![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
As you can see, I've added a column for Meral Akşener's hypothetical future party. The party itself is controversial, and I'm sure adding it here – before it has even been legally established – is as well. However, unless the Turkish government is somehow able to block the formation of her new party, which is of course yet to be named, it's almost certain that it will be formed in the period September—November 2017, with most recent sources setting the date for late October. More and more polling firms are including her party, and I believe this is more than enough of a reason to include it here as well. We could perhaps even add footnotes explaining the party's current status, if some contributors remain skeptical. — Μαρκος Δ 22:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we restructure the table of opinion polls for the presidential election along the lines on the Brazilian one. Since few parties have announced their candidates yet, the candidates presented to respondents in opinion polls vary, which leads to an excessively wide table. If we instead just reduce it to one column per party, with candidate names in parentheses, that would eliminate said problem. Once all main candidates have been announced, we can perhaps again begin using the current, more standard layout. — Μαρκος Δ 17:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Would a Turkish speaker add this PIAR poll? [1] = [2] -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 15:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
it's not clear nov 15 nov 16 nov 17 , that these are years, and also where for instance march or last year may is .. the graph needs better time indicator each 3 month written like here -- 31.202.25.100 ( talk) 16:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Could we create a table for polls explicitly showing alliance vs alliance numbers? E.g. for the PIAR poll conducted on 1 May, we could use the scenario where the Cumhur alliance is on 44.7, Millet on 40.2 and HDP on 14.9? I think this would be more useful seeing as the election will not be fought party v party, but rather, alliance v alliance... Masterpha ( talk) 13:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Μαρκος Δ any thoughts? Masterpha ( talk) 13:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
In the "second round" subsection on the presidential election, readers get confused and at least annoyed by the mix of relevant pairs with irrelevant pairs. And technically speaking, these irrelevant pairs to not even concern the topic of the article, the election. Seeking consensus to remove the irrelevant pairs. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Berkaysnklf, Mélencron, Nub Cake, Panam2014, 2A1ZA,
Hello! Multiple users have voiced concerns and wishes for how this article should be structured, and there have been many good suggestions and contributions. One of the opinions that it seems most of us share, is that it could be helpful to include coalition totals for both the parliamentary voting intention and seat projection sections, though this issue could be difficult to resolve in practice. I propose that we go with the simple layout used in, for example, the case of Denmark.
Based on our discussions so far, I have made a draft version of a new table, which includes coalition totals going back to 18 April, when the election was called. However, more could be added later so it goes back further, but maybe not further than to the gray "2018" row, since the coalitions were only officially founded very recently, and that would perhaps qualify as original research. I suggest that in multi-scenario polls, we still keep in all the different scenarios in the "parties" columns, and just calculate totals ourselves in the "coalitions" columns. In other words, the "coalitions" columns are not meant to replace content in the "parties" columns. I have also slightly reduced the font size in order for it all to fit; presently, the seat projections in the article are too wide. Lastly, I've removed some of the innumerable "comment" rows, which contained information I consider trivial. The only ones I have kept are those marking years, changes in government, and the ones that are directly elected to the conduct of the 2018 election. Party and coalition changes have been removed, since they clogged up the table, and are not even related to opinion polls.
I'd like for all of you to have a look at it in my sandbox; if you give it the green light, I'll just go ahead and insert it into this article. Though if you have concerns or objections, please voice them here so we can try and resolve them. Meanwhile, the small details are not important now, since the table can naturally be modified later; the most important thing is that everyone is okay with the restructuring itself. I'll be awaiting your responses. Μαρκος Δ 17:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so now I have reached the point where I think we have a good balance of many of the suggestions that have come up. What I now hope is the final draft can be found here. After originally following the Danish model by placing alliance totals to the right of the party vote, it quickly became clear that it wouldn't work; the table became far too wide, and with the "comment" rows required to mark alliance founding dates, also far too messy and complicated. If it looks complicated to us, I can only imagine what a casual, non-political reader would think. That's why I've made the move to instead go for the Italian model suggested by Gbuvn, by moving the alliance table just below the party table, which also makes it more consistent with the seat projection section. This leaves only one issue: shading of alliance totals.
