Talk:November 2019 Spanish general election

Galician appointed senator

According to [1], José Manuel Sande is a member of Podemos, and according to [2], he is an independent member of the senate. In his personal Twitter account it is stated that he's part of Grupo Común da Esquerda and Marea Atlántica. This is why I would propose to add the GCE as part of the Confederal Left group in the Senate, or at least remove En Marea and stick to the official Senate source to have him as an independent. Togiad (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Right, I was mistaken actually looking at this. Restoring the reference to the Grupo Común da Esquerda. Impru20^talk 18:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Maps

I've prepared the maps for the results breakdown page. I'll update these (as well as the main map) if it becomes clear that CpM will win Melilla, but since it's very close and votes are still being counted I'll keep it as is for the moment. Erinthecute (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erinthecute: Looks like CpM won't win the seat, barred any surprises from the final, official count, as results are still very close. However, these maps you uploaded for this election seem a bit differently formatted as all those for previous ones (i.e. provincial and regional borders seem differently styled, which makes the maps to don't be as easy to edit as in Inkscape). Impru20^talk 21:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Turnout

I have written on the article of this election i Norwegian. What I do not understand, is how you calculate the turnout.--Trygve W Nodeland (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Ana Oramas 2016 (cropped).png
• Mireia Vehí 2019 (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Podemos approve the coalition deal

Members have approved the proposed coalition with the PSOE, with 96.8% in favour. Culloty82 (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

References

EH Bildu's stance

@100.34.181.24: You should really stop trying to add that EH Bildu's stance is of "Leaning No" to Sánchez's investiture, when most sources are pointing today that the party's leaders are calling for members to support the party's official stance to abstain. You only keep providing this "Atlantic Sentinel" source for this claim, a source of dubious reliability and which only tangentially covers the issue of Bildu's stance on investiture, as opposed to many sources from Spanish and Basque media that are currently pointing that the party is actively asking their supporters to abstain ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc). If anything, as the party has not taken a final decision on the issue (as members still have to validate it) it seems obvious that the best field for it is the "Undefined" one, not the "Lean No" one, which many sources keep contradicting. Your insistence on trying to bring EH Bildu on the "No" side despite being presented evidence to the contrary puzzles me. Impru20^talk 16:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Transclusion

What is the reason of not having the table of results transcluded from the results breakdown page? The points in favour are space saving and that it's easier if any change is made to the table to be consistent between articles.--Togiad (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The table in this article links to previous (and eventually, future) election articles. The table in the results breakdown article links to other "results breakdown" articles. By transcluding it the way you did it, you essentially made the table in the main article to link to "results breakdown" articles, which is a non-sense because those are intended as split-pages from the main ones, not the other way around. I would have already made such a transclusion if it was possible to alter the links, but it isn't. Impru20^talk 21:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Anyway, wouldn't there be a way of not having just one link (of the hundreds of links in the table) to prevent from saving so much space?

And the opinion polls graph could be transcluded, couldn't it? --Togiad (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the opinion polls because it wasn't done consistently with previous election articles (as well as because it feels awkward to have the main article being referenced from another split article).

It's not so much space anyway, considering it's a table and that it contains links and references. Just consider how other major election articles in Wikipedia are thrice the size of this one, such as 2019 United Kingdom general election, 2016 United States presidential election, 2017 French presidential election and so on. Impru20^talk 21:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why calling VOX "far-right"?

The party is mostly conservative to right-wing. Stop demonizing them, its awkward how leftists are trying to abuse wikipedia as a tool for their desires.

Less straw man fallacies, more facts.

62.226.82.165 (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)