Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election

UKIP

There seems to be some inaccuracy with the graph still in relation to both Labour and UKIP. While the other parties are accurately portrayed Labours last 20 results clearly shows only 3 results of 36 up to 38 while other polls show them as low as 30 and yet they are ahead on 36%. The current figures would put them down 2 on 33.8%. Even with the last 10 results they should have dropped by 2%. UKIP on the other hand despite quite a number of polls being at 16 or more percent including the recent 25% is still around the 15% mark when it should be up 2 on 16.9%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhandford (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the note below the graph. It was last updated Sept 26th. You'd be welcome to update it yourself, but it'd be a LOT of work. IIRC its from an excel spreadsheet of every poll since 2010. For what it's worth, UKPRs weighted average up to 10th Oct has Lab on 34, UKIP on 16, so you are ~right that they've changed a little in Oct. Iliekinfo (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Green Party

I hesitate to mention this, because it is potentially a lot of work. The Green Party is now showing 5% in a number of polls (including the most recent Populus and YouGov polls), and in the last Ashcroft poll, although they were not separated out in the final published figures, were at 7% before the "don't know" adjustment was made. This is not far short of some of the LibDems' polling figures, and they have shown an ability to beat the LibDems in some real elections including the European Parliament elections and Westminster by-elections. So at what point should we consider adding them to the table as a separate party, as was done for UKIP?Saxmund (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the Greens' inclusion, but I think the best rationale to do so would be if they begin polling consistently above the Lib Dems in the same vein as UKIP. JJARichardson (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As per UKIP, the rationale is to follow reliable sources (pollsters themselves, not newspapers). The lib-dems are not a yardstick. Also 5% ain't at all noteworthy....this says more about lib-dems collapse than Greens boost. Iliekinfo (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the archive discussions about the inclusion of UKIP (which I wasn't involved with at the time), and yes the tipping point seems to have been when they started consistently polling level with or above the LDs. This effectively makes the table inaccurate - it seems odd to include parties no 1, 2 and 4 but not 3. There would be a clear implication that all the "others" are more minor parties, which would not be true. So I disagree with Ilikeinfo: I think the LibDems are a yardstick as they are currently consistently the 4th party. If they started being 5th on a regular basis it would seem odd to give separate scores for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th parties but not the 4th. And I am not sure why you referred to "following newspapers" as the data I mentioned was from polls (brought to my attention by comments on the ukpollingreport website, as it happens.)Saxmund (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Also - 5% might not be particularly noteworthy, but of course the decision having been made to backdate UKIP results to 2010, there are now plenty of instances where UKIP scored well below 5% and are listed. In some of these cases, the Greens may have scored more than the 4th party listed, but are relegated to Others.Saxmund (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned following newspapers because I generally despair at the way (most) wiki editors think of newspapers when they hear RS, and tend to think WP would be better if they weren't considered such. (does anyone smart consider them reliable IRL), I didn't mean to imply you were doing so....it was a preemptive strike if this argument drags on & on. "it seems odd to include parties no 1, 2 and 4 but not 3." Why? For years we've had parties 1-3, but not 4. "I think the LibDems are a yardstick as they are currently consistently the 4th party." Why? No-one suggested the 4th party was a yardstick before the lib-dem collapse. The UKIP debate was one group arguing for UKIP as soon as they had one poll above lib-dems, and one group arguing against UKIP until they won an MP. IMO both are wrong, WP should follow RS, the point of addition should have been when pollsters separated UKIP from others....the same way tables of polls of NI, Wales, Scotland, and individual constituencies work (I think, they should). I can't see any justification for using 'beating the Lib-dems' as a rule, there's nothing special about them. Unless we agree (as I think was proposed before) a firm % cutoff for a party to beat on average over a firm agreed time (mebe 3 months averaging over 5%???), I think we should just follow the pollsters. EDIT CONFLICT: Yeah, the Greens, the BNP, the SNP, PC, ED, & an assortment of NIish. IMO UKIP shouldn't have been edited back to 2010, but that's probably a different discussion. Iliekinfo (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to be politically neutral it seems reasonable to list the Top 3 or Top 4 parties and lump the rest all in together as "others". But not, say, the Top 2 and the 4th and lump the 3rd in with others. It seems to be making a judgment about party no 3. Similarly I think we ought to include the Greens if they start consistently scoring at or above the 4th party score, whether that party is the LDs or UKIP.Saxmund (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I somewhat misread one of your comments. I can certainly see that argument, but A - we need an agreed upon method of ranking the parties which isn't going to flip flop every poll, & B - If the time came, do you want to be the one to remove the lib-dems from the table and see what happens? If we were supposed to have a fixed number of parties...lib-dems would've been scrapped by now...:) Iliekinfo (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about having a fixed number of parties! Simply that it would seem odd to mention the three largest and a 5th, when another party regularly comes 4th but is relegated to "others". It hasn't come to that yet and maybe once the results of the EP elections are out of the way the Greens' poll rating will subside. However worth noting that Greens and LDs are level in this week's Ashcroft poll and, as he has provided us with a comparison with last week, can now be said to have been ahead of the LDs in that poll on published headline figures (if retrospectively).Saxmund (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I know that's not what you're proposing, but I'm saying that it's the logical outcome of argument from ranking. The point that if the greens overtake the lib-dems (or UKIP, or whomever) they should be included because they're "beating" LDs, implies that inclusion on the table should be based on ranking, (a very logical position, even if I disagree) in which case we should agree on which ranking qualifies. 3rd, 4th, 5th? The idea seems to be that we should add the Greens if they overtake LDs, but not remove LDs (wikipolitically impossible I'd imagine). My point is that if LDs would/should still be included as 5th placed, then the current 5th placed party (Greens) should be in now. The vague qualifying standard should not be changed as needed to fit the lib-dems....the idea that LDs qualify as 4th/5th but UKIP/greens didn't/won't is inherently unintentionally biased. I'm just trying to say that if we don't go with RS we need a clear consensus on what qualifies a party for inclusion, and it needs to be applied neutrally. IMO the logical endpoint of your (entirely sensible) argument is that we either add the greens now, or are prepared to remove the lib-dems should they slip to 5th. An alternative suggestion is we could agree that a party that consistently polls above X% warrants inclusion...either way, if we, rather than pollsters, are to decide who makes the table, we need a clear system for doing so. Iliekinfo (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's the logical outcome at all. I suspect that the tables started with what would universally be regarded as the "top three" political parties. Easy to form consensus around that. UKIP broke into it in about 2012 and have been subsequently added to the tables, they are now polling up to twice the LDs (three times in last week's Ashcroft poll) and can for the time being be regarded as a "main party". You are right, there is no way we can remove parties once added, it would mess up the tables and the graph even more, and upset their supporters, and of course their poll position might improve (as might the LDs when we get closer to the election). My argument is that if we are showing the top x parties and another party moves into the top x, we should start showing the top x+1. How far back we go is another matter. I am not sure how many pollsters have been separating out the Greens in their final table. I suspect when UKIP made it into the Top 3, there were UKIP partisans willing to do the work to backdate to 2010 - I see no sign of Green partisans on here (it's just you and me arguing at the moment) and I raised it as an intellectual query, I'm more of a Tory. PS what is "RS"?Saxmund (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"My argument is that if we are showing the top x parties", if that's the idea, what is x? "you and me arguing" Friendly pedantry? RS = Reliable Source. Iliekinfo (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, x=4. Before UKIP was included, x=3. If we include the Greens, x=5. But the argument holds for any value of x. Saxmund (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"But the argument holds for any value of x." If the system is to be "the top x parties", then yes, but under that system changing the value of x to accomodate/exclude certain parties is irrefutably biased. If the rationale for inclusion is to be the 'top x', then we obviously need to know what x should be. It is my unshakable opinion that under that system (which is not my favoured system) changing x from 4 to 5 in order to continue to include the lib-dems (or whomever) would be indefensible. If the system is to be the top x parties, then x should be fixed. Iliekinfo (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? the principal seems sound to me. We don't exclude anyone who is already being included, but we add a party if its score moves it consistently above a party that was already being featured. Where is the bias? Saxmund (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be bias in favour of existing parties. Obviously. Iliekinfo (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Greens now seem to be neck and neck with the Libdems (see latest YouGov). Time to include them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.83.123.130 (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The last yougov I saw had them on 5, lib-dems on 7, on average polls are showing ~lib-dem 8, green 5. More to the point, the score relative to the lib-dems is not the quality for or against inclusion. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and the table should be either the "main/headline" parties as reported by RS, or all of the parties judged by Opinion Pollsters worthy of reporting individually (rather than "others"). Currently this article has two tables, once for the headline parties (which currently doesn't include the greens), & one for all parties judged noteworthy by pollsters (which does). It is possible that the Greens will become a headline party if they keep growing....but bear in mind that most of their "catching up" to lib-dems is lib-dem falling, rather than green growing. Iliekinfo (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"As per UKIP, the rationale is to follow reliable sources" . Iliekinfo 11:35, 8 June 2014 Well, RS presumably includes UKPollingReport (UKPR), where the most recent post, 9020, gives Green share in the 1st sentence. Similarly the Sun, who commision YouGov polls tweeted "CON 30%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%" tonight (I'm not saying the Sun is -or isn't- generally a reliable source, just that on the particular issue of the polls they have commissioned they are one). UKPR post 9014 gives Green share for 3 of 4 pollsters, 9013 gives Green share for 1 of 3 pollsters, 9010 for 2 of 3 pollsters, 9008 for the only pollster mentioned (I haven't looked back before indyref). And whether you judge most of Green catching up comes from LD falling of Green growth in share depends on your starting point. Since around the turn of the year, Green share has probably gone up more than LDs has fallen, and movements tend to have mirrored eachother - see http://www.statgeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ld-green-uk.png. DrArsenal 87.112.138.68 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

