Talk:2026 Aragonese regional election: Difference between revisions

Line 34: Line 34:

:::::::::I thought you acknowledged that it was a waste of time for us to keep going over this? So why are you wasting your time and mine by doing this? Clearly your points aren’t going to settle this and we should wait for others. You said that first, not me. No, I haven’t been changing my position. It’s not my problem that you are mischaracterising and not understanding me. I was [[WP:BOLD]], I took this to talk to try and find a resolution, I proposed a compromise. I’ve tried at multiple stages to find resolution; all you’ve done is try and shut things down and provide zero outlets, compromise, or alternate suggestions. I’ve tried to progress this with presenting an alternate solution to hiding the section. I’ve been totally open to calling the section a great number of things other than “Results”, but we haven’t even made it that far because you’ve not budged from a simple stonewall rejection of any change whatsoever. I have not changed my position. My position was first to temporally hide, then a compromise to change the name of the section, again, temporarily. My position never changed from that, but I have been open to both options and/or any other suggestions. Just because ”you” don’t acknowledge it to be a problem because ”you” don’t think it’s ”real” is not my problem. And you have never presented any problems this change of heading would cause or why it makes any logical sense to retain a “Results” heading well before an election has even happened. The content within it yes (hence why I compromised to just a name change of the heading) but in regards to the heading itself, you have not.

:::::::::Other editors changed the content within the section, not the section heading itself, these things are not the same. Given you wilfully ignore points I make and try to mischaracterise them I see no point in engaging with you. Again, as ”you” suggested it’s time to wait for more editors. I’m not even going to bother to ping you because it’s pointless for you to reply before input from others. [[User:Helper201|Helper201]] ([[User talk:Helper201|talk]]) 23:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|why are you wasting your time and mine by doing this?}} ????? I mean, you kept pinging me, you kept going on and on and on with this, you even brought this to DR, and yet you ask ”me” why ”I” “do this”? I have suggested stopping this quite a few times. You have not stopped. You are unable to accept that you never were (or are) in the right. Let’s wait for DR because this discussion with you is clearly pointless. [[User:Impru20|”'Impru20”’]][[User talk:Impru20|talk]] 00:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Hi Impru20. I’m responding to your revert of me temporarily hiding the results section where you said, “It has all the sense since you can actually show the full list of parties contesting the election. This is always done almost everywhere when an election is called, stop trying to hide this”. We shouldn’t be having a results section before an election has taken place. This being done elsewhere does not make it right or correct. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. This just means some readers are going to come to the page and see a “results” section and not look at it but assume the election has happened because there is a results section in the contents list. It just doesn’t make any logical sense to have a section named as such before the election has taken place. I have absolutely no issue with it being included after the election. Your argument that this shows the full list of parties is a good one, so how about we rename the section until the election has taken place, and then simply rename the section after the election? All the best. Helper201 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your position here seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. It does not pose any problem (never has for any of the articles in which it has been done like this) and is actually helpful in listing the full list of parties contesting the election. You not liking it does not seem an argument to either remove or hid it, actually.

assume the election has happened because there is a results section in the contents list The election date is everywhere in the article, including the table itself. This seems an (unjustified) overreaction that is not supported by what we have seen so far. Impru20^talk 20:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

so how about we rename the section until the election has taken place, and then simply rename the section after the election So how if we just leave it as it is considering that we would have to rename it anyway? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Best regards. Impru20^talk 20:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20. Can I ask you please ping me in your replies in future? As I have done for you. I don’t see how temporarily hiding a largely blank section is “making a mountain out of a molehill”. If anything, being so resistant as to revert such a change is thus. As I said, I think, “listing the full list of parties contesting the election” is a good point; hence why I made the compromise suggestion of temporarily changing the section title and retaining the list of parties within it. I strongly reject the characterisation that I did this because I “just don’t like it” and actually take offence to such an accusation. I clearly indicated why I think this should be changed.

Yes, the date of the election is in the article (thought I’d dispute it being “everywhere”). That does not mean that readers won’t skim elements like contents lists and make assumptions thusly. The problem is also that it makes no logical sense. You wouldn’t give a patient a results sheet before their operation, or a student a results card before their exam now, would you?

