This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Opinion polling for the 2021 Canadian federal election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the Nanos tracking releases, voter intention and other information is blanked out but the hidden text is still copiable and viewable in part of the English text, and in whole in the French text. Considering this information is only meant to be accessible to subscribers, is it okay to add this information to the wiki page? EDIT: the redacted ballot figures appear to be identical to the Nanos tracking release with data ending July 12, while the other redacted text is that same as what was included in old redacted Nanos reports. These are not up-to-date ballot figures. 2607:FEA8:F1DF:F3C2:750E:309D:9505:ABE0 ( talk) 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I note that on previous Canadian federal election polling pages, the parties were ordered by popular vote share (in the previous election) in the poll table rather than by number of seats won. For example, in the poll tables for the 2006, 2008 and 2011 elections, the NDP was placed before the BQ, having received a larger share of the popular vote than the BQ in the respective previous elections, but fewer seats. Should we continue to apply this precedent here? If so, the order would need to be: CPC, LPC, NDP, BQ, GPC. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 13:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This new graph just added is a problem: the Liberals are in blue and the Conservatives are in red??? That is really going to confuse readers! - Ahunt ( talk) 15:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The graph does not appear to be updating correctly.
Of the 7 polls since the election the cpc have been ahead in 2 and the LPC ahead in 5.
However, the graph shows the cpc ahead for almost the entirety.
I do not update the graph, only input data in the ballot intention and preferred prime minister, but there appears to be a discrepancy Mikemikem ( talk) 02:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
So, Frank Graves (EKOS) posted opinion polling numbers to his personal twitter and I was wondering if we count them or should we wait for the official release? What we did in previous pages was to count them and change the link once the official pdf was online. - MikkelJSmith ( talk) 00:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The actual numbers referenced show 10% uncertain and 4% would not vote, with 34% Liberal and 23% Conservative. That is, the Lib 40 -- Con 27 numbers in the table are correct when taken as a percentage of decided, intended voters (adj = raw/[0.10+0.04]), but are not directly found in the source document. I am therefore adding the following wording to the article: "The numbers below reflect the percentage of decided, intended voters answering each survey." 174.3.236.243 ( talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) --- After some reflection, I've changed this wording to "For surveys that have published the percentage of undecided voters and those refusing to vote, the numbers below reflect the percentage of decided, intended voters." 174.3.236.243 ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
--Frankly I think its unprofessional to try and supply a decided vote total for each party when we weren't given that data to begin with. Innovative shouldn't be included if they can't provide a proper decided vote total and that's entirely on them as a polling organization. - P.C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.187.213 ( talk) 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
In fact Innovative provided all the data you accuse them of not providing. Please read p. 32 and further information p. 46 of the PDF. It is unprofessional to make comments such as yours. 174.3.236.243 ( talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
So, Abacus has decided to give us a headache. https://twitter.com/DavidColetto/status/1253718496250380288, https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1253725396312494086
They've done a recent poll, which we can add easily. But, unfortunately, they've given us numbers for March and February without sample sizes. I don't think we've ever had this scenario before. We've had no MoE with Innovative but not this. So what do we do? Undermedia, Ahunt - MikkelJSmith ( talk) 16:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear all: I notice that the polls currently listed in the "Regional polls" section are a general mess, with links not pointing to the right documents, incorrectly entered sample sizes, etc. Furthermore, I believe we previously had this discussion on the 2019 election polling page about whether we should be additionally documenting the provincial/regional breakdowns from nation-wide polls. Because if we do, for the sake of consistency and completeness, it would need to be done for all nation-wide polls that include regional breakdowns, not just some, as well as for all regions in Canada, not just some (currently there's only Ontario and Quebec). And if we do all that, I'm concerned that this page will end up growing to impractical proportions. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 16:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The PPC should probably be confined to other at this point. No one is really prompting for them. Thoughts Ahunt, Undermedia? - MikkelJSmith ( talk) 13:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother putting them in the graph at this point. The PPC line would be just a very small dribble at the very bottom, with no real trend and wouldn't tell readers anything useful. As I noted above, I think the polls will stop even reporting them after the next election and just lump into "other". - Ahunt ( talk) 19:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
It appears that the new Innovative poll ending on 1 Sep 2020 overlaps with their previous poll ending on 18 Aug 2020, as the former's field dates were 6 Aug – 1 Sep while the latter's were 6 Aug – 18 Aug. I'm therefore listing the new poll as a rolling poll and reducing its sample size by the sample size of the previous poll (new sample size = 4,242 - 1,934 = 2,308) as is standard practice with rolling polls. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 16:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The Globe and Mail has published a chart with the weekly Nanos numbers going back to 2015.
