Talk:2023 Madrid City Council election

Polling Graphs

Hello
I would like to bring up the point of polling graphs, and in particular, the one on this page. I don't think anyone would contest that they are useful to have wherever possible, if someone has gone out of the way to make one. There are many graphs on polling across Wikipedia election pages, many created by a number of different editors, who will all likely have slightly different code, colours, etc. Removal of such graphs because they don't exactly match seems to make little sense, in the same way a new style of map wouldn't be removed. Having the graph, which is of a good standard, is much superior to not having one.
cc @Impru20 and @CoaxAndBotany as I believe this may be relevant to you
Thanks Quinby (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree entirely. If there is no graph on a page with multiple polls and someone adds them, it seems unhelpful to delete them for no reason except it not exactly matching the style of one individual. CoaxAndBotany (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There is not a right to automatically have charts in polling articles, so their addition has to be determined in a case-by-case basis and not rushed forward as you both are doing here. Some tables don't have enough polls to justify the creation of a chart, as they won't properly depict data, and on the other hand, a lack of consistency harms readers' ability to compare charts across articles (it's not "not exactly matching the style of one individual"). Both of your chart styles are very different among yourselves, yet you seemingly don't see any issue because your primary concern seems to be to upload a chart at any cost, which I cannot see how it works as an argument.

I could reproach both of you for not even caring to reach some consensus (let alone among yourselves) for this once this was contested. I have been even insulted by CoaxAndBotany in edit summaries just for citing consistency as a concern. Both of you broke WP:BRD by re-reverting your charts back into the articles. Even your our arguments fall apart when we check the fact that both of you replaced an existing chart (i.e. Next Catalan regional election) with a new one just because, seemingly, you couldn't be bothered to even ask for the updating of the previous chart. Who's the one being reckless and childish here by trying to impose their own charts?

I can see a point for a chart in at least some of these articles, but as important as the content is the procedure. "Let's have any chart created in any way I imagine" is not really a good argument.

There are many graphs on polling across Wikipedia election pages, many created by a number of different editors, who will all likely have slightly different code, colours, etc. Yes, and this is actually a (growing) problem, not a pattern we should follow. Firstly, it's not at all common to have polling charts in regional and local elections; this is a recent trend that is being conducted by editors that cared little for consistency or coherency. Secondly, I can understand the Spanish and Polish articles having different styles of charts, since those are unrelated. But I cannot comprehend why we should have different styles of charts for a Catalan election, a Madrilenian election and a Riojan election, when it's the same parties and similar electoral systems within the same constitutional framework. Impru20^talk 09:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20 You seen to be undermining your own point. If you disagree with regional elections having polling charts, why have you made multiple in the past? If not every election needs a graph, why do you get to pick and choose which elections those are?

On some of your points yes I respect I was wrong, for example in assuming the Catalan poll graph was dormant after not being updated for 8 or so months.

Especially for the Madrid election, there is numerous data that I argue justifies a graph. The election is certainly of importance, with millions living in Madrid (larger in fact than the CyL election, which justified a graph) and it being a capital city. On others, I have made, I will say I was in the process of working out the best code and design, and I hoped to update it to such a design once the code was complete (which it is now close to, so I will be updating the styles in the coming day or so as you will see on my user page).

On your point about readers' understanding, I'm sure practically all can work out what graphs mean regardless of small style changes. The point of graphs, as I'm sure you know, is to turn the difficult and hard to understand polling tables into trends and averages where one can get a clear picture of what the polls are showing.

Of course, I cannot speak for your points about the conduct of CoaxandBotany, but I will add I felt some of your comments came across as quite snide.

Again, I conclude this statement with the fact that I do not see the significant downsides of the graph existing. They are already created, I believe they are of a similar standard of professionality as ones used elsewhere, and no one else has gone out of their way to make a graph for the page. Quinby (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Something I just wanted to add is that there is precedent for different styles within a country. The 2015, 2017, and 2019 UK GE poll graphs all have different styles as one example Quinby (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not made "multiple in the past". That was not my initiative. I was not keen to add charts for regional articles, but sometimes, people like you attempted to recklessly enforce them and I personally accepted them as a compromise, so long as there was enough polling to justify one and that consistency across articles was preserved. You are pre-judging my stance here without even caring to ask me what was my rationale behind those. Your problem is very well explained with what you just said on your approach on the Catalan chart: you "assumed", rather than "asked". Wouldn't your chart have benefited if, for example, you asked other people how did they do theirs and what their experience was after many and many years of editing? I typically encounter people facing the same issues I faced about five to ten years ago that seemingly assume their way to go is the best and that they need no further input or feedback from anyone. It's difficult to keeping improving if we keep going backwards.

there is precedent for different styles within a country. The 2015, 2017, and 2019 UK GE poll graphs all have different styles as one example Yes, and efforts have been made in the past to seek a similar style for all those (but there are so many polls and so many people involved in those articles' editing that it's very difficult to enforce one). Other countries doing wrongly is not a justification for doing equally wrongly here.

