This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
OK, why was my polling deleted? It was super detailed, and showed the current Average of the polls. I need a logical explanation for that. DerÖsterreicher1 ( talk) 00:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should go with a new style, instead following here a traditional style, look at all the graphs they made before. I made new ones, because they were lacking one, and needed a new style, but it's your decision, and I will accept the decision! DerÖsterreicher1 ( talk) 00:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Impru20 Despite electoPanel having been included in other articles -such as this one and this other one, apart from those of regional elections-, I would want to point out that perhaps it should be removed from now on regarding this (in Spanish): according to electomania.es, it wouln't be a proper poll, but a projection.
Why would we exclude from sub-national opinion polling articles seat projections -as we did with JM&A, SocioMétrica and a few others in the past- and yet include them in these ones -having taken into account the fact that these vote share projections are mixed with polls in the average as well- ? I mean, that would affect the average in a negative way -specially in electoPanel's case, which tends to create an own separate trend due to its frequency, as seen in the las two electoral campaigns-, thus making it harder to see not only what true polls say, but also whether the poll of polls got to be accurate. 5.34.154.217 ( talk) 17:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@ BrugesFR: You seem to get your facts very wrong here on opinion polls. Firstly, opinion polling tables throughout Wikipedia do not tend to link the "Polling firm/Commissioner" field unless it is to an external link to the actual source itself, but that is a different kind of linking (i.e. to the poll's source, not to the company/commissioner). What you intend here is to partially link some random words at your leisure out of highlighting the poll's "political alignment", which already sounds very tendentious and is not allowed (also, this is not done anywhere in any other opinion polling article in Wikipedia). You are providing no reason for deviating from established precedent, but here we are for you to expose your reasons here, if there is any. Impru20 talk 19:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Polling firm/Commissioner | Fieldwork date | Sample size | Other/ None/ Not care |
Lead | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sánchez PSOE |
Casado PP |
Abascal Vox |
Iglesias Podemos | ||||||
Invymark/laSexta [1] | 25–29 Nov 2019 | ? | 38.4 | 28.5 | 8.5 | 17.4 | – | 7.2 | 9.9 |
Polling firm/Commissioner | Fieldwork date | Sample size | Other/ None/ Not care |
Lead | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sánchez PSOE |
Casado PP |
Abascal Vox |
Iglesias Podemos | ||||||
Invymark/ laSexta [2] | 25–29 Nov 2019 | ? | 38.4 | 28.5 | 8.5 | 17.4 | – | 7.2 | 9.9 |
@
Impru20: In which part of the wikipedia laws says that links on poll commissioners can not be included in the tables? Give me an article about what I would like to read.--
BrugesFR (
talk)
19:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Impru20: I'm going to take this discussion to the table of the Open discussions of the wikipedia, so that several administrators can discuss.-- BrugesFR ( talk) 19:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
In which part of the wikipedia laws says that links on poll commissioners can not be included in the tables?W:NPOV and WP:TE utterly forbid editing pages to raise particular points of view of your own that are not backed by sources. That you think that the "political alignment" of the media publishing a poll is relevant does not turn it into relevant, and may be seen as an attempt from you to try to discredit or disregard some opinion polls over others as well as introducing yourself a political bias into the article. Impru20 talk 19:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Impru20: I am not, nor do I want to add from any point of view of mine in the article, stop arguing for that, because I only said it once, but nothing more, I am neutral in my editions, and placing links that lead to another pages is neutral and something positive to the page. And not on this article it does not say that this poll is published by LaSexta, that yes I consider that this TV channel gets carried away often by its political position. But I ask you to stop arguing that, it is just a link that I intend to make visible, I am not leaving any opinion or unsourced information in the article.-- BrugesFR ( talk) 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
My addition provides information about which company is the one that makes this poll, i just before said "political alignment" because this defines it the LaSexta article itself, but obviously i dont want to include that in this article, tendentious not at all, that not has any to do, that is what laSexta article says they are of left wing-alignment.Provided already that "laSexta" is not the polling company (Invymark is), what remains about the purpose of your edit is that you wish to link to laSexta because you feel the link to an article that states that the media has a left-wing political alignment is relevant to the article, and this is what you have repeteadly stated both in here and in the edit summaries. I have not said you are attempting to introduce such a literal claim into this article, but that you wish to reference it through linking, which is what constitutes the NPOV element here. Linking is done only to provide context or relevant information into the article, and considering that the purpose of this article is not to provide information on each different media's political alignments or making any such assumptions ourselves, your proposed linking seems entirely out of place. Linking for the sake of linking is not allowed, and when done because of political motives it is neither "neutral" nor "something positive to the page". Impru20 talk 19:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Impru20: LaSexta, PP, Podemos, PSOE, VOX are media companies or political parties that are often managed according to their political preferences, and It is possible that the links of pp, psoe and the other parties were added by wikipedia-users who sympathize with those parties so according to your logic, there should be no links in this article because of that. you know what, We can't understand each other. I will take this discussion so that other people can contribute to a solution.-- BrugesFR ( talk) 20:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
these fields are typically not linked in opinion polling tables( [1]) and that
opinion polling tables throughout Wikipedia do not tend to link the "Polling firm/Commissioner" field unless it is to an external link to the actual source itself( [2]). If you are unable or unwilling to understand something so simple then that is your fault, not mine, but you won't solve it by going into a rant full of personal attacks and accusations against me just because you were unable to get anyone else to support your cause at the other discussions. Whatever the case is, please let it go.
Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.You edit articles to build an encyclopedia, not for political reasons. Actually, you can't edit an article motivated by political reasons, because that would be tendentious editing (
a manner of editing that is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole). In extreme cases, if you edit an article motivated by political reasons because you have an interest in a particular political view, to the point that you let an external role or relationship to influence your way of editing, that could be seen as a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia and which you would be required to disclose in such a case. So, it is wrong for you to assume that editing because of political reasons is good, because you'd be acknowledging that you are editing from a biased POV. Impru20 talk 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
from a neutral point of view-bit which I pointed to you and which you copy-pasted from me. You can report in laSexta's article that it may have a left-wing political alignment according to sources from a neutral point of view, as it is done., also because it is pertinent to the article. You can't attempt to link an opinion poll to a specific ideology (either directly or indirectly through linking) just because you think you should make it "relevant" to readers because you consider it important for them to know such an ideology, neither it is good for you to do so because you think you can edit "motivated by political reasons". Facts are one thing. Manipulating facts so that you present them in a way that fits your political view is a very different thing, and is not allowed. Neutrality is not a mere formality that is fulfilled just because you make it appear like that by adding sources, because sources alone do not provide "neutrality"; they provide "verifiability", which is not the same. Verifiable information can be added in a non-neutral way when you make it look tendentious, when you give undue prominence to some facts over others on your own volition, when you synthesize information from sources to reach your own conclusions not backed by them, when you add information in articles that is not pertinent to the article's topic and/or exceeds the article's scope, and a long etcetera. This said, I don't know what is the point that you are trying to make now seeing that all of your points have been addressed already despite your ongoing accusations on me. No, it is not encouraged for you to edit Wikipedia out of political motives. No, Wikipedia does not provide a shelter for your "freedom of expression", nor is it a place for you to express yourself freely and to seek the righting of great wrongs. Yes, focus can be put on editions that are done skewed by a political stance or ideological position. I believe this has been made clear already. Impru20 talk 15:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Quería saber el motivo por el cual has borrado la encuesta de OkDiario que puse y porque solo pones la de medios afines a la izquierda...
I would like to make a proposal to add the "mw-datatable" class to the opinion polling tables, as this would make it easier to follow the multiple polls in such big tables. Togiad ( talk) 10:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This problem seems to come up a lot on many opinion polling articles. I am currently looking for ideas and solutions. zsteve21 ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I think a simple compromise would work best here. We can keep ERC, Junts, PNV and EH Bildu in the table, while omitting the Canarian party, BNG, NA, PRC and TE. While one or two seats may have an impact in a minority government like the current one, it is almost useless information to display here on its own. Likewise, we don't need to be drastic and remove all the minor parties from the table either, particularly the ones polling at five seats or more. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC) As for references, I would suggest we cite the polls as an external link instead of a reference. This would be difficult to change for the citations already in the article, but we can use external links for polls in the future. There is also the option of splitting the article by year. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"I suggested using external links instead of citation references because that is what is used in the United Kingdom polling article"Yeah, the UK opinion polling article does not comply with Wikipedia's policy on WP:EXT and has not done so probably for years, but the content to modify is just too large for a single person to do it on its own. However, we surely should not mirror practices that are not recommended under WP policy, right? Cheers! Impru20 talk 07:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I reverted just now, as the last edit had the effect of removing all of the references from the tables. But I have some other questions: 1) What are "Voting intention estimates"? Is that just supposed to mean "opinion polls"? In which case, why not just say that - especially as "estimates" is an incorrect and confusing term if what is meant is "opinion poll on voting intentions". 2) How are the estimated seat numbers being arrived at? 3) What are "hypothetical scenarios", and how are they arrived at? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"so the status quo has to prevail"is weird to say the least. Impru20 talk 21:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"I use the example of the status quo prevailing after you reverted my bold edit as an example of how contested editing, particularly BRD, should work."Man, I will make as if you did not say this and you did not take that action at all because that is a plain acknowledgment of POINTy behaviour. Since the transclusion is broken at the current time, it will be a non-issue, so please let's focus on the issue at hand and elaborate on what your original complaints were. Impru20 talk 21:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
It may very well be against a guideline, but it is an established precedent nonetheless. If you have an issue with that, you have an issue with the precedent. These guidelines can be changed for these circumstances and we should be open to changing them. I do not see how transclusion helps solve the download issues. It solves some of the editing issues but it creates others. Reducing the article by 60kB is very sizeable in its own right, while other changes can be made to reduce the size further. Transclusion does not reduce the size of the article by 400kB. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Bastun: It seems that we don't need to include results for the parties that poll at only 1%, given the overwhelming size of this article. Those alone are taking up a massive portion of the tables. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Here you are suggesting to remove figures that are reported by most pollsters.We have to draw the line somewhere when there is far too much irrelevant information.
You are unilaterally considering these parties as non-relevant by cherry-picking thresholds for exclusionI don't know how to consider anything bilaterally or multilaterally, considering I am one person. When there are so many political parties being polled, it is more than reasonable to set some inclusion criteria which would exclude some parties.