Should we go back and add these numbers/modify previous numbers where there are discrepancies? I would work on this. Lilactree201 ( talk) 16:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Does the web archive work for you? It worked on Safari and Chrome but not Firefox for me.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210709152857/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-data-dive-with-nik-nanos-is-now-the-right-time-for-an-election/ Lilactree201 ( talk) 17:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I will plug away at it. Others welcome to join! Lilactree201 ( talk) 23:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a note that the numbers for this poll don't seem to add up: 35% LPC + 26% CPC + 16% NDP + 5% BQ + 5% GPC + 6% Other = 93%. And it's not because the undecideds haven't been eliminated because if you add the 12% undecided we're up to 105%. Must be a mistake in the article, so keep an eye out for a correction or a proper report for the poll on Mainstreet's website. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 13:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Are we certain that the Mainstreet poll posted by @Canadianpolling ( https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1427630100774858764) Actually exists? It doesn't show up on the 338 website linked to in the tweet, nor in CBC News's official poll tracker, nor on Mainstreet research's official twitter (@MainStResearch) I just can't find a reference to it anywhere outside of this tweet. Typo, fraudulent, or genuine? 194.105.229.243 ( talk) 11:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
That's convenient that iPolitics' Election Barometer is now tweeting the daily Mainstreet rolling poll results, but I'm wondering where the sample size (e.g. 1,571 for the poll ending on 18 Aug) was found? One of our page editors was able to access it from behind the paywall? Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone able to create a new archived link to today's (18 Sep) Mainstreet results? Every time I try to do it, it just sends me to a previously archived version of the page created earlier this morning at 9:30 UTC that still shows yesterday's results. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 13:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Nanos/G&M have made all the Nanos data since 2014 public at a new Nanos data portal. Most of the recent results are there, but there's new data for July 23 and August 6, 2021. And it looks like current daily data starts later this morning. Nfitz ( talk) 13:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, added! Kiltarni ( talk) 20:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Ekos is going to be releasing a 3 day roll and a 4 day roll. Which one should we consider the “official” one to put here? Surely we don’t want to always put 2 overlapping polls that are basically the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemikem ( talk • contribs)
It looks like all of our Mainstreet research archived links are broken…anyone know what to do to fix it? ~~Mikemikem
Ah ok. Hopefully it does get fixed that’s basically all of our MS polls. Mikemikem ( talk) 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The Mainstreet archive link for September the tenth is missing the cartogram map, the data tables, the bar chart, and the circle chart is outdated, does anyone know why? LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague ( talk) 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
My bad, 9 September. Know anything as to why it's incomplete? LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague ( talk) 14:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I see, I'll try capturing it again to get all the graphics. LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague ( talk) 14:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It looks like now Sept 9 and Sept 10 are incomplete missing various data tables… is it possible this is due to a change on Mainstreet website, or just incomplete archiving? ~~Mikemikem
Ah ok. I suppose we should be thankful it works at all, and as long as we get the top line figures it’s a good enough link for the table Mikemikem ( talk) 13:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. For the past few days I've been experiencing difficulties updating the graph because there seems to be a variable lag between when new polls are added to the table and when the software that generates the graph is able to "see" them. I've researched the issue a bit and it seems that it's likely a problem on the Wikipedia server end rather than on my end. At this moment I'm still unable to update the graph with the final polls added yesterday evening, but I'll keep trying and get it finalized as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Opinion polling for the 2021 Canadian federal election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the Nanos tracking releases, voter intention and other information is blanked out but the hidden text is still copiable and viewable in part of the English text, and in whole in the French text. Considering this information is only meant to be accessible to subscribers, is it okay to add this information to the wiki page? EDIT: the redacted ballot figures appear to be identical to the Nanos tracking release with data ending July 12, while the other redacted text is that same as what was included in old redacted Nanos reports. These are not up-to-date ballot figures. 2607:FEA8:F1DF:F3C2:750E:309D:9505:ABE0 ( talk) 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I note that on previous Canadian federal election polling pages, the parties were ordered by popular vote share (in the previous election) in the poll table rather than by number of seats won. For example, in the poll tables for the 2006, 2008 and 2011 elections, the NDP was placed before the BQ, having received a larger share of the popular vote than the BQ in the respective previous elections, but fewer seats. Should we continue to apply this precedent here? If so, the order would need to be: CPC, LPC, NDP, BQ, GPC. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 13:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This new graph just added is a problem: the Liberals are in blue and the Conservatives are in red??? That is really going to confuse readers! - Ahunt ( talk) 15:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The graph does not appear to be updating correctly.