Yes, I actually do believe its “broke”. What would be the harm temporarily renaming it? It’s not like changing the name after the election would be hard or take any time at all for literally any editor. It could be done in seconds by the least experienced of editors. What exactly is the actual problem in temporarily changing the name of the section?

All the best. Helper201 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201: Your argument that this shows the full list of parties is a good one This is a sentence from you. You yourself acknowledge it is useful, yet you have gone from asking for the whole section to be hidden, then for it to be renamed, then again for it to be hidden. The true question is: why? Has this actually posed a problem for anyone ever? You brought OTHERSTUFF as an argument, but not one of your alleged problems has happened in any of the articles where this has been shown (neither for Spanish elections nor elsewhere). So yes, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and asking to “fix” something that is not actually broken.

That does not mean that readers won’t skim elements like contents lists and make assumptions thusly. Can you support this with any instance of readers coming across these kind of problems?

What would be the harm temporarily renaming it? And what would be the purpose of renaming a section clearly intended to depict election results when they come out, but that equally serves to show the full list of parties in the meantime?

It’s not like changing the name after the election would be hard or take any time at all for literally any editor It isn’t, but it is clearly simpler to just not touch it at all when it’s obvious we would have to rename it later on. AINT, again. Impru20^talk 22:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what AINT conveys is not necessarily that we should not fix something that we consider broken, but that we should not be wasting editors’ time if there is no evidence of a real problem. At this point, we are engaging in a discussion where some long comments are being posted. We can go around like this for a few days, with a possible result being no compromise being reached between the two of us. Then, you could possibly press into seeking a third opinion or some form of dispute resolution; that would take yet more days and last well into the election campaign or even beyond election day itself. By the time some form of consensus could be reached either way, it is perfectly possible that the election has been already held, which means the section would be reinstated to its present state, which means we would have wasted a lot of effort and discussion into absolutely nothing because there is no evidence of any real problem and the two of us agree that the section will be presented in its current state anyway. That is exactly what AINT means. So, unless you can somehow provide any evidence of any actual, real problem existing, yes, I would say this is an overreaction. Impru20^talk 22:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20, firstly no, I was not asking for it to be hidden again. I’m attempting a compromise position from temporally hiding it to renaming. Technically the edit adding the results section is disputed, so it’s actually the responsibility – per WP:ONUS – of the one who added it to take this to the talk page and reach a consensus and in the meantime it shouldn’t be there. Yes, I acknowledge the section can be useful, hence why I suggested the rename. Which would cause zero problems.

“Can you support this with any instance of readers coming across these kind of problems?”. Be realistic, how am I supposed to that? The vast, vast majority of people who view Wikipedia articles are readers, not editors. If someone only reads Wikipedia, they aren’t by definition going to flag this up.

I’ve been over the purpose. I also explained that having a results section before results happen makes no logical sense, which you didn’t acknowledge. Helper201 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20, I’ve taken this to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Helper201 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Helper201 Technically the edit adding the results section is disputed, so it’s actually the responsibility – per WP:ONUS – of the one who added it to take this to the talk page and reach a consensus and in the meantime it shouldn’t be there. You seem to be entirely misunderstanding how ONUS works. This table (and section) was added on 13 December 2025. In the meantime, other users have contributed (and added to it). You have started disputing it on 5 January 2026, almost one month later and editing on the section was quite advanced. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. The disputed edits here are your attempts to hid the section, not the addition of the section itself one month before your edit and the multiple edits over it by multiple users, so ONUS applies on you.

Be realistic, how am I supposed to that? You could easily do that if a real problem existed. For example, in this discussion you have claimed that This just means some readers are going to come to the page and see a “results” section and not look at it but assume the election has happened because there is a results section in the contents list. Can you prove that this is a real problem? There is any instance of readers complaining about “assuming the election has happened” because of that section? To avoid the need of proving anything, you come up with the claim that If someone only reads Wikipedia, they aren’t by definition going to flag this up. But then, on what basis are you claiming this is a problem Anyone (even readers, through non-registered accounts) can edit this article. This typically happens when something if conflictive and/or problematic, even by the least experienced of editors, even by casual readers through non-registered accounts.