You even acknowledged yourself earlier in the discussion that one or two seats have a not-negligible impact in the present situationThe margins in the legislature aren't relevant to inclusion criteria. The total number of seats per party can be relevant, and most of these minor parties would fail on that measure as well. It's not relevant whether the government has a strong majority or if it has a precarious minority.
I accept that you may have this opinion against minor parties, but I think you are letting it obscure your sense of reality,No, and don't make any personal claims about me again, I do not want to have to repeatedly warn you about this. We are capable of constructively discussing the article without these personal accusations. I have argued for the inclusion of minor parties in opinion polling articles where minor parties weren't included and is one of the reasons I created a Wikipedia account. This is all publicly available knowledge and if you had bothered to research it or asked me, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous claim about me. Now let that be the last personal claim you make about me. If you would like to discuss my edits and how my views may affect my editorial opinions, you are more than welcome to bring that to my user talk page.
To answer your question, the size of the download would be the markup size of the article plus the size of all the transcluded content.I asked you to show me the metric or relevant guideline on "download size/size of the download" as a relevant factor to split or reduce an article. I have not asked you to give me a definition and your opinion on it, I am asking you where is the relevant Wikipedia policy on the issue so that I can read it myself, because it is nowhere to be found at WP:LENGTH, WP:SIZESPLIT or any others that I have consulted. You have not answered my question.
We have to draw the line somewhere. Yes, it is: currently, the line is drawn at showing what most reliable sources report, with the most reported parties being the ones currently shown in the tables. That's an objective and unbiased criterion. You are proposing cherry-picking on your own which parties should be in and which ones should be out (by setting an arbitrary line at 1%). You then go on to discuss the government's majority and its status in the legislature, when I never made any mention of it: I mentioned the investiture (i.e. the government's election itself) which succeeded by just two seats. That is a good measure of one or two seats relevancy here. But the fact is that it is not even me, but sources, giving such relevancy.
parties polling at 1% are simply too minor to be covered by these articlesAccording to whom? To which policy? To which guideline? Sources do frequently report on those parties. Verifiability prevails over your personal opinion. You end your statement by claiming that
we must ensure we are following guidelines, but you have cited no guideline or policy whose that we should follow (in fact, you are actively asking to unfollow the WP:EXT guideline). Impru20 talk 09:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The readable prose size is the closest guideline to use here. Since this article is not a prose article, we should look at the size of the content within the tables, as that content is the equivalent of the prose content in a prose article.Ok, so you are basically acknowledging you have no guideline to base your claims into and are instead making your own re-interpretations and turnarounds of those. Fair enough. You have still not responded to what is this "download size" concept and how is it a metric for article splitting or content removal.
Drawing the line at every party that sources report is too permissive in this caseTwo issues: 1) That's not the line. The line is drawn at parties that get reported by most sources, so that columns are not virtually empty. Having a party reported only in very few sources would not justify having an (almost) empty column for it, and as a result those are not included. Plus, for example, Teruel Existe was not included in the article, but it was included as a result of it and Empty Spain getting a lot of media prominence. 2) While "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", it is not a pretext to thwart verifiable information based on random cherry-picked criteria under WP:CHERRYPICK (risking entering into WP:NPOV territory by selectively determining, without the backing of sources, what is relevant and what is not). Impru20 talk 10:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
"hey, I contested your bold edit, so let it go back to the status quo version, just as we did before"which is what you called it.
The size of the page as it is downloaded is obviously the technical measure that is relevant to the reader.
And the policy stating this is...? This is purely factual and supported by our size guidelines.
Which are...? Again,
WP:SIZE does not back these claims. Once again, I ask you to provide the pertinent policy or guideline supporting your claims or to just stop going around in circles.
Again, verifiability does not itself justify inclusion.
Indeed, but when a majority of sources over a period of two years do give these parties a significant coverage (both in opinion polling and in significant media coverge), it takes more than your opinion to discredit that. Further, you end your statement with a claim on the parties' "lack of prominence in reliable sources" despite most of the sources in this article covering them. There is not a lack of prominence, that is simply not true.
Impru20
talk
21:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
"prominence isn't high enough (...) they have to be higher than their present prominence."That's an entirely opinionated statement not supported by the sources themselves. They do not have to be higher than their current prominence since they are already reported by a majority of pollsters. Further, I do not know on the basis of which knowledge you consider a prominence "high enough" or not, considering you lack of any expertise whatsoever in opinion polling article editing (just as you do in engineering, sports, etc.). This was precisely one of the issues for which you have been previously criticised, i.e. keeping intervening into topic areas you have no previous knowledge or experience with, demanding to split or mutilate articles at will against the criteria of more knowledgeable people and/or subject matter experts, only because of an article's being listed at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Articles_by_size. This is not constructive. Impru20 talk 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Its talk page isn't guideline or policy, only the policy/guideline page itself is. The guidelines and policies include browser size and there are no limits on what can be considered measurements of size. It's completely irrelevant what my expertise is. You have no idea what I am an expert in and I have not revealed any of that on Wikipedia. It's easily verifiable that I have been editing opinion polling articles for over seven years, but there are no requirements to be an editor. You've previously admitted I have been editing such articles for years. It remains the case that parties like PRC and TE don't belong in the tables for reasons I have given and we can discuss that further. It is completely irrelevant what you think of me or what I think of you. You agree with me that there are size-related problems in the article. It's not valid for you to think there are such problems but invalid for me to think there are such problems, so let's collaborate to find solutions. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
It remains the case that parties like PRC and TE don't belong in the tables for reasons I have givenThe reasons you have given = Your opinion and your opinion alone. As I said, that is not enough to counter what a majority of sources report. Impru20 talk 08:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
You agree with me that there are size-related problems in the article. It's not valid for you to think there are such problems but invalid for me to think there are such problems, so let's collaborate to find solutions.Do not manipulate my words to do your bidding. I am not invalidating your thinking that there are such problems, but your methods. I already proposed a valid and policy-accepted solution that you keep denying on a whimp (and without any policy-based reason) only because it does not suit your view that minor parties should be removed. That is the main issue of concern: that you keep blocking any other solution that does not come to pass by removing the content that you do not like. And that is heavily disruptive. We have been discussing for three days, both here and in my talk page, and it is clear no agreement is going to be reached in a solution because you keep blocking it. I would say your behavioural pattern should be addressed at once, but you still have time to drop the stick and heed the many advices and warnings given to you by so many people and stop doing this to articles only because of their overall size. This already nearly costed you a CBAN proposal at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Clarification needed for "article splitting activists", and that will likely be the end result if you keep on behaving like this. Cheers. Impru20 talk 08:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I was using download size to mean essentially the same as browser sizeYou used a non-existant concept for two days to mean a non-relevant concept in terms of article splitting and size reduction. Ok.