It was mentioned that we should shade AK Parti's seat shares even if they were smaller than the "others" category, since the category "others" technically isn't a group that can be in the lead. However, in the table for alliance vote shares, some polls conducted before the formal creation of the Millet alliance give scenarios with opposition alliances a lead over AKP. Which means that even though AKP are the only alliance, they don't have the lead, and shading them would go against the actual data in our sources. Therefore, I've decided to open up for the shading of the "others" category whenever it's in the lead in that table. This has been done in the case of Japan and likely a few others, so I suppose there's a certain precedence for it. With that, I think we have found the only solution that could work. Like I said, I'll insert this into the main article within the next day or two. Μαρκος Δ 15:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think HDP and others can be added seperately to the Alliance section and we should amend the part as "with Alliances", so that the results can be seen completely. We can note that HDP is not part of an alliance. Can be easier to understand. Just a suggestion.
Berkaysnklf (
Berkaysnklf)
23:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Whilst I know that ‘IYI’ may be seen as a suitable abbreviation for the party due to the fact that it is only 3 letter, I do think that it would be better for us to refer to it as ‘IP’. IYI is the first word of the party, and it’s full name is actually ‘Iyi Parti’. Same with AKP- ‘Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi’, CHP-‘Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi’ or SP: ‘Saadet Partisi’ but we don’t abbreviate them as ‘Adalet ve Kalkınma’, ‘Cumhuriyet Halk’ or ‘Saadet’ because that would literally mean ‘Justice and Development’, ‘Republic Peoples’ and ‘Felicity’. If we put ‘IYI’ we’re literally just putting ‘Good’ as an option for a party. ‘IYI Parti’ is it’s full name, and therefore ‘IP’ should be it’s abbreviation. Masterpha ( talk) 13:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Μαρκος Δ: As I stated when making that edit, I think the alliance vote table should come first as some polls are not even asking about parties separately but only alliances. We also talked about how polls where parties are asked separately are still summed and added to this table anyways - so the alliance table is more comprehensive anyways. Also you are saying that people vote for parties but even if you stamp your ballot smack in the middle of two allied parties it will still be a valid vote for the alliance (even though it normally would not be valid for a single party). The graph is also not very useful as I said since so many pollsters are biased or straight up propaganda machines, and this inaccuracy or misleading picture can be seen with a 10% change within a month in the AKP vote there. Junk2711 ( talk) 21:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
People vote for parties, not alliances [...]
— User:Μαρκος Δ
The polls here seem to have been selected to push an anti-AKP/MHP/Cumhur ittifaki/Erdogan agenda and show them as less popular as possible.
There is no Andy AR or Metropoll which are considered big polling companies. Yet there is PIAR which is biased and so far out even compared with opposition friendly polling stations like Sonar and Gezici.
My suspicion is that this biased selection will be used to fuel accusaions of "rigging" - you know what the opposition uses to explain the fact that the Turkish public rejected them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozan454 ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The people who purposely ignored major polling A&G and Metropoll. Piar is so ridiculous that it is about 10-15% from even polling organizations that are positively biased towards the opposition. Piar's twitter account show's it own political leanings very openly.
Haha you have even included CHP which is not even a polling organization, but a opposition political party. There is not even a sample or methodology given. I guess that when the election results come in and don't match their biased so called "polls", they will be crying about "rigging" and "cheating" as always :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozan454 ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In 1.1.2, Lead #1 is the difference between the highest and second-highest score, and Lead #2 is the difference between the 2nd and 3rd highest. In 1.1.4, Lead #2 is the difference between highest and second-highest, and I just can't figure out what Lead #1 is. No possible difference amounts to the 34.8 percent given in the table. Is that an error? -- Thorwyn ( talk) 16:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Parliamentary simulation for "plus kayak" poll doesn't have the right calculation in alliances section. Basically it won't make 600/600 Guest
https://indigodergisi.com/2018/06/en-son-secim-anketleri/
A very good collection of the last nine opinion polls in Turkey.