Again, if what you intend is to “fix” a “problem” that no one is complaining about out of fear that it might be, then that’s a crystal clear example of AINT. If it ends up becoming an actual problem, yes of course we can find a solution. What are you intending to solve here, actually?

I’ve been over the purpose. I also explained that having a results section before results happen makes no logical sense, which you didn’t acknowledge. You have acknoledged yourself that the table makes full sense, yet keep complaining on a minor technicality, basically wasting both our times here on a problem you yourself refuse to prove that exists… Impru20^talk 22:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20 point accepted about ONUS.

No, I couldn’t easily present this because even if readers can edit it doesn’t mean they will and it is statistically evident the vast majority of readers never make an edit. I have had this happen to me personally when skim reading a mass number of articles myself, so I can voluntarily add myself as statistical evidence. I have identified the issue and the logic is clear in having a section named “Results” well before the election even takes place makes no sense, which you continually fail to address. As I have reiterated, there is absolutely no problem with changing this. Ironically, you bring up WP:JDL when its you making a big deal out of this by not letting it stand, despite presenting zero problems it would cause by temporarily changing this. As you say, it is a waste of time for us to continue this impasse, so let’s wait for input from others. Helper201 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Helper201 Do you realize that you have kept acknowledging most of my points throughout the discussion, changing your own position in the meantime, without being able to 1) prove that a real problem actually exists, and 2) even stick or propose what exact change do you intend? Do you realize that you are basically doing what I predicted about AINT, just because you (not random, invisible readers, you) want the section temporarily changed to illustrate your point that this is somehow problematic?

Ironically, you bring up WP:JDL when its you making a big deal out of this by not letting it stand You seem to have not read what I said: the section has been up for one month and edited by multiple editors. No one complained about its existence (and actually improved on it). Why should we remove or change something that everyone but you is able to work with without any issue? How can you even keep arguing over this despite you yourself acknowledging as to being unable to prove that your alleged problem exists? Impru20^talk 23:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you acknowledged that it was a waste of time for us to keep going over this? So why are you wasting your time and mine by doing this? Clearly your points aren’t going to settle this and we should wait for others. You said that first, not me. No, I haven’t been changing my position. It’s not my problem that you are mischaracterising and not understanding me. I was WP:BOLD, I took this to talk to try and find a resolution, I proposed a compromise. I’ve tried at multiple stages to find resolution; all you’ve done is try and shut things down and provide zero outlets, compromise, or alternate suggestions. I’ve tried to progress this with presenting an alternate solution to hiding the section. I’ve been totally open to calling the section a great number of things other than “Results”, but we haven’t even made it that far because you’ve not budged from a simple stonewall rejection of any change whatsoever. I have not changed my position. My position was first to temporally hide, then a compromise to change the name of the section, again, temporarily. My position never changed from that, but I have been open to both options and/or any other suggestions. Just because you don’t acknowledge it to be a problem because you don’t think it’s real is not my problem. And you have never presented any problems this change of heading would cause or why it makes any logical sense to retain a “Results” heading well before an election has even happened. The content within it yes (hence why I compromised to just a name change of the heading) but in regards to the heading itself, you have not.

Other editors changed the content within the section, not the section heading itself, these things are not the same. Given you wilfully ignore points I make and try to mischaracterise them I see no point in engaging with you. Again, as you suggested it’s time to wait for more editors. I’m not even going to bother to ping you because it’s pointless for you to reply before input from others. Helper201 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why are you wasting your time and mine by doing this? ????? I mean, you kept pinging me, you kept going on and on and on with this, you even brought this to DR, and yet you ask me why I “do this”? I have suggested stopping this quite a few times. You have not stopped. You are unable to accept that you never were (or are) in the right. Let’s wait for DR because this discussion with you is clearly pointless. Impru20^talk 00:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply