This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Now that coalitions are known, polls for the year 2013 should be written with coalition partners side-by-side, and if there is enough place, add a "coalition sums" column, to see which winner is predicted by the pollster. Kahlores ( talk) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with today's edits by 4idaho. They constitute a total rollback and contain errors and contradictions. In his edits he says that the format I implemented is a "bad format, internally inconsistent", including "incorrect information". "Do not attempt to revert again – he goes – or I will be forced report you for vandalism. Take it up on Talk if you want to reformat the article". He adds that his format "was extensively discussed" and concludes that "Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and you do not have the right to unilaterally make changes. You may propose your changes on Talk for discussion".
First, it is his format (and his explanatory notes) to be inconsistent, incorrect and erroneous, other than bad looking. Secondly, his format was never extensively discussed and, in fact, the only comment in this talk is by Kahlores, who proposes "coalition sums", something that is part of my format and not of 4idaho's.
I have very few doubts on which format is better (take a look at mine and his), but I don't want to open an edit war. I just ask to the other contributors of to decide what is the best and go on. I have worked on this article since January 2012 (at that time the "opinion polls" section was part of the general article on the election). Wikipedia is not a "dictatorship" and I'm not a dictator: if 4idaho's version (with all its errors and inconsistencies) will be implemented as the standard for this article, it's not a big deal, I will simply stand aside and stop contributing to this article, despite being its legitimate father and main editor.
-- Checco ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlike the other listed pollsters, Scenari Politici is not acknowledged by the government's official site (www.sondaggipoliticoelettorali.it). Its survey is conducted only among internet users. Therefore I doubt that it is actually representative. Its result differs significantly from the findings of other pollsters. I think that we should not include the SP poll in the list. We have listed enough other polls from the same period of time. -- RJFF ( talk) 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
We need a graph for this article! Lets discuss options. Obviously we can't include every individual party with it's own line in the graph because it would be impossible to interpret and too busy. I suggest that we have a line graph whereby we combine the polling for the political alliances and parties that have a consistently sufficiently high poll rating. I propose that we include: The Centre-right, Italy. Common Good, With Monti for Italy, Five Star Movement and all others should be included in an others column. Discuss! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, my mistake. Yes RC will need to be included as well. Setting up a graph is really quite simple if you've got Excell, I'll explain:
1. Just highlight the entire polling box from wikipedia, copy and paste it to Excell.
2. Then you need to merge the polling for the individual parties that are within an alliance. You do this by creating a new column for each alliance and doing an equation to get a cumulative figure for the alliance, you will need to do this for the 1st 3 polling figures for each alliance. After that you can simply drag and drop!
3. Then you delete the columns you don't need for the graph i.e. the individual parties that are now included in Alliance columns, the "institute" column and the "UA3" column.
4. Then you highlight all your data and press the graph tab and select line graph, you can the customize it and upload to Wiki.
Hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 21:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have created this table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not 100% happy with it, it seems pointless including Civil Revolution with their own line because there is not much data for them. If you look hard and squint you can just about see a brown squiggle in the bottom right hand corner of the graph. I couldn't use Orange because it was practically invisible! I am in favour of removing Civil Revolution and including them within others for this reason. I will adapt and upload the new graph if others approve. Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 23:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I like it and yes that sounds a sensible idea, that squiggle is neither use nor ornament, put them in with the others. Thanks for doing this, it looks really good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the table, but RC should be included. It is included in the coalition totals table, and is a relevant part of the upcoming election. There will be more data on them by the time the election comes around. I understand the aesthetic concerns, but the first concern should be its relevance and usefulness. -- 4idaho ( talk) 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for including them within the coalitions table, they are polling high enough etc, that part makes sense. But if we're to be practical there is no sense in including them in the graph, at least not yet because you can hardly see them, the 2nd graph is so much better! If we had data going back to say half way through 2012 I would agree with you because they are polling high enough. A graph is simply a visual aid and I'm afraid their inclusion at this stage is unhelpful. Like I say though they have every right to be in the coalitions table! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No the graph is correct, it's just easy to confuse because of the 2 tables having different parties in them. In the 2012 table there are 4 parties in the Centre-Right block, not 3. The People of Freedom, Lega Nord, Italy of Values and The Right and for the early part of 2012 those totals did exceed 40% regularly. Thankyou for your concern but the graph is fine! 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 06:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't be bothered anymore, you've got Excell don't you, do it yourself! It's not hard, it's just fiddly, what with moving tables around! I'm not going to spend my time making tables for an election I am not massively interested in only to be bossed around and insulted. Do it yourself, it's not that much effort for someone who's interested. I'm not particularly interested, I just thought I'd lend a hand, a hand that I thought was needed! Goodbye! Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 18:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
1). Checco, I thought it'd already been agreed not to add Rd since the table is already spilling off the table, but 2). both FiD and Rd are polling far bellow the 4% threshold for parties and unitary electoral lists, so it would be a good idea to remove them. They are effectively irrelevant, and wikipedia's policy is not to insert unnecessary information. If we remove them the table will be more readable, relevant, and will almost fit on my browser page.
The page provide links to the full polls, so if some people are interested in the totals for minor parties, they can easily find them with a single click of their mouse without us having to destroy the article format.
It might also be a good idea to discuss removing the minor left/right parties (PSI, CD, GS, FDI, LD) and replace them with two simple "Other Italy. Common Good" and "Other Center-right" columns. Thoughts? -- 4idaho ( talk) 15:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Last poll 8 feb?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 22:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi @ Impru20:, I copied in my sandbox you great job for the opinion polling tables about 2013 election and I made some modifications. Could you insert the tables in the article? If you don't I can do it; it's still better to have an almost complete list of polls that the current one. Thank you and have a good day! -- Nick.mon ( talk) 07:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Now that coalitions are known, polls for the year 2013 should be written with coalition partners side-by-side, and if there is enough place, add a "coalition sums" column, to see which winner is predicted by the pollster. Kahlores ( talk) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with today's edits by 4idaho. They constitute a total rollback and contain errors and contradictions. In his edits he says that the format I implemented is a "bad format, internally inconsistent", including "incorrect information". "Do not attempt to revert again – he goes – or I will be forced report you for vandalism. Take it up on Talk if you want to reformat the article". He adds that his format "was extensively discussed" and concludes that "Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and you do not have the right to unilaterally make changes. You may propose your changes on Talk for discussion".
First, it is his format (and his explanatory notes) to be inconsistent, incorrect and erroneous, other than bad looking. Secondly, his format was never extensively discussed and, in fact, the only comment in this talk is by Kahlores, who proposes "coalition sums", something that is part of my format and not of 4idaho's.
I have very few doubts on which format is better (take a look at mine and his), but I don't want to open an edit war. I just ask to the other contributors of to decide what is the best and go on. I have worked on this article since January 2012 (at that time the "opinion polls" section was part of the general article on the election). Wikipedia is not a "dictatorship" and I'm not a dictator: if 4idaho's version (with all its errors and inconsistencies) will be implemented as the standard for this article, it's not a big deal, I will simply stand aside and stop contributing to this article, despite being its legitimate father and main editor.
-- Checco ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlike the other listed pollsters, Scenari Politici is not acknowledged by the government's official site (www.sondaggipoliticoelettorali.it). Its survey is conducted only among internet users. Therefore I doubt that it is actually representative. Its result differs significantly from the findings of other pollsters. I think that we should not include the SP poll in the list. We have listed enough other polls from the same period of time. -- RJFF ( talk) 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
We need a graph for this article! Lets discuss options. Obviously we can't include every individual party with it's own line in the graph because it would be impossible to interpret and too busy. I suggest that we have a line graph whereby we combine the polling for the political alliances and parties that have a consistently sufficiently high poll rating. I propose that we include: The Centre-right, Italy. Common Good, With Monti for Italy, Five Star Movement and all others should be included in an others column. Discuss! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, my mistake. Yes RC will need to be included as well. Setting up a graph is really quite simple if you've got Excell, I'll explain:
1. Just highlight the entire polling box from wikipedia, copy and paste it to Excell.
2. Then you need to merge the polling for the individual parties that are within an alliance. You do this by creating a new column for each alliance and doing an equation to get a cumulative figure for the alliance, you will need to do this for the 1st 3 polling figures for each alliance. After that you can simply drag and drop!
3. Then you delete the columns you don't need for the graph i.e. the individual parties that are now included in Alliance columns, the "institute" column and the "UA3" column.
4. Then you highlight all your data and press the graph tab and select line graph, you can the customize it and upload to Wiki.
Hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 21:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have created this table >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not 100% happy with it, it seems pointless including Civil Revolution with their own line because there is not much data for them. If you look hard and squint you can just about see a brown squiggle in the bottom right hand corner of the graph. I couldn't use Orange because it was practically invisible! I am in favour of removing Civil Revolution and including them within others for this reason. I will adapt and upload the new graph if others approve. Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 23:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I like it and yes that sounds a sensible idea, that squiggle is neither use nor ornament, put them in with the others. Thanks for doing this, it looks really good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the table, but RC should be included. It is included in the coalition totals table, and is a relevant part of the upcoming election. There will be more data on them by the time the election comes around. I understand the aesthetic concerns, but the first concern should be its relevance and usefulness. -- 4idaho ( talk) 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for including them within the coalitions table, they are polling high enough etc, that part makes sense. But if we're to be practical there is no sense in including them in the graph, at least not yet because you can hardly see them, the 2nd graph is so much better! If we had data going back to say half way through 2012 I would agree with you because they are polling high enough. A graph is simply a visual aid and I'm afraid their inclusion at this stage is unhelpful. Like I say though they have every right to be in the coalitions table! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No the graph is correct, it's just easy to confuse because of the 2 tables having different parties in them. In the 2012 table there are 4 parties in the Centre-Right block, not 3. The People of Freedom, Lega Nord, Italy of Values and The Right and for the early part of 2012 those totals did exceed 40% regularly. Thankyou for your concern but the graph is fine! 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 06:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't be bothered anymore, you've got Excell don't you, do it yourself! It's not hard, it's just fiddly, what with moving tables around! I'm not going to spend my time making tables for an election I am not massively interested in only to be bossed around and insulted. Do it yourself, it's not that much effort for someone who's interested. I'm not particularly interested, I just thought I'd lend a hand, a hand that I thought was needed! Goodbye! Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 18:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
1). Checco, I thought it'd already been agreed not to add Rd since the table is already spilling off the table, but 2). both FiD and Rd are polling far bellow the 4% threshold for parties and unitary electoral lists, so it would be a good idea to remove them. They are effectively irrelevant, and wikipedia's policy is not to insert unnecessary information. If we remove them the table will be more readable, relevant, and will almost fit on my browser page.
The page provide links to the full polls, so if some people are interested in the totals for minor parties, they can easily find them with a single click of their mouse without us having to destroy the article format.
It might also be a good idea to discuss removing the minor left/right parties (PSI, CD, GS, FDI, LD) and replace them with two simple "Other Italy. Common Good" and "Other Center-right" columns. Thoughts? -- 4idaho ( talk) 15:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Last poll 8 feb?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 22:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi @ Impru20:, I copied in my sandbox you great job for the opinion polling tables about 2013 election and I made some modifications. Could you insert the tables in the article? If you don't I can do it; it's still better to have an almost complete list of polls that the current one. Thank you and have a good day! -- Nick.mon ( talk) 07:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)