I get your point on a chart for the Madrid elections. But I cannot get what your argument is against consistency, other than you attempting to impose these specific charts, specially when you yourself acknowledge of being aware of charts for other regional election articles. For instance, and this is a question of me to you: would you accept charts in the same style as the ones in Catalonia, CyL, Galicia, etc. so as to preserve consistency? In other words, is this a question of merely "having a chart" or is the chart style in dispute as well? Impru20^talk 10:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20 My basic point is that there should be a chart for elections such as the ones I have edited. Those have been provided.

Comparing the styles in the graphs, there are only a few things they seem to have in difference:

- Slightly different style diamond/pattern

- Text size

- Election result being counted as a datapoint

- Slightly more volatile graphing (more due to the fact the election is a while away and there are not more data points)

I do believe the style I have produced is better in these regards, as it is more legible (without having to zoom in), and graphs polls rather than elections. However, I would not be completely opposed to consistency, though I see little point in producing consistent graphs due to the ones already being available and having few differences regardless, which and I doubt many, if any, people will have an issue with. Quinby (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20 I don't think you can accuse me of insulting you when all I did was respond to your snide remarks about my graphs.

There is no problem with varying styles as even across different news networks, pollsters, countries, people produce their own graphs of polls and other data.

Also, if there is no graph on a set of polls I don't think I have to go searching for individuals to make graphs when I am capable of making graphs myself as someone who, in fact, teaches R to students and sees a variety of graphs from people.

This demand for consistency seems counterproductive when the graphs produced, for the most part, are of an equally good quality. 194.66.246.7 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@194.66.246.7 I forgot to log in but I'd like to add:

this attempt at gatekeeping articles and personal views on style is just not going to do anyone any good. CoaxAndBotany (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quinnnnnby My basic point is that there is not reason for having charts of different styles, even if these are "slight" (but still noticeable, specially in aspects as relevant as the trendlines). Also, from my experience, it is much harder to create a new chart from scratch than just ask for a chart based on an already existing style. And also from my experience, I can tell you that large deviations in consistency start out with just "slight" differences. Next time around, one user will create an entirely different chart style based on "we already have differences in chart styles for Madrid and Catalonia, why we should keep consistency then?" (just as you did with the UK example, heh. That's exactly how it works). I remind that opinion polling charts are a complement, not a must.

@CoaxAndBotany You mean the "snide remark" of just asking you for consistency (and noting that the trend is towards using .svg files in Wikipedia for charts, not .png) being replied with a "you are being childish and petty" remark? Yeah, that is not going to do anyone any good, indeed.

There is no problem with varying styles as even across different news networks, pollsters, countries, people produce their own graphs of polls and other data. I already replied to this above. Yes, there is a problem with this. The fact that this has not been solved for other countries partly comes because the problem was left untreated for years until it became nearly insurmountable. That's actually a justification for acting on preserving consistency early, not against it. Keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF here.

