![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Previous pages had the parties' names spelled out: National, Labour, etc. I don't think it's a step forward to start using three letter abbreviations (NAT, LAB). It also breaks a computer program I have that reads all the years' tables. Any objection to me changing the column headers to the actual parties' names? ReferenceHunter ( talk) 12:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Some Thing about the table looks weird. For one thing the bottom column really should not be there and there is something strange to the side of the table. here is my proposal: JDuggan101 ( talk) 13:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Poll | Date [nb 1] | Sample size | National | Labour | Green | NZ First | ACT | Māori | TOP | Lead | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26 Oct 2017 – Jacinda Ardern is sworn in as Prime Minister of New Zealand. | |||||||||||
Roy Morgan Research | 2–15 Oct 2017 | 894 | 46 | 31 | 6.5 | 11 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 15 | |
2017 general election | 23 Sep 2017 | – | 44.4 | 36.9 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 7.5 |
Anything in particular? I think the table looks fine as is. Clesam11 ( talk) 01:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
For simplicity, I believe the 3 digit numbers provided by the electoral commission (I.e. 44.4, 36.9, 7.2) for the election results would be better than the currently displayed 4 digit ones. It makes calculating things like the leads a lot easier, as well as fitting better with the 2-3 digit numbers we receive in most poll results. Any objections to this? Clesam11 ( talk) 02:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't think that the "forecast" by Roy Morgan should be counted as such. From what I saw on their site, they haven't actually made a seat calculation; rather someone else has applied the Sainte-Lague formula to the poll numbers to get those seat numbers. In my opinion, only forecasts that take many/all polls into account should count, like what the NZ Herald had for the 2017 election, and sites such as Peter's Stats Stuff and NZ Election Prediction. None of these sites have yet started projections for the 2017-20 term, and probably won't for some time.
Given that it is a proportional system, listing each company as a separate "forecast" is merely equivalent to listing prominently each company's latest result, but out of 120 seats not 100%. 122.58.23.26 ( talk) 08:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
As we all know, there's been some debate above (and on the 2017 polling talk page) about anti-chronological ordering of polling. I've decided to test a solution which makes it possible to sort the polls in both chronological and anti-chronolgical order. The only real downside to this is that the way we previously displayed the dates (5–10 Nov, 10 Oct, etc) would cause it to sort the polls incorrectly. As a solution, with some inspiration from the Canadian polling page, I have made it so only the last day of the survey is displayed, as well as displaying the month names in full. This was the only way I could make the ordering work properly unfortunately. This solution may not be ideal for everyone, so please raise any concerns you have here. Clesam11 ( talk) 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone has added a "lead" column to the table which didn't exist on Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2017. It counts the highest-polling single party's percentage lead over the second-highest-polling single party. This type of figure makes sense for first-past-the-post races such as the race for an individual seat, but it is misleading for indicating who's leading the race for a majority in Parliament, which is not determined by "highest result by a single entrant" like individual seat races, but by "whichever party or collection of parties can command a majority of the 120ish seats in Parliament". It's particularly misleading when NZ currently has the largest single party not part of the government for the first time since 1935 (or since 1984 if you're talking about most votes not most seats) - so it's exactly the wrong timing to introduce such a change if you're interested in accurately reflecting who is "winning" the race to be elected as the government (though it's exactly the right timing if you want to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the current government). It would make more sense to indicate whether the bloc of government parties or the bloc of opposition parties are leading, though even this would be misleading, firstly because NZ First could shift its allegiance, and secondly because it's seat majority that matters, not vote majority. The strength of various potential governing blocs is better indicated by the "Overall result (majority)" row on the Forecasts table. So I suggest we delete the new "lead" column. Elcalebo ( talk) 01:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we please discuss if the "lead" column is misleading, and not if it is "problematic". The inclusion of an analysis column, in a table that otherwise only contains data should be based on the merit/validity of the analysis. For an MMP system the concept of "lead" is misleading as it infers that there is a race with the winner determined by the highest number of votes. As illustrated by the last NZ election, this is not true. The column could be re-named, i.e. highest lead over second place, but the presence of this column is confusing at best and misleading at worst. Usefulmonuments ( talk) 23:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Clesam11: and saw you edits just before leaving this message. Sadly for me I oppose your new format, as it is a bit larger than the previous one and doesn't have the border lines. Although what are your thoughts about changing the format and/or making it better? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Date [nb 1] | Polling organisation | Sample size | NAT | LAB | NZF | GRN | ACT | TOP | MRI | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 Oct – 12 Nov 2017 | Roy Morgan Research | 887 | 40.5 | 39.5 | 5 | 10 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 |
26 Oct 2017 | Jacinda Ardern is sworn in as Prime Minister of New Zealand | |||||||||