Of the 7 polls since the election the cpc have been ahead in 2 and the LPC ahead in 5.
However, the graph shows the cpc ahead for almost the entirety.
I do not update the graph, only input data in the ballot intention and preferred prime minister, but there appears to be a discrepancy Mikemikem ( talk) 02:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
So, Frank Graves (EKOS) posted opinion polling numbers to his personal twitter and I was wondering if we count them or should we wait for the official release? What we did in previous pages was to count them and change the link once the official pdf was online. - MikkelJSmith ( talk) 00:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The actual numbers referenced show 10% uncertain and 4% would not vote, with 34% Liberal and 23% Conservative. That is, the Lib 40 -- Con 27 numbers in the table are correct when taken as a percentage of decided, intended voters (adj = raw/[0.10+0.04]), but are not directly found in the source document. I am therefore adding the following wording to the article: "The numbers below reflect the percentage of decided, intended voters answering each survey." 174.3.236.243 ( talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) --- After some reflection, I've changed this wording to "For surveys that have published the percentage of undecided voters and those refusing to vote, the numbers below reflect the percentage of decided, intended voters." 174.3.236.243 ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
--Frankly I think its unprofessional to try and supply a decided vote total for each party when we weren't given that data to begin with. Innovative shouldn't be included if they can't provide a proper decided vote total and that's entirely on them as a polling organization. - P.C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.187.213 ( talk) 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
In fact Innovative provided all the data you accuse them of not providing. Please read p. 32 and further information p. 46 of the PDF. It is unprofessional to make comments such as yours. 174.3.236.243 ( talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
So, Abacus has decided to give us a headache. https://twitter.com/DavidColetto/status/1253718496250380288, https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1253725396312494086
They've done a recent poll, which we can add easily. But, unfortunately, they've given us numbers for March and February without sample sizes. I don't think we've ever had this scenario before. We've had no MoE with Innovative but not this. So what do we do? Undermedia, Ahunt - MikkelJSmith ( talk) 16:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear all: I notice that the polls currently listed in the "Regional polls" section are a general mess, with links not pointing to the right documents, incorrectly entered sample sizes, etc. Furthermore, I believe we previously had this discussion on the 2019 election polling page about whether we should be additionally documenting the provincial/regional breakdowns from nation-wide polls. Because if we do, for the sake of consistency and completeness, it would need to be done for all nation-wide polls that include regional breakdowns, not just some, as well as for all regions in Canada, not just some (currently there's only Ontario and Quebec). And if we do all that, I'm concerned that this page will end up growing to impractical proportions. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 16:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The PPC should probably be confined to other at this point. No one is really prompting for them. Thoughts Ahunt, Undermedia? - MikkelJSmith ( talk) 13:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother putting them in the graph at this point. The PPC line would be just a very small dribble at the very bottom, with no real trend and wouldn't tell readers anything useful. As I noted above, I think the polls will stop even reporting them after the next election and just lump into "other". - Ahunt ( talk) 19:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
It appears that the new Innovative poll ending on 1 Sep 2020 overlaps with their previous poll ending on 18 Aug 2020, as the former's field dates were 6 Aug – 1 Sep while the latter's were 6 Aug – 18 Aug. I'm therefore listing the new poll as a rolling poll and reducing its sample size by the sample size of the previous poll (new sample size = 4,242 - 1,934 = 2,308) as is standard practice with rolling polls. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 16:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The Globe and Mail has published a chart with the weekly Nanos numbers going back to 2015.