Also, if there is no graph on a set of polls I don't think I have to go searching for individuals to make graphs when I am capable of making graphs myself as someone who, in fact, teaches R to students and sees a variety of graphs from people. Oh, so who is gatekeeping now? It's yourself the one acknowledging to be unable to collaborate with others here. You have to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You may have experience in one field, that's ok. But other people may have plenty of experience in Wikipedia affairs which you may lack. Collaboration mmeans the most of both can be made in the benefit of the common good. What you did was to make an imposition, acknowledging you won't bother in asking anyone for it. And well, that "there were no charts" is not really an argument, because as I stated: 1) charts are not a must (just as the chart you added to 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election was removed and no one cared about it because it provided very little useful info), and 2) you also intervened at Next Catalan regional election to replace an already existing chart (that was not the creation of a new one, but the imposition of a brand new chart without even caring to actually ask for an update). Impru20^talk 11:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20 I can see not much progress is being made, so I'm going to suggest we get third opinions on this page Quinby (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quinnnnnby I stated I was not opposed to adding charts. But on a case-by-case basis and preserving consistency. If that's not progress, then maybe the issue is another one... Impru20^talk 12:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Impru20 i don't see any significant difference between this chart and any other chart used in spanish elections, so i don't see a reason why we should not use his version Braganza (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Braganza I agree entirely! CoaxAndBotany (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume you also think the removal of my graphs by Impru20 from various regional Spanish election pages is not helpful given that they are also similar enough? CoaxAndBotany (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I just uploaded a .svg chart consistent in style with all previous charts. I assume that since the issue was the lack of a chart (and not ownership of it), having a consistent one (which also includes the threshold line, btw, thus keeping consistency) solves the issue, yes? Or do you have any other issues, CoaxAndBotany? I find it incredibly disgusting how you skipped my proposal entirely. Impru20^talk 14:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20 I don't think we are able to amicably discuss this so I'd rather hear other people's views. CoaxAndBotany (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@CoaxAndBotany Then that's your problem, not mine. You have not even cared to properly enter the discussion other than to state personal references on myself. Considering your obsessive response to my edit summary at 2023 Asturian regional election, your reckless move at Next Catalan regional election (which basically contradicts your whole argument, since that was not a case where a chart did not exist) and your patronizing attempt in this discussion (as if, somehow, other people weren't to able to properly use R but you), I think this is relevant to the discussion at hand so I'll ask you again: Do chart ownership matter to you over the aforementioned consistency issues? Please, reply. And yes, do it amicably. Thank you. Impru20^talk 14:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Impru, come down... Braganza (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20 Sorry for butting in a bit here, but I would like to draw attention to the fact you had not updated the Catalan regional election poll graph for 8 months, and the Valencian one for 4. I would hope that the owner of the graph would update it regularly when new polls come out. Considering your reluctance over the graphs, which is understandable, I would lightly suggest that others could take up ownership so readers could get a consistently updated graph. Thanks Quinby (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Braganza No. I understand that CoaxAndBotany may have spent a lot of work doing those charts, but they were not required to do this the way they did. They could have sought some input to make then actually consistent with other charts instead of adding them because they look fun in a chaotic manner. Consistency is my concern here. They wasted a lot of their time making charts for a lot of articles without even caring to analyze whether those were needed just because they don't think they can work collaboratively with others (that is not my fault). Every time a chart has been proposed to me, I may have complained about how to properly depict it, but most of the time I have actually favoured and helped in their introduction (that was the case for 2021 Catalan regional election, which was the first precedent for these charts). We cannot just be changing every chart's formatting just because people want to act unilaterally, I repeteated that over and over again in this discussion: there is a serious ongoing, problem with lack of consistency across Wikipedia articles which cannot be addressed due to the vast amount of effort it would require. Are we going to actually expand on that problem here as well? And it's now my fault that just because I wanted to preserve consistency I'm being called "childish and petty" and then being patronized for not unilaterally accepting their view? I don't think so.

@Quinnnnnby I will contest your point here, because I would only understand your view should I had denied the update of those charts upon ask. But, did you even ask? We all have our real lives and can't be aware of every chart 100% of the time (and this applies to everyone). That's not akin to a refusal to update it, it's just that I have a focus on other issues. You only needed to knock the door and I could have updated it immediately. This situation is absurd, really. Impru20^talk 15:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20 My specific point is that it should be unprompted. The best poll graphers, as I understand from talking to several other editors who focus on polling, are the ones who regularly update with accuracy. I'm just offering my ability to do this for the few elections, as I have lots of time on my hands at the moment, and I saw an opportunity because no poll graph was present.
Sidenote, I did ask for an update yesterday on your Valencia graph.
Quinby (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quinnnnnby The best poll graphers are focused on national polling, as far as I have seen across Wikipedia. Polling charts for regional and local elections are not commonplace, much less their regular updating. Note that there can be months between polls at the regional/local level, so that a chart has not been updated for months does not necessarily mean that it has not been updated.

Yes, I do my best for regularly update the chart at Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election, which is also a drain of time for other minor charts due to the sheer amount of polling there alone. As said, just ask if you find there is a lack of update elsewhere. If I deny the update, then you may have a reason to think it won't be updated and that the chart should be replaced. What I cannot comprehend is the level of some arguments brought in this discussion (not necessarily by you), either accusing me of things that have not happened or just refusing to collaborate because they feel superior enough not to need anyone else.

PS. Where did you ask for the update? If I don't immediately reply to you, maybe it's because I haven't received a notification; either ping me or use my talk page! Impru20^talk 15:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20: you are not the king of charts of wikipedia and you don't have the exclusive right to create charts, if there is somebody who wants to create a chart if an article lacks of one, they should have the right to. This has nothing to do with consistency! Braganza (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Braganza, I think you are also making the point that me and Quinby are making about this whole, quite frankly, unecessary discussion! CoaxAndBotany (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Now if there is no objection, can I re-add the graphs back to the various Spanish regional election pages that now have no graph? CoaxAndBotany (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

My reasoning for allowing these graphs is as follows:

• You can't argue that there shouldn't be graphs on regional polls then add graphs to certain regions yourself, that is hypocritical.

• Graphs are a good visualisation for people to view polling data and make it quicker and easier to interpret and compare time periods than looking at individual values.

• If there is no graph on a set of polling data, I am well within my right to produce a graph for it. CoaxAndBotany (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is objection, considering that Braganza has not even cared to address any of the multiple points raised in this discussion and that he is not "king of the charts" either to decide who should create a given chart. Consistency is a sensible argument, chart ownership isn't.