2–15 Oct 2017 | Roy Morgan Research | 894 | 46 | 31 | 6.5 | 11 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 15 |
23 Sep 2017 | 2017 election result | N/A | 44.4 | 36.9 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 7.6 |
Date [nb 1] | Polling organisation | Sample size | NAT | LAB | NZF | GRN | ACT | TOP | MRI | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 Oct – 12 Nov 2017 | Roy Morgan Research | 887 | 40.5 | 39.5 | 5 | 10 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 |
26 Oct 2017 | Jacinda Ardern is sworn in as Prime Minister of New Zealand | |||||||||
2–15 Oct 2017 | Roy Morgan Research | 894 | 46 | 31 | 6.5 | 11 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 15 |
23 Sep 2017 | 2017 election result | N/A | 44.4 | 36.9 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 7.6 |
@ Clesam11: The new format looks really clean and tidy, great job. However, more of a pedantic nitpicky observation - just for consistency's sake between the polling tables and the forecast tables, would there be any chance you could consider making the top line of the headings of the polling tables "background:#EAECF0" as well? It would look really nice if the formatting of the tables were congruent throughout the article. (Albiet I do acknolwedge that poor @ Limegreen: may have to, yet again, revisit that R code for the graph... so, ideally, it would be nice to find the right format for the table and just stick with it for the next 3 years ;) -- Sleepingstar ( talk) 20:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the cells with the party names should have a background color – not accessible and also breaks sortability (for those who like to have fun with those columns like I do). Mélencron ( talk) 21:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Lcmortensen: Uh, what does "Not good England" mean? Could you rephrase that please? Clesam11 ( talk) 01:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Clesam11 and Limegreen: Thanks Clesam for the graph, even though I did not expect it to be created until at least by the end of the year, but ok. Though I prefer the same format of the graph as previous ones as what Limegreen did. Did you use 'GraphPad Prism'? Because I prefer to use that, which is the same as the other graphs. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to note that Roy Morgan seem to have stopped their monthly political polling. This is going to make this cycle super-sparse in terms of polls. It seems surprising that no-one is polling following the change of leader for National! (either that, or it isn't out yet). Limegreen ( talk) 00:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Our policy previously on Horizon Research has been that they encourage self-selection through offering prizes and vouchers upon signing up, and we therefor should exclude them. I have previously agreed with this stance, however recently I was browsing and noticed that Reid Research, the company that Newshub commissions for its polling, is participating in very similar behavior by offering prizes and vouchers upon singing up as well. As a result, the case for excluding Horizon polls has become a lot flimsier in my opinion.
Horizon still presumably selects a sample representative of the New Zealand electorate when conducting their polls, so at this point they're employing the same methods as Reid Research as far as I can tell. The only way to justify excluding Horizon at this point would be to also exclude Reid Research. This would put us down to only one public opinion poll in all of New Zealand. So, at this point i'd like to start including Horizon polls in this article as well, but if anyone has any further reason for why we should exclude them it'd be great to hear it! Clesam11 ( talk) 10:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Presently the forecasts section is mostly restating the latest polls in terms of seats instead of the percentages. That seems a bit pointless, and the word "forecast" implies a deeper analysis than just one poll. So I suggest that "forecasts" based on just one poll are removed, and only analyses based on multiple polls such as Stuff's poll of polls, and models such as that run by the Herald in 2017, and the model of Peter's Stats Stuff (see Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Forecasts. I'll also disclose a COI as I run the NZ Election Prediction site that is mentioned alongside Peter's Stat's Stuff on that page as source number 151. AV85647 ( talk) 02:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Because of the formatting changes to the table, and the lack of polling, I didn't really get round to adapting the script until tonight, but wonder if anyone objects going back to the previous style of graphs
I need to get rid of the standard errors, as they are not computing. And could go back to the more intense colours. Thoughts? Limegreen ( talk) 23:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The news these days is all about how Bridges' PPM polling is lower, than say Collins. Suggest we add her to the PPM list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.23.233.228 ( talk) 09:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
There's previously been an opinion that online-only panel polls shouldn't be included here. On the other hand, internationally, YouGov have a pretty good reputation as a pollster, so I'd be pretty inclined to include them. Any thoughts Limegreen ( talk) 13:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I just want to point this out since I believe there is a small edit war on regarding the timeline of events in the opinion polls chart from COVID-19 updates. This edit summary made by Impru20 is something I agree, and so should a lot of users too. It is better to summarise all of this into one line instead of making a huge thread regarding COVID-19 updates since this is the wrong article for it. Thanks and stay safe. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently new numbers from UMR polls have come out. Is it worth adding these to this page? Following are links to sources containing the polling: NZ Herald, Star News, The Guardian and The BFD. These numbers are technically leaked, but I believe they should still be published here with comments regarding their potential lack of reliability and accuracy. All the sources do corroborate. Cheers, WBPchur 💬● ✒️● 💛 08:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC).