Removing certain parties from the tables should not be the only change made), so transclusion does not fit you because it allows for a solution that spares the columns of such parties).
Arbitrary break to start a new stage of discussion. Let us end all of this right now. To sum it all up until now: You have provided no policy-based reason to support any of your arguments. You say you are contrary to transclusion but are unable to provide any policy-based reason against it, other than your own re-interpretation and manipulation of what "article size" is meant to be. Firstly, by sticking to some invented concept of "download size", then changing to "browser size" when (I guess) you cared to actually enter into the WP:SIZE guideline itself on the third day onto the discussion and actually read it (however, you got stuck to the lede without advancing any further). Now, it is my turn.
Check
WP:SPINOUT within the SIZE guideline: Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. Also consider splitting and
transcluding the split parts.
My suggested method is explicitly encouraged by the guideline as is. Further:
Now, you did not even seem concerned on transclusion until you chose to be
POINTy by
recklessly reverting my edit in order to use it as
some bargaining chip for your proposal to be accepted and telling me "hey, I contested your bold edit, so let it go back to the status quo version, just as we did before"
(
quoted from yourself.
Multiple
times, actually). From that point onwards, you aggressively opposed it, without bringing forward any reason other than opposing it for the sake of opposing it, or in the same words, opposing it because
you did not like it. You even claimed that it did not address size concerns despite it being explicitly recommended by
WP:SPINOUT as a solution that does address such concerns! You just did not even care to read the guideline at all.
I had enough patience to keep discussing this with you for over three days, both in here and in my own talk page, despite the obvious wearing-down attempts through empty-shelled arguments, statement-recycling and going around in circles. You had ample time and a lot of rope to justify your statements on any policy-based reason of your choosing (you where explicitly required to do so, multiple times), which you kept refusing over and over and over again, just depicting some alleged "need" to conduct the edits the way you and only you wanted, introducing invented concepts, re-imagining existing ones, denying the obvious with regards to sources and even suggesting that your proposal was only the first of many to be made (suggesting your intention is to mutilate the article even further, again for no policy or guideline-based reason). You just want others to cave-in to your demands just because of a perceived great wrong you think you must right and that you perceive as superior to anyone else's points of view (a similar behaviour as sumed up very nicely at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Clarification needed for "article splitting activists" and that you have been exhibiting for years in Wikipedia).
This discussion between you and me can be considered over now. I will gladly await for further input to be added by other users on the SPINOUT-backed transclusion proposal, and this process may take weeks if needed (there is no haste to conduct it). May the New Year brings you wisdom and knowledge to resort to more constructive ways of improving Wikipedia. Good luck. Impru20 talk 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay so their is not 2 polls, it was just an initial mistake of Sociometrica. EV never had 15 seats. Owenkg98 ( talk) 09:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The seats projection attached to the CIS poll is not an official CIS projection. It's an external seats projection made by a private entity unrelated to the original source. In my opinion, if this is considered relevant (something that should be discussed in the first place), this seats projection should be added as an extra row. It's confusing to attach an external projection of seats to the official CIS poll.
Where should we draw the line that distinguishes the seats projections that we attach to each poll and the ones we don't? Should we add external projections of other polls that don't offer a seats projection (Invymark, Metroscopia, Simple Lógica, or even Sociometrica's re-estimation of the CIS data)? 85.48.187.138 ( talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I Think it’s needed to add the recent Sigma Dos poll for Antena3, it’s not with other polls 84.126.112.198 ( talk) 08:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
What happened to the References? A few days ago, an edit made disappear the links to the polls. Is there a way to solve the issue? Tuesp1985 ( talk) 16:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
the gad3 poll recently added it’s not a real poll, and is not recognized by Gad3, even in the article cited, it’s not mentioned Gad3 as poll maker, so in my opinión it must be changed 84.125.79.86 ( talk) 15:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is everything listed in reverse chronological order? If we're providing not-so-recent data, we should provide it in order, not backwards. Nyttend ( talk) 21:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
OK, why was my polling deleted? It was super detailed, and showed the current Average of the polls. I need a logical explanation for that. DerÖsterreicher1 ( talk) 00:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should go with a new style, instead following here a traditional style, look at all the graphs they made before. I made new ones, because they were lacking one, and needed a new style, but it's your decision, and I will accept the decision! DerÖsterreicher1 ( talk) 00:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Impru20 Despite electoPanel having been included in other articles -such as this one and this other one, apart from those of regional elections-, I would want to point out that perhaps it should be removed from now on regarding this (in Spanish): according to electomania.es, it wouln't be a proper poll, but a projection.