@CoaxAndBotany, I have just asked for consistency. Con-sis-ten-cy. I'm not denying the use of charts, what I say is that those should be addressed in a case-by-case basis, and done consistently with other Spanish regional election articles. Is this really something hypocritical??

If there is no graph on a set of polling data, I am well within my right to produce a graph for it. Ok, then under that premise I'll be on my right to replace your charts with others more consistent with other Spanish regional election articles once I sep them up. Do you really want this instead of collaborating just because you think you are superior to others? I'm astonished at your attempt to enforce your charts at any cost when my opposition at them is based on consistency and necessity, not the existence of these charts. Impru20^talk 16:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Look, if there were graphs already there I'd have no issue. All I do is add graphs to pages lacking them. I do not think that is a superiority thing. I think the superiority complex is enforcing your own ideals of a graph on every single regional spanish election wikipedia to be consistent with the 2 or 3, until yesterday, out of date graphs for the current set of polls made by yourself.

I don't think you removing every graph was an argument for consistency, but more an act of petty vandalism.

It quite clearly seems everyone is an agreement that you are overreacting. Over-re-act-ing. CoaxAndBotany (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Impru20 I find your point about months between polls a tad disingenuous. Both graphs mentioned had several polls not included, and they were not up to date. It seemed they were only done up to the point they were created then left alone.

The update is on the graph's discussion page on Commons. I'm surprised it didn't notify you

Quinby (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@CoaxAndBotanyI contested your edits out of consistency concerns. If you think what I did was vandalism, bring me to WP:AIV (though I should note that accusing others of vandalism is a personal attack in itself and that vandalism is very clearly outlined and defined so as to bring it as justification for every revert you don't like).

You know what happens? That you felt so disgusted by me reverts that you subsequently went to insult me (calling me "childish and petty", then patronizing me throughout the discussion, then arguing that you could not reach any amicable agreement with me; well, yes, specially when you have been unwilling to even address me amicably in the first place!) and, instead of initiating a discussion the way that Quinnnnnby did, you just resorted to re-reverting me, even in the 2021 Catalan page where there was already a chart existing, and then coming here to directly attack me.

I accept the part of blame that rightly corresponds to me for this situation; firstly on the part of not being fast enough in the updating/creation of new charts (note that, up until mid-2022 or so, there weren't even enough opinion polls in many articles to properly set up a coherent chart with R), secondly on having allowed personal feelings to drive some of my thoughts. But I will not accept any "overreaction" accusation specially from you, considering it was you the one that first elevated the tone in a personal way. I felt personally attached to this because I felt personally attacked by you on the first place.

If the issue is that we need charts for those articles, what I ask is for consistency. And not just for the "2 o 3" charts in similar Spanish articles (spoiler: there are way more than just "2 or 3" (at the very least, Castile and León 2022, Andalusia 2022, 2018, 2015, 2012 and 2008, Catalonia 2021, 2012, 2010, 2006 and 2003, Basque Country, Galicia, Madrid... at the very least, over a dozen); again, stop patronizing me), but because this is also consistent with the charts for the general elections.

@Quinnnnnby They were not up to date but they were updated several times in the past. Anyway, it has been already updated. I did not see any notification in the Commons, though (however, if it was yesterday, it may have been lost to the multiple other notifications of the reverts made by COA). Impru20^talk 16:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I accept that I acted quite poorly, but my points still stand I think, that this notion of consistency is moot given your definition of consistency is that we have to be consistent with you, when the graphs i provided were similar enough in style that it wouldn't make a big difference. CoaxAndBotany (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@CoaxAndBotany @Impru20 This has turned into a bit of a game of 'who can get the last word'. I think it would be best if we can get other editors to assess the situation and decide on the outcome Quinby (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@CoaxAndBotany That's fine. It's not that you have to be consistent "with me"; the current design of the charts is not even my work, but one that was already a subject of consensus at the 2021 Catalan election page, and that has evolved over time with incorporations from other people. I'm merely enforcing that consensus, which at many times such as this one is not a particularly enjoyable experience. Sorry on my part if I acted harshly, but it was a reaction of protection to what I saw as an incredibly harsh attack (not the mere addition of charts, but how it was performed).

I still stand by my statement that consistency with the current versions (which reflects current consensus, even as minimal as it could be) should be preserved, even if the easiest thing for me would be to allow everyone to upload their own charts on their own design (however, that only adds to a crappy design overall of a country's election set). However, if this helps the situation, your charts may be similar enough to at least serve as a basis upon which consistency can be finalized. If that's the case, I will not oppose them being re-added for the time being, as in any case they are better than nothing (though I'll edit the articles themselves to preserve text consistency as well, if this does not pose much of a problem). Impru20^talk 16:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, I'm glad we could see eye to eye! CoaxAndBotany (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)