In Special:PermanentLink/958833652, by Geoffnz1, the user added a section that they obviously meant to post here. I have copied this section’s heading from that edit; that edit’s content is below:
@ Gwuby: has added a poll taken by Yabble to the preferred Prime Minister section. We haven't used any polls by Yabble in the past, and I suspect that their polls do not adhering to the standards of the more established polling organisations. It looks to me from a quick view of their website that the people who vote in their polls are self-selected. If this is correct, I think we should remove this poll from the article.- gadfium 21:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
They've now polled 1%, the first minor party not currently included to have done so as far as I'm aware.-- Pokelova ( talk) 06:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The contents of Template: 2020 NZ election forecasts as been nuked by people (at split discussions at #Forecasts 2 and Template talk:2020 NZ election forecasts) who don't want there to be too many "forecasts". I strongly disagree with this nuking as I won't care about the seat forecasts directly before the election, it would be more interesting to see the changes throughout the parliamentary term. This would be a useful supplement to the party vote table. Nixinova T C 07:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The tables are only listed in referse chronological order before the election takes place. Once the election is done, it's changed to basic chronological order. See 2017, 2014 etc. This wasn't "unilateral", it's a thing that happens to these opinion polling pages. Nixinova T C 20:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Half the 1 News poll links 404 (everything before mid 2019, I think). Nixinova T C 07:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Previous pages had the parties' names spelled out: National, Labour, etc. I don't think it's a step forward to start using three letter abbreviations (NAT, LAB). It also breaks a computer program I have that reads all the years' tables. Any objection to me changing the column headers to the actual parties' names? ReferenceHunter ( talk) 12:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Some Thing about the table looks weird. For one thing the bottom column really should not be there and there is something strange to the side of the table. here is my proposal: JDuggan101 ( talk) 13:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Poll | Date [nb 1] | Sample size | National | Labour | Green | NZ First | ACT | Māori | TOP | Lead | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26 Oct 2017 – Jacinda Ardern is sworn in as Prime Minister of New Zealand. | |||||||||||
Roy Morgan Research | 2–15 Oct 2017 | 894 | 46 | 31 | 6.5 | 11 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 15 | |
2017 general election | 23 Sep 2017 | – | 44.4 | 36.9 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 7.5 |
Anything in particular? I think the table looks fine as is. Clesam11 ( talk) 01:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
For simplicity, I believe the 3 digit numbers provided by the electoral commission (I.e. 44.4, 36.9, 7.2) for the election results would be better than the currently displayed 4 digit ones. It makes calculating things like the leads a lot easier, as well as fitting better with the 2-3 digit numbers we receive in most poll results. Any objections to this? Clesam11 ( talk) 02:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't think that the "forecast" by Roy Morgan should be counted as such. From what I saw on their site, they haven't actually made a seat calculation; rather someone else has applied the Sainte-Lague formula to the poll numbers to get those seat numbers. In my opinion, only forecasts that take many/all polls into account should count, like what the NZ Herald had for the 2017 election, and sites such as Peter's Stats Stuff and NZ Election Prediction. None of these sites have yet started projections for the 2017-20 term, and probably won't for some time.