They're certainly beginning to get mentioned in some headlines, but only as being notably unusually high. I agree this is the sort of thing I was talking about, let's see if it becomes standard rather than the exception. A (non-scientific) google of latest news reports of national opinion polls finds the greens not in the headlines in any I stumble across, just the same 4. They're definitely heading in the right direction though, keep an eye on it.....the decision will presumably be made at the 2014/2015 table break, so see how it goes. UKPR is an IMO excellent source, if Greens make it into that 'latest voting intention' table, that'd be a very strong point in their favour. Iliekinfo (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Green Party, along with other parties be included in the table of polling results

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As from the several sections above there has been some debate and discussion over whether the Green party along with others should be added to the table of polling results as a 'main party' (i.e. not listed under the 'others' section). Both sides feel as though Wikipedia policies and guidelines support their side and I feel as though we need some input from an outside, impartial source in order to come to a valid conclusion as neither side wishes to budge and there seems to be no in-between option for us to come to a compromise we are both happy with. CH7i5 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out that only one of those who voted in favour actually quoted a policy/made some form of policy based argument. One was purely just a non policy based "opinion" and the other largely opinion with no real point of policy. The other referred to policy but could not mount any challenge to the policy based points put against his argument. Owl In The House (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I wrote "all parties" in the "consensus vote", which would also indicate including respect/bnp. (Though, respect are rarely in the tables, and BNP does not have seats, so there would be a clear cutoff there if that was the point.) I will admit I wasn't very clear on this though. Øln (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so after reading WP:PRIMARY again it seems quite clear that data from primary sources should not be synthesized, which I would interpret as meaning that either all parties have to be included , or we have to use the secondary sources and include only what's reported there, so I agree that only including the greens, which some has suggested, may not follow the guidelines (unless they happen to be reported in the secondary source). Whether lumping greens and others together if they are reported would violate WP:SYN seems a bit unclear to me though. Otherwise is a question of weight, where there seems to be a disagreement. WP:PRIMARY also seems to suggest that if the article should only list the parties reported in news articles(secondary sources), those have to be cited, something which is not done here. Øln (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Respect and BNP are always in the YouGov, Opinium tables and do also appear in other tables. Lets not forget that over 50% of this data is from YouGov as they do the daily polls. The BNP are always included in the Populus, ICM and Ipsos Mori tables (as well as Lord Ascroft - though he is not BPC registered) and Survation put the Greens with the BNP and TUSC. So no, there is not a "clear cut off point" that you suggest as the BNP are always included in the data and are always reflected in the same way as the Greens, SNP and Plaid. Also the majority of the time Respect are represented too. Your "cut off point" is selective and violates the policy point you have tried to make.

2. You falsely make this point about synthesising Primary Sources. We are not the one's doing the synthesising here, the pollsters are doing it themselves by officially publishing a headline figure. They also publish full data tables but do we publish everything in those data tables? (i.e. excluding/including don't knows, excluding/including refuseds, adjustments for likelihood to vote etc etc) No, we don't. The only reason we know what data to use out of all of the data published in the tables is because the pollsters publish a headline figure. It is not for us to then delve into the data and be selective as to what should be included in that headline figure. As far as Primary sources go, surely the pollster is the primary source and they provide 2 sources, the headline/summary and then they have a link to the full data for those who want to delve further in. I don't see why we should deliberately seek to cover our reliable sources in a way they seem to state is not appropriate. By Doctoring those headline figures and being selective about the data we do and don't include in our summary table is a blatant demonstration of original research and that is a clear breach of Wiki policy. To directly answer your question on WP:SYN, it is blatantly clear that it is not a violation of this policy because it is a format that the primary sources have published.

This is getting tedious. Owl In The House (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I already removed the part about cutoff long before you replied, so I don't know why you are complaining about that. I am not suggesting selectively doctoring the headline figures. I don't see how listing the full list of parties from the tables would constitute OR, rather, the question would be about whether it would be undue weight to include everything. As for the second part, I didn't see that yougov published headline figures before now, as the yougov page kept redirecting me to the page for my country rather than UK, but I managed to access the UK page now and you are correct there. Ashcroft and opinium does list more than the big 4 in their poll articles though, opinium even has an "others" table which list UKIP, greens and more(Ashcroft does have a summary table that lists greens as a note under "others", couldn't find an "others" aggregation excluding UKIP on opinium though.). Though seing as the headlines are used, shouldn't the article link to the them then as opposed to the full tables, since that is what's being used here?Øln (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC) (Also, I made a mistake by writing "secondary sources", when I should have been referring to "headlines", so sorry for the confusion there.)Øln (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In either case, the point of this section was to get an outside opinion, and my reply was just to clarify what I meant, as I felt I was being misquoted, the issues have already been discussed in detail. Øln (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask how the Polls generally do this?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally polls report their 'headline figures' (Cons, Lab, LibDems and UKIP) on the main page and then you have to open separately and go into the polling results and look through the information to find the results for each individual party. It is the headline figure that we normally use. CH7i5 (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That's right, apart from one thing. It's always the headline figure that gets used. There is not a single piece of data in those data tables that is not a headline figure. Owl In The House (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yougov doesn't actually list "others" in the headline, so that data isn't explicitly stated in the headline at least. As per WP:CALC doing simple subtraction to get an others number may be acceptable, though could be misleading due to rounding errors. In this case you are actually using data that is not from the headlines to be able to state that the percentage left is in fact "other parties", rather than e.g "don't know".Øln (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Forget that, they actually have a list which includes others.Øln (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly this seems very much to be a political dispute. From what I have displayed before me it seems listing the Green Party as other is standard not only on wikipedia but in the polls. I have to question if this is an attempt to further legitimize the Green Party. I feel they can do this without help from wikipedia. I can not recommend changing the status quo at the moment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. Normally things like this can be nipped in the bud pretty easily but the Green activism on Wikipedia has been relentless over the last few months. I'm pleased to say it seems to have calmed down now. Owl In The House (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the individual poll types and what they separate out in their first table:

Polling agent	Conservatives	Labour	Lib Dems	SNP	Plaid	UKIP	Greens	BNP	Respect	Notes
Populus	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	N
YouGov	Y	Y	Y	Combined		Y	Y	Y	Y	Main three listed first
Opinium	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Main three listed first
Ipsos Mori	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Main three listed first
ICM	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Main three listed first
Ashcroft	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	N
Comres	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	N
TNS	Y	Y	Y	Combined		Y	N	N	N