There is a significant percentage (9.1%) missing, in special if you take in account that there is a share for 'others'. So that does not seem to make it a reliable poll then. Maybe removing it? Nurkartal ( talk) 16:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
As you can see, I've added a column for Meral Akşener's hypothetical future party. The party itself is controversial, and I'm sure adding it here – before it has even been legally established – is as well. However, unless the Turkish government is somehow able to block the formation of her new party, which is of course yet to be named, it's almost certain that it will be formed in the period September—November 2017, with most recent sources setting the date for late October. More and more polling firms are including her party, and I believe this is more than enough of a reason to include it here as well. We could perhaps even add footnotes explaining the party's current status, if some contributors remain skeptical. — Μαρκος Δ 22:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we restructure the table of opinion polls for the presidential election along the lines on the Brazilian one. Since few parties have announced their candidates yet, the candidates presented to respondents in opinion polls vary, which leads to an excessively wide table. If we instead just reduce it to one column per party, with candidate names in parentheses, that would eliminate said problem. Once all main candidates have been announced, we can perhaps again begin using the current, more standard layout. — Μαρκος Δ 17:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Would a Turkish speaker add this PIAR poll? [1] = [2] -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 15:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
it's not clear nov 15 nov 16 nov 17 , that these are years, and also where for instance march or last year may is .. the graph needs better time indicator each 3 month written like here -- 31.202.25.100 ( talk) 16:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Could we create a table for polls explicitly showing alliance vs alliance numbers? E.g. for the PIAR poll conducted on 1 May, we could use the scenario where the Cumhur alliance is on 44.7, Millet on 40.2 and HDP on 14.9? I think this would be more useful seeing as the election will not be fought party v party, but rather, alliance v alliance... Masterpha ( talk) 13:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Μαρκος Δ any thoughts? Masterpha ( talk) 13:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
In the "second round" subsection on the presidential election, readers get confused and at least annoyed by the mix of relevant pairs with irrelevant pairs. And technically speaking, these irrelevant pairs to not even concern the topic of the article, the election. Seeking consensus to remove the irrelevant pairs. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Berkaysnklf, Mélencron, Nub Cake, Panam2014, 2A1ZA,
Hello! Multiple users have voiced concerns and wishes for how this article should be structured, and there have been many good suggestions and contributions. One of the opinions that it seems most of us share, is that it could be helpful to include coalition totals for both the parliamentary voting intention and seat projection sections, though this issue could be difficult to resolve in practice. I propose that we go with the simple layout used in, for example, the case of Denmark.
Based on our discussions so far, I have made a draft version of a new table, which includes coalition totals going back to 18 April, when the election was called. However, more could be added later so it goes back further, but maybe not further than to the gray "2018" row, since the coalitions were only officially founded very recently, and that would perhaps qualify as original research. I suggest that in multi-scenario polls, we still keep in all the different scenarios in the "parties" columns, and just calculate totals ourselves in the "coalitions" columns. In other words, the "coalitions" columns are not meant to replace content in the "parties" columns. I have also slightly reduced the font size in order for it all to fit; presently, the seat projections in the article are too wide. Lastly, I've removed some of the innumerable "comment" rows, which contained information I consider trivial. The only ones I have kept are those marking years, changes in government, and the ones that are directly elected to the conduct of the 2018 election. Party and coalition changes have been removed, since they clogged up the table, and are not even related to opinion polls.
I'd like for all of you to have a look at it in my sandbox; if you give it the green light, I'll just go ahead and insert it into this article. Though if you have concerns or objections, please voice them here so we can try and resolve them. Meanwhile, the small details are not important now, since the table can naturally be modified later; the most important thing is that everyone is okay with the restructuring itself. I'll be awaiting your responses. Μαρκος Δ 17:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so now I have reached the point where I think we have a good balance of many of the suggestions that have come up. What I now hope is the final draft can be found here. After originally following the Danish model by placing alliance totals to the right of the party vote, it quickly became clear that it wouldn't work; the table became far too wide, and with the "comment" rows required to mark alliance founding dates, also far too messy and complicated. If it looks complicated to us, I can only imagine what a casual, non-political reader would think. That's why I've made the move to instead go for the Italian model suggested by Gbuvn, by moving the alliance table just below the party table, which also makes it more consistent with the seat projection section. This leaves only one issue: shading of alliance totals.