Given that it is a proportional system, listing each company as a separate "forecast" is merely equivalent to listing prominently each company's latest result, but out of 120 seats not 100%. 122.58.23.26 ( talk) 08:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
As we all know, there's been some debate above (and on the 2017 polling talk page) about anti-chronological ordering of polling. I've decided to test a solution which makes it possible to sort the polls in both chronological and anti-chronolgical order. The only real downside to this is that the way we previously displayed the dates (5–10 Nov, 10 Oct, etc) would cause it to sort the polls incorrectly. As a solution, with some inspiration from the Canadian polling page, I have made it so only the last day of the survey is displayed, as well as displaying the month names in full. This was the only way I could make the ordering work properly unfortunately. This solution may not be ideal for everyone, so please raise any concerns you have here. Clesam11 ( talk) 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone has added a "lead" column to the table which didn't exist on Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2017. It counts the highest-polling single party's percentage lead over the second-highest-polling single party. This type of figure makes sense for first-past-the-post races such as the race for an individual seat, but it is misleading for indicating who's leading the race for a majority in Parliament, which is not determined by "highest result by a single entrant" like individual seat races, but by "whichever party or collection of parties can command a majority of the 120ish seats in Parliament". It's particularly misleading when NZ currently has the largest single party not part of the government for the first time since 1935 (or since 1984 if you're talking about most votes not most seats) - so it's exactly the wrong timing to introduce such a change if you're interested in accurately reflecting who is "winning" the race to be elected as the government (though it's exactly the right timing if you want to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the current government). It would make more sense to indicate whether the bloc of government parties or the bloc of opposition parties are leading, though even this would be misleading, firstly because NZ First could shift its allegiance, and secondly because it's seat majority that matters, not vote majority. The strength of various potential governing blocs is better indicated by the "Overall result (majority)" row on the Forecasts table. So I suggest we delete the new "lead" column. Elcalebo ( talk) 01:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we please discuss if the "lead" column is misleading, and not if it is "problematic". The inclusion of an analysis column, in a table that otherwise only contains data should be based on the merit/validity of the analysis. For an MMP system the concept of "lead" is misleading as it infers that there is a race with the winner determined by the highest number of votes. As illustrated by the last NZ election, this is not true. The column could be re-named, i.e. highest lead over second place, but the presence of this column is confusing at best and misleading at worst. Usefulmonuments ( talk) 23:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Clesam11: and saw you edits just before leaving this message. Sadly for me I oppose your new format, as it is a bit larger than the previous one and doesn't have the border lines. Although what are your thoughts about changing the format and/or making it better? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Date [nb 1] | Polling organisation | Sample size | NAT | LAB | NZF | GRN | ACT | TOP | MRI | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 Oct – 12 Nov 2017 | Roy Morgan Research | 887 | 40.5 | 39.5 | 5 | 10 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 |
26 Oct 2017 | Jacinda Ardern is sworn in as Prime Minister of New Zealand | |||||||||
2–15 Oct 2017 | Roy Morgan Research | 894 | 46 | 31 | 6.5 | 11 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 15 |
23 Sep 2017 | 2017 election result | N/A | 44.4 | 36.9 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 7.6 |
Date [nb 1] | Polling organisation | Sample size | NAT | LAB | NZF | GRN | ACT | TOP | MRI | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 Oct – 12 Nov 2017 | Roy Morgan Research | 887 | 40.5 | 39.5 | 5 | 10 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 |
26 Oct 2017 | Jacinda Ardern is sworn in as Prime Minister of New Zealand | |||||||||
2–15 Oct 2017 | Roy Morgan Research | 894 | 46 | 31 | 6.5 | 11 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 15 |
23 Sep 2017 | 2017 election result | N/A | 44.4 | 36.9 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 7.6 |
@ Clesam11: The new format looks really clean and tidy, great job. However, more of a pedantic nitpicky observation - just for consistency's sake between the polling tables and the forecast tables, would there be any chance you could consider making the top line of the headings of the polling tables "background:#EAECF0" as well? It would look really nice if the formatting of the tables were congruent throughout the article. (Albiet I do acknolwedge that poor @ Limegreen: may have to, yet again, revisit that R code for the graph... so, ideally, it would be nice to find the right format for the table and just stick with it for the next 3 years ;) -- Sleepingstar ( talk) 20:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the cells with the party names should have a background color – not accessible and also breaks sortability (for those who like to have fun with those columns like I do). Mélencron ( talk) 21:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Lcmortensen: Uh, what does "Not good England" mean? Could you rephrase that please? Clesam11 ( talk) 01:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Clesam11 and Limegreen: Thanks Clesam for the graph, even though I did not expect it to be created until at least by the end of the year, but ok. Though I prefer the same format of the graph as previous ones as what Limegreen did. Did you use 'GraphPad Prism'? Because I prefer to use that, which is the same as the other graphs. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to note that Roy Morgan seem to have stopped their monthly political polling. This is going to make this cycle super-sparse in terms of polls. It seems surprising that no-one is polling following the change of leader for National! (either that, or it isn't out yet). Limegreen ( talk) 00:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Our policy previously on Horizon Research has been that they encourage self-selection through offering prizes and vouchers upon signing up, and we therefor should exclude them. I have previously agreed with this stance, however recently I was browsing and noticed that Reid Research, the company that Newshub commissions for its polling, is participating in very similar behavior by offering prizes and vouchers upon singing up as well. As a result, the case for excluding Horizon polls has become a lot flimsier in my opinion.