• Personally, as this is supposed to be an article about opinion polling, and therefore more detailed than a table on the election article, I think the Greens should be included, alongside the SNP, BNP and Plaid Cymru. The table would easily be able to accommodate it, and I don't see the problem with including more information. Number 57 22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm pleased to say that this issue was resolved long ago but since you mention it Number your table is inaccurate as it is not a table of how polls are represented, you've done what everyone else has done and picked the part of the data you want to, not the part the pollsters themselves highlight (in their headline poll). But lets just say it was an accurate table reflective of reality (which it isn't), it would still point to the same conclusion, the majority of the time and in the overwhelming majority of all the polls included in 4 and a half years of data there are 4 parties highlighted, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8 but 4. The format we have now is the best of all worlds because it is reflective of reality and how reliable sources publish things and it also enables the reader to get as much information as they could possibly want as all the polls have clickable links. Any other format would require us to deliberately ignore wiki policies...all this has already been gone over in the discussion above. Owl In The House (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not pick the part of the data I wanted to, I used the first page of every poll document (I don't really care about this subject (I don't believe I have ever edited this article), and was only offering an opinion as someone started an RFC - your assumption that I have some kind of motive is as unseemly as your patronising tone). It is quite clear that there are four main parties included in the front page results for every poll, but I really don't understand the problem of including as much information as possible in the table, as it can clearly be expanded to cover it. As the closer pointed out, a table showing the other parties' results as well would be perfectly acceptable. Number 57 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I make no assumptions about who you are etc and if my tone offends you then sorry but that is not anything against you it is a combination of tiredness and being fed up by this discussion still continuing, I have no preconceptions about yourself. I don't care to go over details that have already been gone over in detail above but the reason this format has been settled on is all outlined above and specific wikipedia policies cited and referenced. While I accept that you have picked a piece of the data consistently, it is not the piece of data the pollsters themselves highlight and it is not the way the pollsters themselves highlight it. The article's current format does that. There is nothing to say that the first table in each data set is the right one to use, we know what to use through the pollsters summary. Anyway short of endlessly repeating what myself and others have said, I think that answers your point with brevity. I don't want to come across as rude or anything, I don't know you, never even come across you on here, I have no preconceptions about your view on this or who you are as a person, if it came across the wrong way, then I'm sorry, I'm just tired and fed up of having to continue to return to issues that had previously been settled. Anyway wish you well, goodnight :) Owl In The House (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Achieving two tables

The RfC above was closed and User:S Marshall put forth a plan for two tables: one focusing on the four larger parties (Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP) and another with a longer list of parties, including the Greens, SNP, PC and BNP. I think this is an eminently sensible way forward. How are we going to make this work? Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I hate to be a stick in the mud but firstly that wouldn't be reflective of the way the polls are published as mentioned above but also if we change it for this article we must change it for this articles preceding articles as well, the status of Plaid and the SNP has not changed. We need to be consistent between articles (that doesn't mean they must be uniformly identical but it does mean the criteria for inclusion should be broadly the same - at present they are). Furthermore there is no more of a reason now then there ever has been before in the last 10 years to add to add the Greens or the BNP to the table, their support bases are broadly the same as they ever have been in the medium to longer term....5% isn't a magic number or threshold. The BNP achieved 5%+ in opinion polls during the last Parliament, should we have considered changing the format then? Any format changes need to be consistent with preceding articles, even if that means making retrospective changes. In the medium to longer term and looking at trends there is nothing to suggest the SNP, Plaid, the Green and the BNP have a stronger case to be added to the polling tables for this parliament then they do the previous 2 or 3 Parliament's Polling tables.

Furthermore in a practical sense I don't understand how you would do this and why would we duplicate information within the same article. I can see why people are eager to show some form of compromise and inclusion (I get that) but it simply would not be a reflection of our reliable sources, the political reality on the ground and it would not be consistent with various Wiki policies (already been outlined above in previous closed discussion - were going round in circles here) Owl In The House (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We had an RfC. You, Owl, made your views clear. The RfC came to a conclusion. I'm uncertain what the value is in re-opening the discussion. I think we need to move on because consensus does not support the status quo. So, how do we move on? One way is to follow the suggestion put forth by User:S Marshall. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, this article does not need to be "consistent" with other articles.—S Marshall T/C 12:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

S Marshall T, could you please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy on this matter, it is referenced above, consistency is a very important part of Wikipedia policy. I am not against change for the sake of it. Besides I don't really see how the current version doesn't have sufficient support. Its perhaps worth re-looking at who was in favour of the previous changes and that they're reasoning was contrary to reliable sources and indeed several Wiki policies. By all means lets hear sensible alternatives (and make sure they are applied consistently) but there is no urgency or indeed necessity to move away from the current version. Owl In The House (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The above claim that having a second table "would not be a reflection of our reliable sources" is not true. As I quite clearly demonstrated above, half the polling companies (i.e. reliable sources) regularly report on the polling data for the Greens, BNP, SNP and Plaid in their first table. The other half all include them in subsequent tables. The information is available, and there is no reason not to include it; I really don't understand the desperation to avoid painting the full picture for readers. Number 57 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't really understand what you do actually want, Owl. First, the discussion was already closed, consensus being already reached about whether to add the Greens or not to the main table (which was even voted for) and resulted in a 'No for the time being, let's wait for future developments' response. That said, ever since several users have proposed several alternatives to that scheme, to which you not only oppose (which by itself is an actually very respectable opinion), but also claim it to be impossible to do because, allegedly, Wikipedia policy says otherwise. First, I already discussed Wikipedia policies with you, stating how some of your claims were not correct. You did not counter me in some of those points, yet you still claim that others' ideas somehow go against Wikipedia policies. Sheltering into Wikipedia policies in this way in order to defend your arguments is not right, foremost of all, because you seem to be misinterpreting some of them (I don't know if, as of currently, there is a policy stating that articles should be strictly consistent between themselves (i.e. the Opinion polling article for the 2010 general election should have exactly the same structure that the 2015 UK election opinion polling article)) and also because you seem to be ignoring WP:RAP and WP:IAR, which are also Wikipedia policies. Secondly, you are bringing forward details about an already closed discussion into a new, different one (that is, making a separate table), which is also not right. Again, I tell you that it is right to opine and to be against others' views because yours don't match them. But that is one thing, and another one is your current stance, which seems to be strictly against adding anything else to the article as it is now and responding to others in kind. Please, be reasonable. Impru20 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• How refreshing for me to be told to acquaint myself with Wikipedia policy by someone who registered their account in November 2013! Since you dispute the close, I have asked for it to be reviewed on the administrator's noticeboard.—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I entirely support the Marshall Plan. It seems a sensible way forward. (Anyway, as I see it, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:PERFECTION argue against Owl's interpretation of consistency.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Being bold and to move discussion forward, I've tried to start the new table with detailed results, including all parties that the polling organisation gives details on. I'm lousy at tables, but it's a beginning! Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I've formatted the table to give the others their correct colours and solve some width issues. Number 57 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I first want to point out this sentence from my previous comment in this thread: "We need to be consistent between articles (that doesn't mean they must be uniformly identical but it does mean the criteria for inclusion should be broadly the same - at present they are).". - It is disingenuous for other editors to say that I have said otherwise, clearly comments suggesting I have said otherwise should obviously be disregarded. My objections are on the basis of criteria for inclusion. I actually have nothing firmly against the new table at the bottom of the article, it doesn't seem to detract too much from the main body of the article. That said it does look a bit out of place. Will somebody be going through every single poll and adding that to the table? If so, good. Also if someone is prepared to do that then why can't they also do it for the previous article? Like I say the status/polling significance of the SNP, Plaid, Greens and BNP hasn't changed since then.

When I say it wouldn't be a reflection of reliable sources, I am of course referring to the piece of data the polls themselves highlight, obviously the pollsters publish lots of information but they do provide their own summary and it is this that gets published and highlighted by reliable sources. That said I am not rigidly against having a table like the one suggested at the bottom of the article, those who think I am saying otherwise, could you please get that in to your heads. I was also taking into account that we tend to avoid repeating and duplicating information, especially within the same article.