Why would we exclude from sub-national opinion polling articles seat projections -as we did with JM&A, SocioMétrica and a few others in the past- and yet include them in these ones -having taken into account the fact that these vote share projections are mixed with polls in the average as well- ? I mean, that would affect the average in a negative way -specially in electoPanel's case, which tends to create an own separate trend due to its frequency, as seen in the las two electoral campaigns-, thus making it harder to see not only what true polls say, but also whether the poll of polls got to be accurate. 5.34.154.217 ( talk) 17:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@ BrugesFR: You seem to get your facts very wrong here on opinion polls. Firstly, opinion polling tables throughout Wikipedia do not tend to link the "Polling firm/Commissioner" field unless it is to an external link to the actual source itself, but that is a different kind of linking (i.e. to the poll's source, not to the company/commissioner). What you intend here is to partially link some random words at your leisure out of highlighting the poll's "political alignment", which already sounds very tendentious and is not allowed (also, this is not done anywhere in any other opinion polling article in Wikipedia). You are providing no reason for deviating from established precedent, but here we are for you to expose your reasons here, if there is any. Impru20 talk 19:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Polling firm/Commissioner | Fieldwork date | Sample size | Other/ None/ Not care |
Lead | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sánchez PSOE |
Casado PP |
Abascal Vox |
Iglesias Podemos | ||||||
Invymark/laSexta [1] | 25–29 Nov 2019 | ? | 38.4 | 28.5 | 8.5 | 17.4 | – | 7.2 | 9.9 |
Polling firm/Commissioner | Fieldwork date | Sample size | Other/ None/ Not care |
Lead | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sánchez PSOE |
Casado PP |
Abascal Vox |
Iglesias Podemos | ||||||
Invymark/ laSexta [2] | 25–29 Nov 2019 | ? | 38.4 | 28.5 | 8.5 | 17.4 | – | 7.2 | 9.9 |
@
Impru20: In which part of the wikipedia laws says that links on poll commissioners can not be included in the tables? Give me an article about what I would like to read.--
BrugesFR (
talk)
19:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Impru20: I'm going to take this discussion to the table of the Open discussions of the wikipedia, so that several administrators can discuss.-- BrugesFR ( talk) 19:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
In which part of the wikipedia laws says that links on poll commissioners can not be included in the tables?W:NPOV and WP:TE utterly forbid editing pages to raise particular points of view of your own that are not backed by sources. That you think that the "political alignment" of the media publishing a poll is relevant does not turn it into relevant, and may be seen as an attempt from you to try to discredit or disregard some opinion polls over others as well as introducing yourself a political bias into the article. Impru20 talk 19:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Impru20: I am not, nor do I want to add from any point of view of mine in the article, stop arguing for that, because I only said it once, but nothing more, I am neutral in my editions, and placing links that lead to another pages is neutral and something positive to the page. And not on this article it does not say that this poll is published by LaSexta, that yes I consider that this TV channel gets carried away often by its political position. But I ask you to stop arguing that, it is just a link that I intend to make visible, I am not leaving any opinion or unsourced information in the article.-- BrugesFR ( talk) 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
My addition provides information about which company is the one that makes this poll, i just before said "political alignment" because this defines it the LaSexta article itself, but obviously i dont want to include that in this article, tendentious not at all, that not has any to do, that is what laSexta article says they are of left wing-alignment.Provided already that "laSexta" is not the polling company (Invymark is), what remains about the purpose of your edit is that you wish to link to laSexta because you feel the link to an article that states that the media has a left-wing political alignment is relevant to the article, and this is what you have repeteadly stated both in here and in the edit summaries. I have not said you are attempting to introduce such a literal claim into this article, but that you wish to reference it through linking, which is what constitutes the NPOV element here. Linking is done only to provide context or relevant information into the article, and considering that the purpose of this article is not to provide information on each different media's political alignments or making any such assumptions ourselves, your proposed linking seems entirely out of place. Linking for the sake of linking is not allowed, and when done because of political motives it is neither "neutral" nor "something positive to the page". Impru20 talk 19:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Impru20: LaSexta, PP, Podemos, PSOE, VOX are media companies or political parties that are often managed according to their political preferences, and It is possible that the links of pp, psoe and the other parties were added by wikipedia-users who sympathize with those parties so according to your logic, there should be no links in this article because of that. you know what, We can't understand each other. I will take this discussion so that other people can contribute to a solution.-- BrugesFR ( talk) 20:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
these fields are typically not linked in opinion polling tables( [1]) and that
opinion polling tables throughout Wikipedia do not tend to link the "Polling firm/Commissioner" field unless it is to an external link to the actual source itself( [2]). If you are unable or unwilling to understand something so simple then that is your fault, not mine, but you won't solve it by going into a rant full of personal attacks and accusations against me just because you were unable to get anyone else to support your cause at the other discussions. Whatever the case is, please let it go.
Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.You edit articles to build an encyclopedia, not for political reasons. Actually, you can't edit an article motivated by political reasons, because that would be tendentious editing (
a manner of editing that is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole). In extreme cases, if you edit an article motivated by political reasons because you have an interest in a particular political view, to the point that you let an external role or relationship to influence your way of editing, that could be seen as a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia and which you would be required to disclose in such a case. So, it is wrong for you to assume that editing because of political reasons is good, because you'd be acknowledging that you are editing from a biased POV. Impru20 talk 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
from a neutral point of view-bit which I pointed to you and which you copy-pasted from me. You can report in laSexta's article that it may have a left-wing political alignment according to sources from a neutral point of view, as it is done., also because it is pertinent to the article. You can't attempt to link an opinion poll to a specific ideology (either directly or indirectly through linking) just because you think you should make it "relevant" to readers because you consider it important for them to know such an ideology, neither it is good for you to do so because you think you can edit "motivated by political reasons". Facts are one thing. Manipulating facts so that you present them in a way that fits your political view is a very different thing, and is not allowed. Neutrality is not a mere formality that is fulfilled just because you make it appear like that by adding sources, because sources alone do not provide "neutrality"; they provide "verifiability", which is not the same. Verifiable information can be added in a non-neutral way when you make it look tendentious, when you give undue prominence to some facts over others on your own volition, when you synthesize information from sources to reach your own conclusions not backed by them, when you add information in articles that is not pertinent to the article's topic and/or exceeds the article's scope, and a long etcetera. This said, I don't know what is the point that you are trying to make now seeing that all of your points have been addressed already despite your ongoing accusations on me. No, it is not encouraged for you to edit Wikipedia out of political motives. No, Wikipedia does not provide a shelter for your "freedom of expression", nor is it a place for you to express yourself freely and to seek the righting of great wrongs. Yes, focus can be put on editions that are done skewed by a political stance or ideological position. I believe this has been made clear already. Impru20 talk 15:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Quería saber el motivo por el cual has borrado la encuesta de OkDiario que puse y porque solo pones la de medios afines a la izquierda...
I would like to make a proposal to add the "mw-datatable" class to the opinion polling tables, as this would make it easier to follow the multiple polls in such big tables. Togiad ( talk) 10:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This problem seems to come up a lot on many opinion polling articles. I am currently looking for ideas and solutions. zsteve21 ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I think a simple compromise would work best here. We can keep ERC, Junts, PNV and EH Bildu in the table, while omitting the Canarian party, BNG, NA, PRC and TE. While one or two seats may have an impact in a minority government like the current one, it is almost useless information to display here on its own. Likewise, we don't need to be drastic and remove all the minor parties from the table either, particularly the ones polling at five seats or more. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC) As for references, I would suggest we cite the polls as an external link instead of a reference. This would be difficult to change for the citations already in the article, but we can use external links for polls in the future. There is also the option of splitting the article by year. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"I suggested using external links instead of citation references because that is what is used in the United Kingdom polling article"Yeah, the UK opinion polling article does not comply with Wikipedia's policy on WP:EXT and has not done so probably for years, but the content to modify is just too large for a single person to do it on its own. However, we surely should not mirror practices that are not recommended under WP policy, right? Cheers! Impru20 talk 07:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I reverted just now, as the last edit had the effect of removing all of the references from the tables. But I have some other questions: 1) What are "Voting intention estimates"? Is that just supposed to mean "opinion polls"? In which case, why not just say that - especially as "estimates" is an incorrect and confusing term if what is meant is "opinion poll on voting intentions". 2) How are the estimated seat numbers being arrived at? 3) What are "hypothetical scenarios", and how are they arrived at? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"so the status quo has to prevail"is weird to say the least. Impru20 talk 21:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"I use the example of the status quo prevailing after you reverted my bold edit as an example of how contested editing, particularly BRD, should work."Man, I will make as if you did not say this and you did not take that action at all because that is a plain acknowledgment of POINTy behaviour. Since the transclusion is broken at the current time, it will be a non-issue, so please let's focus on the issue at hand and elaborate on what your original complaints were. Impru20 talk 21:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
It may very well be against a guideline, but it is an established precedent nonetheless. If you have an issue with that, you have an issue with the precedent. These guidelines can be changed for these circumstances and we should be open to changing them. I do not see how transclusion helps solve the download issues. It solves some of the editing issues but it creates others. Reducing the article by 60kB is very sizeable in its own right, while other changes can be made to reduce the size further. Transclusion does not reduce the size of the article by 400kB. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Bastun: It seems that we don't need to include results for the parties that poll at only 1%, given the overwhelming size of this article. Those alone are taking up a massive portion of the tables. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 02:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Here you are suggesting to remove figures that are reported by most pollsters.We have to draw the line somewhere when there is far too much irrelevant information.
You are unilaterally considering these parties as non-relevant by cherry-picking thresholds for exclusionI don't know how to consider anything bilaterally or multilaterally, considering I am one person. When there are so many political parties being polled, it is more than reasonable to set some inclusion criteria which would exclude some parties.