Horizon still presumably selects a sample representative of the New Zealand electorate when conducting their polls, so at this point they're employing the same methods as Reid Research as far as I can tell. The only way to justify excluding Horizon at this point would be to also exclude Reid Research. This would put us down to only one public opinion poll in all of New Zealand. So, at this point i'd like to start including Horizon polls in this article as well, but if anyone has any further reason for why we should exclude them it'd be great to hear it! Clesam11 ( talk) 10:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Presently the forecasts section is mostly restating the latest polls in terms of seats instead of the percentages. That seems a bit pointless, and the word "forecast" implies a deeper analysis than just one poll. So I suggest that "forecasts" based on just one poll are removed, and only analyses based on multiple polls such as Stuff's poll of polls, and models such as that run by the Herald in 2017, and the model of Peter's Stats Stuff (see Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Forecasts. I'll also disclose a COI as I run the NZ Election Prediction site that is mentioned alongside Peter's Stat's Stuff on that page as source number 151. AV85647 ( talk) 02:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Because of the formatting changes to the table, and the lack of polling, I didn't really get round to adapting the script until tonight, but wonder if anyone objects going back to the previous style of graphs
I need to get rid of the standard errors, as they are not computing. And could go back to the more intense colours. Thoughts? Limegreen ( talk) 23:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The news these days is all about how Bridges' PPM polling is lower, than say Collins. Suggest we add her to the PPM list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.23.233.228 ( talk) 09:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
There's previously been an opinion that online-only panel polls shouldn't be included here. On the other hand, internationally, YouGov have a pretty good reputation as a pollster, so I'd be pretty inclined to include them. Any thoughts Limegreen ( talk) 13:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I just want to point this out since I believe there is a small edit war on regarding the timeline of events in the opinion polls chart from COVID-19 updates. This edit summary made by Impru20 is something I agree, and so should a lot of users too. It is better to summarise all of this into one line instead of making a huge thread regarding COVID-19 updates since this is the wrong article for it. Thanks and stay safe. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently new numbers from UMR polls have come out. Is it worth adding these to this page? Following are links to sources containing the polling: NZ Herald, Star News, The Guardian and The BFD. These numbers are technically leaked, but I believe they should still be published here with comments regarding their potential lack of reliability and accuracy. All the sources do corroborate. Cheers, WBPchur 💬● ✒️● 💛 08:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC).
In Special:PermanentLink/958833652, by Geoffnz1, the user added a section that they obviously meant to post here. I have copied this section’s heading from that edit; that edit’s content is below:
@ Gwuby: has added a poll taken by Yabble to the preferred Prime Minister section. We haven't used any polls by Yabble in the past, and I suspect that their polls do not adhering to the standards of the more established polling organisations. It looks to me from a quick view of their website that the people who vote in their polls are self-selected. If this is correct, I think we should remove this poll from the article.- gadfium 21:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
They've now polled 1%, the first minor party not currently included to have done so as far as I'm aware.-- Pokelova ( talk) 06:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The contents of Template: 2020 NZ election forecasts as been nuked by people (at split discussions at #Forecasts 2 and Template talk:2020 NZ election forecasts) who don't want there to be too many "forecasts". I strongly disagree with this nuking as I won't care about the seat forecasts directly before the election, it would be more interesting to see the changes throughout the parliamentary term. This would be a useful supplement to the party vote table. Nixinova T C 07:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The tables are only listed in referse chronological order before the election takes place. Once the election is done, it's changed to basic chronological order. See 2017, 2014 etc. This wasn't "unilateral", it's a thing that happens to these opinion polling pages. Nixinova T C 20:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Half the 1 News poll links 404 (everything before mid 2019, I think). Nixinova T C 07:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)