All that said, I don't find anything overly objectionable about the suggested table provided that this is a change that is done properly. Indeed if done properly I would consider it an improvement to the article but if it is not done properly and done in a way just to please or include certain individuals or view points then frankly I'm against any change. What do I mean by that?

1. The table would need to cover every single poll since the general election and not simply start from today (or whenever), any change would need to be retrospective. This was the same basis that UKIP were added to the main table and yes consistency is important.

2. The same table would need to be added to at least the previous polling article, (again for most of these parties the grounds of inclusion/their status and significance simply haven't changed).

3. This table should be one single table, not one for each year, it is important that this table is a "scroll down for further details" table and does not become the main focus of the article because that would not be an accurate reflection of reliable sources. Yes they publish both Headline polls and the full data tables but it can't in any way be argued that the full data tables are the main focus of reliable sources. It should be a case of making extra information available to those who want it, in a way that reflects the coverage of reliable sources, not the wooly arguments we saw in the previous discussions of "inclusion" etc.

4. I also wonder whether it's worth adding Respect to this new table, I don't have a firm view either way on this, I'm just putting it out there.

If these points are met then I am in full support of the table

May I also just restate that I have never been rigidly against change, just the proposals that had been put forward, it is worth noting that the current suggested table has never been put forward on this talk page, it was boldly added. I want to be constructive here and I feel my above comments on the table its self are constructive. Indeed in some ways I am suggesting we should go further with it but like I say we should only do this if we are to do it properly, or we shouldn't do it at all. Owl In The House (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Detailed poll results

I have cut and paste this from the main article to the talk page as this is still ongoing. Thank you for creating the table, we now have something solid to work with, now that I know what you're actually proposing and where you propose to put it, I actually think it's quite a good idea, provided the three points above are addressed. Owl In The House (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

___________________________________________Cut and Paste (Start)___________________________________________________________

Detailed Poll Results

The tables above show poll results just for the four largest parties. Detailed poll results are given below:

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	Cons	Lab	Lib Dem	UKIP	SNP	Plaid	Green	BNP	Others	Lead
27–28 Aug	Populus	2,006	35%	34%	8%	13%	4%	<1%	5%	<1%	<1%	1%

________________________________________________Cut and Paste (End)_________________________________________________________

I have restored the above content. As per WP:PERFECTION, further editing to improve the table can take place on the actual article. As per WP:CONSENSUS, only one person, or at least nocturnal bird, has shown opposition to this addition (and even s/he now calls it "quite a good idea"), which was the result of an RfC, so it seems to me entirely within policy to keep this material in the article until such time as consensus should change. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, if we see editors starting to make some inroads into backdating this change within the next 48hours, I'm agreeable that there is consensus for it staying, I understand there is a lot of work to do on it, so patience is required. However, I maintain my above comments and that this table should cover every single poll in this article for it to be appropriate. I hope those who argued the case for it will put just even more effort into implementing it, otherwise it will have to go. Owl In The House (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not feel that your attempt, Owl, to impose an arbitrary deadline of 48 hours is useful or in keeping with how Wikipedia works. It would be nice for the detailed results to cover every singe poll in the article, but if that doesn't happen or doesn't happen quickly, that doesn't change the situation. I refer you again to WP:PERFECTION. We had an RfC. No-one other than you has raised any objections to the RfC result or subsequent editing to put the recommended changes into effect. Myself and three other editors have stated their support for this approach and/or got on with making the changes. You have made your views clear, but I would urge you to now respect a WP:CONSENSUS decision. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It was not an arbitrary limit for this to be completed by, it was time for people who wanted this change to show that they do intend to backdate this. User:Impru20 has shown that signal of intent by starting to backdate and has made a great start. I hope you didn't think I meant it must all be done in 48 hours...a) I don't have the authority to say that. b) its not realistic and c) thats not what I wrote, I said that I understood a bit of patience would be necessary. All I wanted to see was a sign of intent that what has been agreed Unanimously will be implemented to the full. There is no disagreement here, however, if we get to the point of being in the run up to the election and whats been unanimously agreed hasn't been implemented then I will consider starting a discussion to have the table removed, if it is incomplete then theres not much point in having it. I'm sure it won't come to that though, User:Impru20 has made a great start. Owl In The House (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I refer you again to WP:PERFECTION: there is no reason to remove the table simply because of incompleteness. That's a pretty core principle behind how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems a little odd to include SNP and Plaid Cymru without noting that they are only possible to vote for in their respective nations. Their proportion of the total vote would likely be far higher if the individual results were shown for Scotland and Wales respectively. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We are including every party that each poll lists. We could add a footnote to explain about the SNP and PC. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful to note it above the table, in one sentence. I don't think that we need to belabour the point, but stating, clearly, that those two parties are limited by geographical area puts them in context. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done a footnote, to match that done for the Greens. I have no objection to those, now, three notes being changed to text above the table.

By the way, a small point, but perhaps we need to be clear on when to put "<1%" and when to put "0%". I've put "<1%" when the pollster found at least one person saying they would vote for that party, but they reported the number as less than 1% (often just marked as "*" on results tables). However, if a pollster found no-one saying they would vote for a particular party, then "0%" would be appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

During checking my cockup on the 0 vs * issue, I've found it impossible to distinguish between 0 & "rounds to 0" in yougov polls. As <1% does imply more than 0, perhaps some sort of note would be appropriate. Iliekinfo (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Impru20 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think that a paragraph before the table, contextualizing it, would be far, far better. Remember that not all readers of the article will necessarily be from the UK, and I do think the results are somewhat misleading if you don't know, for example, that Wales only has around 5% of the population of Great Britain, and Scotland just a bit over 8% - that greatly recontextualizes the figures - getting 3-5% support overall when only 8% have the choice is a very different thing than the uncontextualized data; and we don't have individual sections or, so far as I can see, article on this subject in Scotland or Wales, so I think it matters. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for specific polls of Scotland or of Wales being included on an appropriate page, just as we have polls on specific constituencies or on sets of marginals. And if you want to re-write what is currently in footnotes into text before the table, do give it a go. Bondegezou (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added incomplete & outdated tags as this section is now both. Would it not be better to complete it elsewhere and import it when complete? Is this possible? One problem is double-entry of data, I for one do not have the time or inclination to enter polling data twice, one in the 2014 summary table and once in the detailed table. In practice, completion of the detailed table is slow (not surprising, given the amount of work involved) and it brings down the quality level of the whole page.Saxmund (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is the nature of Wikipedia that it is often incomplete: see WP:PERFECTION. It is not Wikipedia policy to hide away material while it is being completed because doing so discourages the editing required to complete it! Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERFECTION, "Also, redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum (excepting the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the entire article, and so is intentionally duplicative)." Iliekinfo (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, redundancy should be kept to a minimum. In this case, the conclusion of lengthy debate on the subject and an RfC (see above) was that the way forward was to use two tables, i.e that two tables is the minimum degree of redundancy required to satisfy a desire for a table focused on the main parties and to include all the data on smaller parties that reliable sources make available.

The RfC closure is still recent and, indeed, has already been reviewed. It seems inappropriate to me to re-open that discussion so soon, although I note that some are unhappy with it. I feel we should try and make the 2 tables plan work (within existing policy and guidelines). If, at some future point, consensus is that this approach is not working (or, at least, there is no consensus that it is working), of course we can re-visit the plan. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the discussion, but having read it a few times:that was not the conclusion. That was given as an....apparent "ruling"...by someone uninvolved in either discussing or implementing the changes, it didn't actually feature in the discussion at all, let alone as a conclusion. If I miss the next time this is 'officially' debated, have it on record that I'd somewhat prefer the article to be the "detailed" table only, but only if the detailed table is complete, otherwise the "simple table" only. "I feel we should try and make the 2 tables plan work" Why? What for? What is the actual argument in favour of two tables? Iliekinfo (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I admit I didn't mention it at the time (I went for the status quo) but I think it would have been preferable to have moved to a detailed table after the next General Election which after all is no more than 8 months away. We could then have started a new set of results in a more detailed format, without having to retrofit 4.5 years' worth of detailed data.Saxmund (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

An RfC is meant to be closed by an uninvolved editor. That's how they work. Bondegezou (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome.

I'm all in favour of Saxmunds "next time" proposal btw. Though more precice rules about who makes the table or doesn't (Respect?) might be best decided ahead of time...Iliekinfo (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What on earth?

I don't know, I leave you alone for a bit and this happens....what the hell!?! This two tables thing is just so much nonsense....I see the "debate" got really confused, can't really see Saxmunds or Owls point...but surely this isn't the answer? If/when the "detailed" table gets done, what on earth is the point of the "normal" table? How this was in any way the consensus is beyond me... On another note, you appear to be reporting 0% as <1%. The two are not the same. EDIT:Notice you've already noticed that. Also, how come no Respect column? I know they're dead, but not so much as BNP. Iliekinfo (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know (and Impru's been doing most of the hard work of adding these), the detailed poll table includes any party listed by the pollster. If they've not listed Respect, we don't list Respect.

I would suggest we stick with two tables for now, see how it goes, and then return to the issue if people think it's the wrong approach. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking into it, it seems that some pollsters include the BNP & some don't, but only yougov include Respect. Allowing for this inconsistency is one (possibly the only) advantage of my old suggestion. I don't see the two tables working out, I certainly don't see how people are against the "Proposed Changes to Inclusive System and Aesthetic Design" but in favour of this....which is exactly the same but doing it half all over again. I'd support doing it the same as every other opinion polling page (Proposed Changes to Inclusive System and Aesthetic Design), or doing it my way, or just the "old" table, or just the "detailed" table. This doubling is madness....every new poll has to be added twice? Let alone the task of backdating everything, and fixing those <1%s. Iliekinfo (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The "0" of YouGov polls are shown as <1% for the simple reason that YG tends to round its vote results to the nearest integer. As an example, it is perfectly possible for 1 person to have stated they would vote for BNP, yet in % terms they may only score, let's say, 0.1%. That's not 0%, but YG rounding would effectively show them as 0%. This applies not only to BNP but also to 'Others', which YG show as 0% in many polls, and which is obvious that would not get 0 votes. Impru20 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, those polls I changed to 0 are exactly 0, pollsters usually report figures such as 0.1% with an * (or, they actually give 0.1%), these are polls where the BNP really did get 0 votes. Iliekinfo (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

YouGov does not do that. They have never shown parties with 0.1% with a *, nor do they show the number of respondents saying which party would they vote. YG just shows percentages rounded to the nearest integer. Otherwise, it's just impossible that in some polls, YG records 0 votes going to 'Other' parties (seriously, no one?). Impru20 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, you're right, my apologies. I was going through tabs of polls and still thinking in populus layout where they give full figures. Iliekinfo (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We had an RfC, and the closure of that RfC was reviewed and approved. I see little point in re-opening the discussion right now given that and given most have accepted the resultant plan. Let's see how it goes and if lots of people are unhappy at some future date, we can of course re-examine the issue. Bondegezou (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, I wasn't trying to remove it all on my lonesome, just think it's a really really nonsensical conclusion is all. Also that closure seems a bit of a nonsequitor from the RfC :)Iliekinfo (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't all together keen on the 2 tables idea but thinking about it, it is reflective of what our reliable sources report. Without doubt the headline polls (which only include the 4largest parties) are the main focus, the pollsters themselves highlight them, the Newspapers, online news sites and TV networks only focus on the headline polls. That said other parties are consistently represented in more detailed tables, so I do think this in many ways is the best of both worlds, provided this second more detailed table remains a minor piece of the article and not the main focus (that would not be reflective of reality at all).

As for the original proposals, well that discussion has been had, voted on, rfc'd, you name it we've done it. The reality is it did not reflect reliable sources or indeed political reality.

On the subject of adding the Respect Party being added to this detailed table, I have raised this before in a kind of indifferent way but I would be in favour of including them in this table if there is sufficient data for them (we don't really want a collum mainly filled with dashes or merged with the others column. I hold the same position for the SWP or whatever other party (I realise Respect is probably a borderline case - hence I'm on the fence). Owl In The House (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A largely blank column poses some problems. If a party is only occasionally mentioned in polls, could we use footnotes or something? Bondegezou (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I say it's borderline in my view is because YouGov do include them as far back as at least late 2011 (polls before that don't open) and YouGov do account for most of the data and since this is a detailed table, part of me thinks that we'd be skimping on detail. I guess the question is would there be more numbers then dashes or dashes then numbers. Owl In The House (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinium also list Respect. Thinking about it, I'm more inclined to say they should be included in this table, it is meant to be a detailed table afterall and it is detail we have, I can't see a good reason not to include them given that we now have this second table. Owl In The House (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Owl in the house's earlier view (4th Sept) that there nothing to be gained if there is no real data in the column. Can anybody find a national poll where Respect weren't <1%? Thinking about criteria so we could make a rational decision for what to do after the General Election, I would suggest that a column isn't justified for a party if most of its polling (perhaps over the last 10 polls) is <0.5% - so not even rounded up to 1%. I would make an exception if/whenever the party manages a 2% in a single reputable poll on the basis that we have some interesting data, so it does deserve a column to show that interesting data. 85.133.27.19 DrArsenal, normally editing from 87.112.138.6885.133.27.19 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

undent The columns can only really change at the start of each year, unless we make each month or whatever separate tables (which seems a bit finicky), so the 'last 10 polls' thing doesn't really work. I'd suggest whatever criteria should be based on how many pollsters included them in the previous year. Maybe any party that gets 3 pollsters including in a year, gets a column in the next years table? Or something along those lines. Iliekinfo (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean a constant running 10 polls, so much as a 'last 10 polls' when a decision is made - which I would be happy to be an annual decision. But equally, the number of different pollsters that included them in the previous year would be a reasonable criterion. DrArsenal 14:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.138.68 (talk)

Lord Ashcroft poll 28th September 2014 = actually Con 32/Lab 31/UKIP 16/LD 9?

Is it just me, or did Lord Ashcroft's poll earlier in the week actually give a Tory lead of 1% (32 v. 31) as opposed to the published tied vote (32 each for Lab and Con)?

Tables here

weighted sample without adjusting for don't know/refusers: 501

Lab 159 (32%) Con 158 (32%) UKIP 87 (17%) LD 39 (8%)

assuming 50% of 2010 don't know/refusers are added "back" to their party

159+12 = 171 Lab 158+18 = 176 Con 87 = UKIP 39+12 = 51 LD

New weighted sample adjusting for DK/ref = 543

New percentages:

Con 32% Lab 31% UKIP 16% LD 9%

regards, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I would think a discussion like this would be more appropriate on a forum like ukpollingreport. The likely explanation btw is rounding. The 171 people wasn't exactly 171, but weighted and not an integer. I would deduce it was weighted to somewhere 171.36 to 171.98, made up by adding two numbers that get rounded down to 159 and 12 respectively, but because they add to >171.35, the total gets rounded up in the calculation of the %.

Dr Arsenal 146.227.159.61 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If I might chip in. That may explain the Con and Lab ending up equal, but not the UKIP and LD figures. Remember that UKIP "people" is unchanged in the adjustment. 87/501 v. 87/543. 89.243.100.230 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Scotland

There are many Scottish Westminster polls (and a few Welsh ones too). Should they be included here (given that the NI's ones are), in the constituency polls page or in a new one? I just find it strange that at the moment they do appear to appear anywhere on Wikipedia... 193.62.42.156 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think they should certainly appear somewhere, but like you, I've never been certain where! I suggest we start with a subsection here and if it gets too big, we can create a separate article. I think it's also important to exclude small subsample results of national polls: we should only cover proper polls of Scotland (or Wales). Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye to that. Though maybe a separate article would make sense, for NI, Scots, Welsh, English only (there must have been one?). This article is pretty scrolly already. It could be a good idea to include 3-way results there too (westminster, assembly const, assembly region) Iliekinfo (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that they should be somewhere - I'd tend to agree with [User:Iliekinfo|Iliekinfo] that a separate article for NI, Scots, Welsh, London-wide etc would be good (would polls of groups of marginals also go there?). Agree also with the 3-way results. One more question of the content - there would need to be a decision (again) about which parties to include. I can't see myself contributing, though, as I'm working on the gaps in the incomplete "Detailed poll results" section whenever I have time to add extra content (as against keep up-to-date). DrArsenal 87.112.138.68 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I see there is now a "Constituent Country Polls" section on the slightly misnamed "Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election in individual constituencies" page. Good luck to those of you who want to add such polls. I will find them helpful. Should there be a link from this page? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Now relocated to this page DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

<1% or <0.5%, Ashcroft's <0.5%s

While adding detailed poll results, I am sticking to the previous practice of indicating <1% for poll results that are >0 and not enough to be reported as 1% by the pollster. However, given practices of rounding, anything 0.5% and above would be rounded to 1%, so I keep feeling that <0.5% would be a more accurate description of that poll result for the party in question. Should it be changed to the more factually accurate <0.5%?