You even acknowledged yourself earlier in the discussion that one or two seats have a not-negligible impact in the present situationThe margins in the legislature aren't relevant to inclusion criteria. The total number of seats per party can be relevant, and most of these minor parties would fail on that measure as well. It's not relevant whether the government has a strong majority or if it has a precarious minority.
I accept that you may have this opinion against minor parties, but I think you are letting it obscure your sense of reality,No, and don't make any personal claims about me again, I do not want to have to repeatedly warn you about this. We are capable of constructively discussing the article without these personal accusations. I have argued for the inclusion of minor parties in opinion polling articles where minor parties weren't included and is one of the reasons I created a Wikipedia account. This is all publicly available knowledge and if you had bothered to research it or asked me, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous claim about me. Now let that be the last personal claim you make about me. If you would like to discuss my edits and how my views may affect my editorial opinions, you are more than welcome to bring that to my user talk page.
To answer your question, the size of the download would be the markup size of the article plus the size of all the transcluded content.I asked you to show me the metric or relevant guideline on "download size/size of the download" as a relevant factor to split or reduce an article. I have not asked you to give me a definition and your opinion on it, I am asking you where is the relevant Wikipedia policy on the issue so that I can read it myself, because it is nowhere to be found at WP:LENGTH, WP:SIZESPLIT or any others that I have consulted. You have not answered my question.
We have to draw the line somewhere. Yes, it is: currently, the line is drawn at showing what most reliable sources report, with the most reported parties being the ones currently shown in the tables. That's an objective and unbiased criterion. You are proposing cherry-picking on your own which parties should be in and which ones should be out (by setting an arbitrary line at 1%). You then go on to discuss the government's majority and its status in the legislature, when I never made any mention of it: I mentioned the investiture (i.e. the government's election itself) which succeeded by just two seats. That is a good measure of one or two seats relevancy here. But the fact is that it is not even me, but sources, giving such relevancy.
parties polling at 1% are simply too minor to be covered by these articlesAccording to whom? To which policy? To which guideline? Sources do frequently report on those parties. Verifiability prevails over your personal opinion. You end your statement by claiming that
we must ensure we are following guidelines, but you have cited no guideline or policy whose that we should follow (in fact, you are actively asking to unfollow the WP:EXT guideline). Impru20 talk 09:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The readable prose size is the closest guideline to use here. Since this article is not a prose article, we should look at the size of the content within the tables, as that content is the equivalent of the prose content in a prose article.Ok, so you are basically acknowledging you have no guideline to base your claims into and are instead making your own re-interpretations and turnarounds of those. Fair enough. You have still not responded to what is this "download size" concept and how is it a metric for article splitting or content removal.
Drawing the line at every party that sources report is too permissive in this caseTwo issues: 1) That's not the line. The line is drawn at parties that get reported by most sources, so that columns are not virtually empty. Having a party reported only in very few sources would not justify having an (almost) empty column for it, and as a result those are not included. Plus, for example, Teruel Existe was not included in the article, but it was included as a result of it and Empty Spain getting a lot of media prominence. 2) While "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", it is not a pretext to thwart verifiable information based on random cherry-picked criteria under WP:CHERRYPICK (risking entering into WP:NPOV territory by selectively determining, without the backing of sources, what is relevant and what is not). Impru20 talk 10:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
"hey, I contested your bold edit, so let it go back to the status quo version, just as we did before"which is what you called it.
The size of the page as it is downloaded is obviously the technical measure that is relevant to the reader.
And the policy stating this is...? This is purely factual and supported by our size guidelines.
Which are...? Again,
WP:SIZE does not back these claims. Once again, I ask you to provide the pertinent policy or guideline supporting your claims or to just stop going around in circles.
Again, verifiability does not itself justify inclusion.
Indeed, but when a majority of sources over a period of two years do give these parties a significant coverage (both in opinion polling and in significant media coverge), it takes more than your opinion to discredit that. Further, you end your statement with a claim on the parties' "lack of prominence in reliable sources" despite most of the sources in this article covering them. There is not a lack of prominence, that is simply not true.
Impru20
talk
21:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
"prominence isn't high enough (...) they have to be higher than their present prominence."That's an entirely opinionated statement not supported by the sources themselves. They do not have to be higher than their current prominence since they are already reported by a majority of pollsters. Further, I do not know on the basis of which knowledge you consider a prominence "high enough" or not, considering you lack of any expertise whatsoever in opinion polling article editing (just as you do in engineering, sports, etc.). This was precisely one of the issues for which you have been previously criticised, i.e. keeping intervening into topic areas you have no previous knowledge or experience with, demanding to split or mutilate articles at will against the criteria of more knowledgeable people and/or subject matter experts, only because of an article's being listed at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Articles_by_size. This is not constructive. Impru20 talk 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Its talk page isn't guideline or policy, only the policy/guideline page itself is. The guidelines and policies include browser size and there are no limits on what can be considered measurements of size. It's completely irrelevant what my expertise is. You have no idea what I am an expert in and I have not revealed any of that on Wikipedia. It's easily verifiable that I have been editing opinion polling articles for over seven years, but there are no requirements to be an editor. You've previously admitted I have been editing such articles for years. It remains the case that parties like PRC and TE don't belong in the tables for reasons I have given and we can discuss that further. It is completely irrelevant what you think of me or what I think of you. You agree with me that there are size-related problems in the article. It's not valid for you to think there are such problems but invalid for me to think there are such problems, so let's collaborate to find solutions. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
It remains the case that parties like PRC and TE don't belong in the tables for reasons I have givenThe reasons you have given = Your opinion and your opinion alone. As I said, that is not enough to counter what a majority of sources report. Impru20 talk 08:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
You agree with me that there are size-related problems in the article. It's not valid for you to think there are such problems but invalid for me to think there are such problems, so let's collaborate to find solutions.Do not manipulate my words to do your bidding. I am not invalidating your thinking that there are such problems, but your methods. I already proposed a valid and policy-accepted solution that you keep denying on a whimp (and without any policy-based reason) only because it does not suit your view that minor parties should be removed. That is the main issue of concern: that you keep blocking any other solution that does not come to pass by removing the content that you do not like. And that is heavily disruptive. We have been discussing for three days, both here and in my talk page, and it is clear no agreement is going to be reached in a solution because you keep blocking it. I would say your behavioural pattern should be addressed at once, but you still have time to drop the stick and heed the many advices and warnings given to you by so many people and stop doing this to articles only because of their overall size. This already nearly costed you a CBAN proposal at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Clarification needed for "article splitting activists", and that will likely be the end result if you keep on behaving like this. Cheers. Impru20 talk 08:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I was using download size to mean essentially the same as browser sizeYou used a non-existant concept for two days to mean a non-relevant concept in terms of article splitting and size reduction. Ok.