It was mentioned that we should shade AK Parti's seat shares even if they were smaller than the "others" category, since the category "others" technically isn't a group that can be in the lead. However, in the table for alliance vote shares, some polls conducted before the formal creation of the Millet alliance give scenarios with opposition alliances a lead over AKP. Which means that even though AKP are the only alliance, they don't have the lead, and shading them would go against the actual data in our sources. Therefore, I've decided to open up for the shading of the "others" category whenever it's in the lead in that table. This has been done in the case of Japan and likely a few others, so I suppose there's a certain precedence for it. With that, I think we have found the only solution that could work. Like I said, I'll insert this into the main article within the next day or two. Μαρκος Δ 15:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think HDP and others can be added seperately to the Alliance section and we should amend the part as "with Alliances", so that the results can be seen completely. We can note that HDP is not part of an alliance. Can be easier to understand. Just a suggestion.
Berkaysnklf (
Berkaysnklf)
23:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Whilst I know that ‘IYI’ may be seen as a suitable abbreviation for the party due to the fact that it is only 3 letter, I do think that it would be better for us to refer to it as ‘IP’. IYI is the first word of the party, and it’s full name is actually ‘Iyi Parti’. Same with AKP- ‘Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi’, CHP-‘Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi’ or SP: ‘Saadet Partisi’ but we don’t abbreviate them as ‘Adalet ve Kalkınma’, ‘Cumhuriyet Halk’ or ‘Saadet’ because that would literally mean ‘Justice and Development’, ‘Republic Peoples’ and ‘Felicity’. If we put ‘IYI’ we’re literally just putting ‘Good’ as an option for a party. ‘IYI Parti’ is it’s full name, and therefore ‘IP’ should be it’s abbreviation. Masterpha ( talk) 13:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Μαρκος Δ: As I stated when making that edit, I think the alliance vote table should come first as some polls are not even asking about parties separately but only alliances. We also talked about how polls where parties are asked separately are still summed and added to this table anyways - so the alliance table is more comprehensive anyways. Also you are saying that people vote for parties but even if you stamp your ballot smack in the middle of two allied parties it will still be a valid vote for the alliance (even though it normally would not be valid for a single party). The graph is also not very useful as I said since so many pollsters are biased or straight up propaganda machines, and this inaccuracy or misleading picture can be seen with a 10% change within a month in the AKP vote there. Junk2711 ( talk) 21:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
People vote for parties, not alliances [...]
— User:Μαρκος Δ
The polls here seem to have been selected to push an anti-AKP/MHP/Cumhur ittifaki/Erdogan agenda and show them as less popular as possible.
There is no Andy AR or Metropoll which are considered big polling companies. Yet there is PIAR which is biased and so far out even compared with opposition friendly polling stations like Sonar and Gezici.
My suspicion is that this biased selection will be used to fuel accusaions of "rigging" - you know what the opposition uses to explain the fact that the Turkish public rejected them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozan454 ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The people who purposely ignored major polling A&G and Metropoll. Piar is so ridiculous that it is about 10-15% from even polling organizations that are positively biased towards the opposition. Piar's twitter account show's it own political leanings very openly.
Haha you have even included CHP which is not even a polling organization, but a opposition political party. There is not even a sample or methodology given. I guess that when the election results come in and don't match their biased so called "polls", they will be crying about "rigging" and "cheating" as always :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozan454 ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In 1.1.2, Lead #1 is the difference between the highest and second-highest score, and Lead #2 is the difference between the 2nd and 3rd highest. In 1.1.4, Lead #2 is the difference between highest and second-highest, and I just can't figure out what Lead #1 is. No possible difference amounts to the 34.8 percent given in the table. Is that an error? -- Thorwyn ( talk) 16:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Parliamentary simulation for "plus kayak" poll doesn't have the right calculation in alliances section. Basically it won't make 600/600 Guest
https://indigodergisi.com/2018/06/en-son-secim-anketleri/
A very good collection of the last nine opinion polls in Turkey.
There is a significant percentage (9.1%) missing, in special if you take in account that there is a share for 'others'. So that does not seem to make it a reliable poll then. Maybe removing it? Nurkartal ( talk) 16:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)