In a similar vein, Ashcroft these days appears to report every party on 1% or more in his 'headline' results, including all <0.5% in the 'Others'. Thus we know that any blanks in a row of Ashcroft are <0.5%, but the reader of the page could get the impression that they are >1% since they are then bundled into an 'others' that is >1%. Should we do something to disambiguate this? DrArsenal 87.112.138.68 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of objection, I've just changed <1%s to <0.5% (over 200 of them!). DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ashcroft poll 8-9 Oct

Wondering if this http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Post-Conference-Poll-Full-tables-Oct-2014.pdf should be listed as a VI poll. It was published in the Sun on Sunday without headline VI being published, presumably because of the SoS's arrangement with YouGov. However the tables weighted politically and for turnout give Con 31, Lab 34, LD 7, UKIP 18. As this is a major poll of over 5,000 respondents it would be a shame to miss it, however does it count as OR to lift figures off tables in this way? Saxmund (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, include it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Add polls with seats?

Could we add polls with seats?

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-10-11/study-ukip-could-win-128-seats-in-next-election/

Labour 253 Conservatives 187 Ukip 128 Lib Dems 11 Other parties 71

Last updated Sat 11 Oct 2014 81.58.144.30 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not like that. That's nonsense speculation to make a good story, there's no easy way to convert national poll results into seats, and if there was an agreed method, it definitely wouldn't be that one. You might find this (incomplete) article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_individual_constituencies interesting though: the actual number of 'UKIP in 1st place' seats according to polls is 7. Iliekinfo (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Two ComRes polls 16th Oct 2014?

Why is there two ComRes entries for 16th October 2014? best, 188.222.179.74 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there are two ComRes polls, done with different methods over a splitted sample of 2,000 people. See it here. Impru20 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

9 Oct Notable Event row too long

For 9th Oct it currently verbosely says - "The UK Independence Party wins its first elected Member of Parliament after the sitting MP switches allegiance from the Conservatives and resigns his seat to contest the resulting Clacton by-election. Labour narrowly retains its seat at the Heywood and Middleton by-election, despite opinion polls predicting a wide lead." I really can't see how such a lengthy description is appropriate in a table that is meant to be about opinion polls. Can we reduce it please? I would suggest that "UKIP wins first MP, after sitting MP defects and resigns Clacton seat to contest by-election. Labour retains seat in Heywood & Middleton by-election." is factual and sufficient to give the context to the changes in Tory and UKIP shares before and after. Dr Arsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've changed it back to what is normal for by-election results throughout the rest of the article. No need for analysis or bias in a section about data. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 123.2.85.195 fo the comment here. I note 86.163.137.11 has been adding 'narrowly' back in without edit summary - I have undone (for now at least) DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the 'narrowly' adjective should be kept in the table for the case of the Heywood & Middleton by-election. Opinion polls shortly before the elections were predicting wide Labour leads which were finally not materialized; thus, the election result came as a surprise to many. The fact that Labour only narrowly won the seat against UKIP could have had (and indeed it seems to have had) some influence in the recent UKIP's boost in opinion polls, so I believe it is a noteworthy event in this particular case. Impru20 (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If there had been a similar poll boost without the Clacton by-election, I think it would be justified to include 'narrowly', but as it is, the text starts with reference to UKIP winning in Clacton, which could be adequate explanation by itself. Meanwhile, Impru20, should there be a Notable Event row to explain the SNP's part of the increase in 'others'? And what do you put the increase in the Greens' portion of 'others' down to? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The table of opinion poll data simply isn't the right place for political analysis. The best place for this is their respective by-election articles. The results of elections and other notable events should be summarised as short as possible to convey the actual results. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We should avoid editorialising and keep such notes plain and simple. Political analysis, properly referenced, can go in the by-election article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Trouble is non-logged in editors keep changing it without even using the 'edit summary' to justify, let alone coming here to discuss. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Green Party position

I know support for the Green Party in the polls has been all over the place recently: some polls have its support as low as 2% but the Lord Ashcroft poll I just added in there has their support at 8%, above that of the Liberal Democrats on 7%. However, I have had to lump the number for them in with the 'Others' category. It is with this in mind that I would like to ask: just so we're clear, in what circumstances would we add the Green Party to this table, in a separate column from 'Others'? Would it only happen if a larger number of pollsters included them as a 'main option'? Would they have to be consistently above the Liberal Democrats after a certain number of polls? Any assistance you can give in this matter would be much appreciated --Rayboy8 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can make up a rule ahead of time (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for the dangers in doing that). It's something that will have to be dealt with when we get there. There have been many long debates about this: first around including UKIP and now around including the Greens. At the moment, we have two sets of tables: the first table with Con, Lab, UKIP, LibDem and Others, which reflects how most polls are reported in the UK (although some press reports do include the Greens nowadays), and a detailed table that includes SNP, Plaid, Greens and BNP, which reflects the detailed results seen from polling organisations. This compromise of two tables is not to everyone's tastes. One suggestion is that, once the detailed table is more complete, we just use that and drop the first table. However, there is far from a consensus behind that.