Removing certain parties from the tables should not be the only change made), so transclusion does not fit you because it allows for a solution that spares the columns of such parties).
Arbitrary break to start a new stage of discussion. Let us end all of this right now. To sum it all up until now: You have provided no policy-based reason to support any of your arguments. You say you are contrary to transclusion but are unable to provide any policy-based reason against it, other than your own re-interpretation and manipulation of what "article size" is meant to be. Firstly, by sticking to some invented concept of "download size", then changing to "browser size" when (I guess) you cared to actually enter into the WP:SIZE guideline itself on the third day onto the discussion and actually read it (however, you got stuck to the lede without advancing any further). Now, it is my turn.
Check
WP:SPINOUT within the SIZE guideline: Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. Also consider splitting and
transcluding the split parts.
My suggested method is explicitly encouraged by the guideline as is. Further:
Now, you did not even seem concerned on transclusion until you chose to be
POINTy by
recklessly reverting my edit in order to use it as
some bargaining chip for your proposal to be accepted and telling me "hey, I contested your bold edit, so let it go back to the status quo version, just as we did before"
(
quoted from yourself.
Multiple
times, actually). From that point onwards, you aggressively opposed it, without bringing forward any reason other than opposing it for the sake of opposing it, or in the same words, opposing it because
you did not like it. You even claimed that it did not address size concerns despite it being explicitly recommended by
WP:SPINOUT as a solution that does address such concerns! You just did not even care to read the guideline at all.
I had enough patience to keep discussing this with you for over three days, both in here and in my own talk page, despite the obvious wearing-down attempts through empty-shelled arguments, statement-recycling and going around in circles. You had ample time and a lot of rope to justify your statements on any policy-based reason of your choosing (you where explicitly required to do so, multiple times), which you kept refusing over and over and over again, just depicting some alleged "need" to conduct the edits the way you and only you wanted, introducing invented concepts, re-imagining existing ones, denying the obvious with regards to sources and even suggesting that your proposal was only the first of many to be made (suggesting your intention is to mutilate the article even further, again for no policy or guideline-based reason). You just want others to cave-in to your demands just because of a perceived great wrong you think you must right and that you perceive as superior to anyone else's points of view (a similar behaviour as sumed up very nicely at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Clarification needed for "article splitting activists" and that you have been exhibiting for years in Wikipedia).
This discussion between you and me can be considered over now. I will gladly await for further input to be added by other users on the SPINOUT-backed transclusion proposal, and this process may take weeks if needed (there is no haste to conduct it). May the New Year brings you wisdom and knowledge to resort to more constructive ways of improving Wikipedia. Good luck. Impru20 talk 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay so their is not 2 polls, it was just an initial mistake of Sociometrica. EV never had 15 seats. Owenkg98 ( talk) 09:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The seats projection attached to the CIS poll is not an official CIS projection. It's an external seats projection made by a private entity unrelated to the original source. In my opinion, if this is considered relevant (something that should be discussed in the first place), this seats projection should be added as an extra row. It's confusing to attach an external projection of seats to the official CIS poll.
Where should we draw the line that distinguishes the seats projections that we attach to each poll and the ones we don't? Should we add external projections of other polls that don't offer a seats projection (Invymark, Metroscopia, Simple Lógica, or even Sociometrica's re-estimation of the CIS data)? 85.48.187.138 ( talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I Think it’s needed to add the recent Sigma Dos poll for Antena3, it’s not with other polls 84.126.112.198 ( talk) 08:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
What happened to the References? A few days ago, an edit made disappear the links to the polls. Is there a way to solve the issue? Tuesp1985 ( talk) 16:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
the gad3 poll recently added it’s not a real poll, and is not recognized by Gad3, even in the article cited, it’s not mentioned Gad3 as poll maker, so in my opinión it must be changed 84.125.79.86 ( talk) 15:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is everything listed in reverse chronological order? If we're providing not-so-recent data, we should provide it in order, not backwards. Nyttend ( talk) 21:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)