first revert was manual (no notification for me) and without explanation. Naturally, I wouldn't initially assume good faith from your side.

It's you the one that should discuss the merits of having a chart, isn't it? I disagree here. It has become a standard to include a graph in opinion polling sections and as far as I know the usefulness has never been disputed. I'm not sure what your point is here. But as I take it from your reply, you're not totally against graphs, so let's move on from this talking point unless you'd like to elaborate how this is disputed.

You were already reverted... Well, I'm glad you're pointing this out. I didn't contest your revert a year ago since moving averages indeed suffer from low polling frequency. I took this as an argument against the method I used, not the inclusion of graphs in general, so I dind't go back against something I already accepted. I merely improved the method and assumed it wouldn't be disputed this time. The comment in the chart description referred to the 60-day moving average which isn't used anymore, it's not like I'm trying to hide a fact by removing it.

I agree that it the extreme increase in polling frequency is a problem. Still, I'd like to make a few points:

• Despite some small problems, I still believe that the local regression method outperforms moving averages. The latter method results in major problems with random spikes in the trendline. I don't think the problems in this graph are as bad. Anyway, since you've pointed it out, I just applied a different smoothing factor, so it should be better now.
• I still don't understand the notion that using a graph with small graphic problems or a different style is more detrimental to the understandability than having no graph altogether. If you look at UK vs. Scotland, Germany vs Bavaria, Portugal (national) vs. Portugal (EU) and so on, inconsistencies between different graphical methods are always present. Now, I understand that your focus is on Spain but there shouldn't be a special rule for Spain.

I use an R code for this graph and I wouldn't mind sharing it, if this is a major concern for you. As you can see, I have made similar graphs for Slovenia and the Netherlands, so yes, it is easy to adapt for other articles.

I hope this addresses your concerns well enough, otherwise please point out, which objections still remain. --Gbuvn (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I made that revert early in the morning and I thought I had added the actual edit summary, but looks like it didn't make it.

It has become a standard to include a graph in opinion polling sections and as far as I know the usefulness has never been disputed. It has become a standard for national elections (as you correctly point out in most of the examples you bring), not for regional ones, which feature way less polls (for those, it is done rather randomly depending on the country. For regional elections in Spain, the standard is not to include such opinion polling charts). The appliable method is also very varied, and there is not a single standard for it. What seems obvious is that you cannot build a proper chart if you don't have enough data points. On the other hand, people conducting edits are still accountable to the edits they make, and it's them who should be able to defend the merits of those edits. That's a basic premise in Wikipedia. You make a point in this sense later in your edit, which is different than having a chart because "it has become a standard" (this stance from you would mirror your own criticism that I somehow defend removing it because "I don't like it"). This said, I agree that we can move on from this point.

On the 60-day moving average chart, fine with what you say.

On your other points: I also agree that local regression is better, but it is more difficult to properly achieve and much less accessible to people (which implies problems when it comes to maintain and update charts. This has been a very common problem throughout Wikipedia). On the issue of charts with graphic problems or being unaccurate, you should keep in mind this: showing no chart at all only makes readers to be deprived of some information. Showing a wrong or unaccurate chart makes readers to be misled, which is factually worse in terms of an encyclopedia. So, sometimes, having nothing at all is better than having something done wrongly.

Nonetheless, if you can share the R code and explain how you built the chart, it would be a great point forward in the aim of achieving consistency. Cheers. Impru20^talk 18:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that reply.

On the matter of accessibility, you're right of course, but you already have the solution with sharing the code. With that being done, it should be even easier to maintain than let's say with Excel graphs. Of course, the much easier to maintain Graph:Chart also exists, but the interpolation is terrible on that.

So, sometimes, having nothing at all... Agreed. What I tried to say was:

• It would be better to have similar graphs on related pages, but the graph being different from other graphs isn't per se misleading. Therefore this point doesn't support choosing no graph over this graph.
• As of now, I don't think the graphical features of the chart would be wrong, inaccurate or misleading. If you have further criticism, I don't mind making more adjustments.

As a result of that, the graph should be re-added independently from what happens to i.e. other Spanish regional election pages.

On the matter of the R code, I will figure out how to upload it to a Git repository and add a short manual tomorrow. --Gbuvn (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gbuvn: Sorry for the late response, yesterday was a busy day.

Graph:Chart is somewhat of a bluff. I've seen it at use sometimes, and it may work when there are very few opinion polls through the entire period. However, when it comes to a period of time when the frequency of polling increases, it gives awful results.

I've always wanted to work with R, because of the benefits it brings, but have always struggled on how to do it since I never managed to make it work properly. If I remind correctly, think I asked Mélencron about that quite a few years ago, but never got a full response on how work those charts out, and the user is not active right now.

I think your chart does need to be improved (namely on the weird straight-line features that can be seen for the recent period), but I think your argument is convincing. Thus, I'll be reinstating the chart myself, though I hope this could be extrapolated to other articles as well.

Cheers. Impru20^talk 14:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I created a GitLab repository here: https://gitlab.com/gbuvn1/opinion-polling-graph

I'm new to both R and GitLab as well, hopefully this works. If you'd like to try it out, please let me know if it worked. Feel free to contact me if there are questions. --Gbuvn (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gbuvn: Nice! I think I've been able to work it out, and could extend it myself to other articles. However, I am still new to this, and as of currently I seem to have a persistent problem: how can I get it so that the enddate point is shown in a special shape and size as the startdate one? I'm trying but so far I only manage to get it right for one of them (if the startdate one gets shown, the enddate one won't, and vice versa). Many thanks and cheers! Impru20^talk 10:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Impru20: The easiest way to do that should be by replacing polls$polldate==startdate with polls$polldate==startdate | polls$polldate==enddate at every occasion (find & replace). Note that this only makes sense if there aren't multiple entries for the "enddate". --Gbuvn (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

ITN nomination

Just a notice to editors that I've nominated this article for "In the news" at WP:ITN/C. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jéssica Albiach 2019 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)