It seems to me that the decision of which parties to include in the first table (if it is kept) has to be based on basic Wikipedia principles, i.e. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources do. So I don't think we should attempt to construct a rule based on how many times the Greens are above the LibDems. Whether pollsters include them as a 'main option' seems, to me, more pertinent. Whether newspapers, TV and academic sources include them in their polling reporting or summarising, that is the most important criterion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the detailed table is relatively recent, and I have only managed to backdate it to mid-April so far I also don't think now is the time. HOWEVER, I would suggest that it is appropriate, in the meantime, for there to be footnote on relevant row(s) of the table pointing out when LDs are behind, or level with Greens (or someone else, like the SNP), and the share of the party ahead/level with LDs. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a note saying when the LDs are behind or level with the Greens. We had this issue before with the long debate about whether to note who is in third place (UKIP or LD) and rejected that. It strikes me as too much editorialising: it fails WP:SYNTH and WP:BIAS. It's not what opinion polling articles do for other countries. Let's leave the opinion poll tables with the raw data. What would be better is to have some text, supported by reliable source references, in the Next United Kingdom general election article or the articles about the relevant parties noting the decline of the LDs and/or rise of the Greens over this period, with an example of that being the Greens overtaking the LDs in some polls. Bondegezou (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If a note saying when LDs are behind or level with Greens fails WP:SYNTH, so does the "graphical summary" on both this page and Next United Kingdom general election, since there has been calculation of the trend line. A plot of the coloured dots alone, without the line would be a different matter, I think. Talking of Next United Kingdom general election, it really doesn't look relevant at this stage. Perhaps if someone wrote a textual summary of changes in party standing over the parliament that was generally acceptable, it would be included, but I find it hard to believe a generally acceptable summary will be written until after the election: ie for more than 6 months. As for WP:BIAS, I suspect that wasnt the page you were trying to refer to. Dr Arsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I was thinking of WP:UNDUE, not WP:BIAS. I am less concerned about a smoothed line in a graph than about this occasional desire to highlight relative 3rd/4th/5th positions as having some special meaning. While the details may be contentious, I don't think it is impossible to write something in Next United Kingdom general election summarising party standings over the Parliament. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at WP:NPOV, which that redirects to. I can see more relevance for it if my suggestion had been to put in bold, or make some use of different coloured background or something like that. ...but putting a note on 'Others' in the appropriate cell of the 2014 table, giving the breakdown of the 'others' figure when 'others' is unusally high wouldn't be giving any great prominence (how many people read footnotes, after all?). If there really is a problem with WP:SYNTH (despite people ignoring other violations on the page), then OK the footnote wouldn't have to mention the mathematical relationship with the LD share. To illustrate what I mean, I will edit the page, pro tem. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There are three issues here. (1) Is it noteworthy that the Greens were higher than the LibDems in that one poll? My answer: maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that's not a decision that is up to us as individual editors. We must follow reliable sources (and reflect what they say in a neutral and unbiased way). I note that not a single reliable source has been cited in this discussion! (I also note that the statistical variation in polls is such that there is little real meaning to that single poll result finding the Greens higher than the LibDems.) (2) If there is RS support highlighting particular poll results (whatever they may be), how do we cover those? It feels too much like editorialising to me to notate the data tables. I think such matters are better dealt with in text (in this article or in other articles) where it is easier to deal with issues of undue prominence. Let's keep the data tables here clean. I note this desire to notate the polling results does not appear in articles for non-UK politics. (3) DrArsenal, your new edit raises another set of questions. You have used a footnote to show the breakdown for a particularly high Others figure in the first table in the article (that just shows Con, Lab, UKIP and LD). Interesting approach; I applaud your boldness. I think, however, that it doesn't work. We end up back at the whole, tortured discussion of whether to have one table, or two tables, or which parties to include. You've given us another option there, but the same underlying questions remain. And why give a footnote for that one poll? That, it seems to me, is giving undue greater prominence to the Others result in that one poll. Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ukpollingreport would, according to earlier discussion on this page, count as RS. That source doesnt just note Greens higher than LDs, but also that "it’s a symptom of the genuine rise we’ve seen in Green support over recent months." - so while it might be a 'blip' in being the only poll higher than the LDs for a while, the genuine rise in Green support, as noted in further reliable sources, has hitherto not really been noted on Wikipedia (eg in the "graphical summary"). By contrast, the UKIP rise since the turn of the year is noted with 9 Oct 'notable event' row, and the two for the May election results, and the 26th March debate, as well as the 'graphical summary'. Green gains of council seats or MEP are not noted there - on their own they might be reasonable decisions, but I think it would be hard to justify that the UKIP rise is more than 5 times as notable as the Green rise this year, and the footnote is a lot less noticable than a 'notable event' row, let alone the 'graphical summary'.

Yes, my edit was intentionally in the spirit of BOLDness. I would have thought 'others' being twice (or more) the share of one of the parties listed justified giving a footnote for a particular poll - unusually high polling often gets mentioned in RS, indeed newspaper reports tend to accompany unusual numbers from a pollsters far more often and far more prominently than routine polling numbers. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

undent DrArsenals edit is very similar to a suggestion I made last time there was discussion on this point. (see 'Experimental table changes' in this archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election/Archives/2014/June ) However, I reckon it's been rendered moot by the addition of the detailed table. I think we have consensus on this issue...though depending on whether the detailed table ever gets completed or not, it could change....so will be removing DrArsenals note. Iliekinfo (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say that to a real extent the situation is different from June: The Sun (@Sun_Politics) are now routinely tweeting Green shares, UK Polling Report is routinely giving Green shares, newspapers are reporting on how Labour in Scotland is suffering loss of support to SNP and how Green Party polling is having an effect on Labour and LibDems, etc. So reporting by reliable sources is in a different place from in June.

In addition, what I was suggesting wasn’t by any means the same as that proposal from June. What I was suggesting was an occasional footnote, not something that would add to every row, let alone something that made extra content routinely visible.

Even though I wasn't in any way involved at the time, I am not trying to overthrow the outcome of the RfC process: indeed, I think I am putting many times more effort than anybody else into implementing the ‘detailed’ table. However, since circumstances have moved on (both in reality and in reporting in RS), I would still argue that an occasional footnote would enable the outcome of the RfC to adapt to the changed circumstances, while being a sufficiently small tweak to be essentially within the spirit of that outcome. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the circumstances have changed since June. I propose that we include the Greens in the table from, perhaps, September onwards (whenever it is determined they have been getting sufficient attention to be fairly compared to the other four), but don't backdate them. The RfC determined the Greens weren't popular enough to be included a few months ago, so it shouldn't be backdated past then, but now the circumstances are different, IMO warranting inclusion. Chessrat (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Just seen at ukpollingreport comments a comment from 'Richard' at 10.22pm "I see the Greens are now important enough to be regularly included in the headline figures/ tweets." I am not 'Richard' don't know who 'Richard' is, but from following UKPR, haven't seen much sign of him being a Greenie. What 'Richard' says is true: Greens are routinely being reported in reliable sources. The circumstances at the time of the RfC no longer hold. Something needs to change on this page. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are the key RS reporters of UK politics? There's the BBC: their poll tracker has Con, Lab, UKIP, LibDem and Others (no Greens). The Guardian's Datablog has an archive of their polls that just covers Con, Lab, LibDem and Others (no UKIP, no Greens). Looking at more individual articles, I tried searching for "opinion poll" at The Independent's website and one of the first hits was this, a poll for Rochester & Strood, including Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, Greens and Others. Ditto at the Evening Standard brought up this article, which is about polling, rather than including any particular polling results, and mentions Con, Lab, UKIP and LibDem, but not the Greens. Ditto at the Daily Mail produced this article focusing on UKIP that also mentions Lab, Con, LibDem and Green, and this one which does the same. It seems to me that the Greens are sometimes being routinely reported along side the other 4 parties, but this is not a universal phenomenon.

My favoured solution would be to dump (or at least de-emphasise) the table with only the top 4 parties and focus instead on the table showing all parties listed in the polling results. I would also favour adding some explanatory text saying how the pollsters highlight the main parties and not others. Bondegezou (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with only including the whole table is that it's rather unwieldy (too much formatting/footnotes that admittedly can't be avoided) and probably violates WP:UNDUE. While the attitudes of various sources differ, it's clear that the only parties regularly mentioned are Cons, Lab, LibDems, UKIP, and Greens. If it's decided that the current layout of main party table+full table is the way to go, then it's clear that including Greens is more representative of the aforementioned reliable sources than excluding them. To keep the main table consistent within each year, I propose that the Greens are included in the main 2014 table, but not in the previous years when they didn't have the same levels of support, and better belong only in the Full Party Table.Chessrat (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou - I'm not sure it makes sense to pay attention to BBC or Gruaniad poll trackers. Both have a strong element of wanting to maintain the sequence, and are likely to just keep doing what they have been until it becomes completely untenable, because they don't want to spend the resource of backdating. As it is, BBC don't provide any rationale for including some YouGov and not others, and their explanation of how they calculate 'others' doesn't match what they actually do (it must have been written when they included UKIP in 'others'). DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Synth

It looks to me like indicating which party is in the lead and calculating the margin contravenes WP:SYNTH, unless a reliable source gives it. Populus don't appear to give leads on their website, on their tables, or normally have a client who does this either. My conclusion is that editors are making that calculation themselves, which constitutes original research, and thus Populus (and other pollsters where no reliable source for leads exist) should not have a coloured background for the party in the lead, or a calculated margin of lead displayed. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've always been slightly uneasy about the lead columns. They are not used on most articles of polling data. Bondegezou (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Addressed in WP:SYNTHNOT per WP:CALC that obvious calculations are not original research. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Two points arise. (1) Is it an obvious calculation? While it appears to be on the surface, there are complexities that arise. For example, the error term on the difference from an opinion poll is bigger than the error term for individual levels of support. (2) Why calculate this figure? Is it WP:UNDUE to highlight this figure? It is a figure that has no direct role in UK election results. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It might not have a direct role in UK election results, but in the UK the RS routinely give the "poll lead" of the Tories over Labour (or vice versa) as a key component in any summary of the results. Pollsters such YouGov publish it on their web page, websites such as ukpollingreport and politicalbetting do this, as do the mainstream media. The figures given always relate to the rounded party shares, despite the level of error that might arise from this. So I think it is an acceptable practice, in the UK at least. For example, over the last few days YouGov has published references to "Update - Labour lead at 1" and "Update - Conservatives and Labour tied". See http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/. I am sure I could easily find a lot more citations.Saxmund (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point, Saxmund, where the lead is given. But as I said, it doesn't happen for Populus. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're being picky here. For example, the poll lad might be given on politicalbetting with a headline "labour leads by 2%" or maybe the UKIP figure is more interesting "UKIP on 20%" so you may have the bizarre situation where we can report a poll lead one week because it has been reported on a RS, and not another week. As has been pointed out by others, it is a simple arithmetic calculation, and it is commonplace in describing British polls.Saxmund (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