Should we go back and add these numbers/modify previous numbers where there are discrepancies? I would work on this. Lilactree201 ( talk) 16:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Does the web archive work for you? It worked on Safari and Chrome but not Firefox for me.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210709152857/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-data-dive-with-nik-nanos-is-now-the-right-time-for-an-election/ Lilactree201 ( talk) 17:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I will plug away at it. Others welcome to join! Lilactree201 ( talk) 23:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a note that the numbers for this poll don't seem to add up: 35% LPC + 26% CPC + 16% NDP + 5% BQ + 5% GPC + 6% Other = 93%. And it's not because the undecideds haven't been eliminated because if you add the 12% undecided we're up to 105%. Must be a mistake in the article, so keep an eye out for a correction or a proper report for the poll on Mainstreet's website. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 13:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Are we certain that the Mainstreet poll posted by @Canadianpolling ( https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1427630100774858764) Actually exists? It doesn't show up on the 338 website linked to in the tweet, nor in CBC News's official poll tracker, nor on Mainstreet research's official twitter (@MainStResearch) I just can't find a reference to it anywhere outside of this tweet. Typo, fraudulent, or genuine? 194.105.229.243 ( talk) 11:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
That's convenient that iPolitics' Election Barometer is now tweeting the daily Mainstreet rolling poll results, but I'm wondering where the sample size (e.g. 1,571 for the poll ending on 18 Aug) was found? One of our page editors was able to access it from behind the paywall? Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone able to create a new archived link to today's (18 Sep) Mainstreet results? Every time I try to do it, it just sends me to a previously archived version of the page created earlier this morning at 9:30 UTC that still shows yesterday's results. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 13:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Nanos/G&M have made all the Nanos data since 2014 public at a new Nanos data portal. Most of the recent results are there, but there's new data for July 23 and August 6, 2021. And it looks like current daily data starts later this morning. Nfitz ( talk) 13:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, added! Kiltarni ( talk) 20:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Ekos is going to be releasing a 3 day roll and a 4 day roll. Which one should we consider the “official” one to put here? Surely we don’t want to always put 2 overlapping polls that are basically the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemikem ( talk • contribs)
It looks like all of our Mainstreet research archived links are broken…anyone know what to do to fix it? ~~Mikemikem
Ah ok. Hopefully it does get fixed that’s basically all of our MS polls. Mikemikem ( talk) 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The Mainstreet archive link for September the tenth is missing the cartogram map, the data tables, the bar chart, and the circle chart is outdated, does anyone know why? LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague ( talk) 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
My bad, 9 September. Know anything as to why it's incomplete? LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague ( talk) 14:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I see, I'll try capturing it again to get all the graphics. LivingLanguageLinguist'sLeague ( talk) 14:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It looks like now Sept 9 and Sept 10 are incomplete missing various data tables… is it possible this is due to a change on Mainstreet website, or just incomplete archiving? ~~Mikemikem
Ah ok. I suppose we should be thankful it works at all, and as long as we get the top line figures it’s a good enough link for the table Mikemikem ( talk) 13:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. For the past few days I've been experiencing difficulties updating the graph because there seems to be a variable lag between when new polls are added to the table and when the software that generates the graph is able to "see" them. I've researched the issue a bit and it seems that it's likely a problem on the Wikipedia server end rather than on my end. At this moment I'm still unable to update the graph with the final polls added yesterday evening, but I'll keep trying and get it finalized as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, Undermedia ( talk) 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)