By contrast, WP:SYNTHNOT seems to make it crystal clear that the trendline in the 'Graphical Summary' is Synth. Whether the lead is, or isn't, is less clear-cut, however, I think highlighting with all three of (1) bold for the leading party's %, (2) the coloured background in that column, and (3) the coloured background again for the 'lead' column is clearly WP:UNDUE. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to claim that the poll lead is original research, then just about anything becomes original research. WP:SYNTHNOT makes it clear that obvious calculations from sources are not original research. The example given is that if a source says 1 plus 2, then the article can say 3 without violating WP:SYNTH. As long as 38 minus 33 equals 5, we are entitled to say that Labour leads Conservative by 5. This is not supposed to be merely a reflection of reliable sources, this is an encyclopaedia. If you want to get rid of that, you might as well look into removing the "Others" column, the graph with a moving average, the detailed poll results, the political events in the poll data, and much more throughout polling articles. The lead doesn't have a direct role in UK elections, but nor does the poll results themselves! We do not decide on what goes in an article and what doesn't based on fitting Wikipedia policy. We decide based on what is best to improve the article, of which the policies help. The policies on WP:SYNTH are there to prevent editors from making the article worse by their original research. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing which concerns me about the graph is the calculation used to do the smoothing. The caption states that it is a 14-day moving average, but it has quite obviously been smoothed, surely there should be a link to a description of the algorithm used?Saxmund (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It says it's a 15-day moving trend line, but since it's obviously made in Microsoft Excel, I assume the "algorithm" is really just an average trend line for twice a month. Either way, a question for Impru20 but the graph and the trend line should absolutely be kept in some form. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

123.2.85.195 - you have more-or-less convinced me that the calculation of the lead and its display is acceptable. However, nobody has responded to my comment that highlighting with all three of (1) bold for the leading party's %, (2) the coloured background in that column, and (3) the coloured background again for the 'lead' column is clearly WP:UNDUE. There is also implicit highlighting in the graphical summary. When editing the 'Detailed Poll Results' last night, I left out two of the three forms of highlighting: to me just having the 'lead' column is fair enough, but more is repetition and undue emphasis. DrArsenal 85.133.27.19 (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polling is done in many countries and Wikipedia has articles on opinion polling for many countries. These other articles often do things differently to what we do here on this article. Why? Some other articles don't do a lead calculation; some do. Other articles generally include everyone listed in the polling results. I am concerned that habits have developed on the UK articles for no good reasons. Consider:

• United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Alabama,_2014#Polling as an example of US articles: they also tend to do things in their own ways. Note all candidates being listed, this being for a primary. Note margin of error explicitly given. No leads.
• Iowa_gubernatorial_election,_2014#Polling_2 as another US example. Again, margin of error given explicitly. No leads. Small other column.
• Next_Italian_general_election#Opinion_polling lists all parties including those polling very low numbers. Does have a lead column. Does have a moving average graph.
• Next_German_federal_election#Poll_results has a lead column, has a graph, lists the FDP despite very low numbers, but doesn't list the Pirate Party.
• Opinion polling for the French Presidential election, 2017 has no lead column, but lead highlighted. Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's mildly interesting, but I don't think moves us on, Bondegezou. So far as I can see from searching Wikipedia policies, precedent and consistency of coverage between articles is hardly valued in itself. WP:Bias is relevant in general, but not in this case. What is crystal clear is that WP:UNDUE is massively valued, and I'm pretty sure that if there is consensus that current practice of the three/four forms of highlighting is a form of undue emphasis, we should reduce the amount of emphasis. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is UNDUE. It is used without favour for whichever party is in the lead, and I think it is useful in guiding the human eye to what is otherwise a fairly dry table of data, so really just helps readability.Saxmund (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there should be no visual cue as to who is in the lead, just that three or four visual cues is too many for the 1st/2nd place when there are none at all for 2nd/3rd, 3rd/4th or 4th/5th. "Whichever party is in the lead" obscures the reality that only two parties, with a combined support of <70% of the electorate, get 100% of that triple/quadruple emphasis, thus being emphasised at the expense of parties with the support of the other 30%+ of voters. If removing the 'lead' column is not acceptable, then I would say the coloured backgrounds in it are sufficient to guide the human eye as to who is in the lead at any time. Alternatively, if the colouring of the cell displaying the % of the leading party is vital, I would say the 'lead' column should not use colour to indicate who has the lead. Either way, why put the % of the leading party in bold? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with WP:UNDUE. I don't think it's bias to Labour by having a lead column highlighted in red. The lead column is there to compare not only the parties' poll results, but to compare other leads. It's very helpful to compare Labour's relatively small lead in the past few months with the lead around 10% a few years ago. The decision to modify the article shouldn't be to conform to Wikipedia policies, it should be what actually improves the article for anybody who wants to analyse the data presented, of which the policies are often a guideline. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

123...you helped persuade me that the lead column on its own is more-or-less OK. But the question I am raising now isn't about any one element on its own. The lead column, colour of the leading party's share of the vote, and putting that in bold ALL give emphasis to the same basic fact. Yes, which party is in the lead is of interest, but I hold that the repeated emphasis on it in a single row is to over-emphasise. Historically we may judge one of the parties passing another in the opinion polls as being a really significant event in UK politics, but we don't yet know whether it will be Lab passing tories, UKIp passing lds, greens passing LDs, or perhaps in future SNP passing LDs or Tories passing Lab. To give three lots of emphasis in the table for which of Lab or Tories is in the lead is to give 1st position in the poll ranking undue emphasis at the expense of other positions in the ranking, especially when there is no simple or necessary relationship between that and who will form the next government. While there are problems with the 'graphical summary', at least it shows the 2nd/3rd, and 3rd/4th relationships. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it's a bad thing to have a lead column, to colour the lead and the leading party's results, and to bold the text.

• The coloured lead is essential in determining which way the lead is. This is helpful for comparing recent polling where Labour leads low, where Labour leads high and where Conservative was leading.
• The coloured box of the winning party's result instantly shows the highest result, which is much different to the lead. Labour on 34% and Labour leading by 2 have different purposes.
• The text being bold makes it much easier to read against the coloured background and gives it more attention, which is a good thing.

This is not over-emphasis of the same thing, this is emphasis for related yet different things that the polls can show us. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You "don't see why it's a bad thing". The reason is that by giving undue emphasis to one valid and interesting element you are implicitly downplaying other valid and interesting elements that don't have any emphasis at all. The "coloured lead" box does not have to be coloured to determine which way the lead is. It could be done textually: I would suggest this would still give it mild emphasis, but less than at present. "coloured box of the winning party's result instantly shows the highest result": the same colour for the lead box is enough of a clue. "The text being bold ... gives it more attention": absolutely. But why, with a coloured box (or two) does it need YET MORE attention, taking attention away from other interesting data in the row - such as the share of the vote the LDs, a governing party, (didn't) get? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What are the other elements that we can get from the polling results that you believe are diminished? It's not really an issue about WP:UNDUE, you just feel that there shouldn't be some things. That's fine to have that opinion, as long as you can say why it would improve the article rather than simply quoting a policy. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about undue inclusion or exclusion. I'm complaining about undue emphasis. The other elements that are diminished are elements you can still 'get', if you pay attention, but your attention is drawn away from them. That is the nature of undue emphasis. These are the share of the 2nd party, the 3rd party, the 4th party, the 5th party, and the relative position of those parties. If one element takes a greater share of your attention due to being bold or having a coloured background, it follows logically that other elements inevitably take a smaller share of attention. It is fair enough for there to be some highlighting of which party is leading (which would be perfectly well achieved by graphical summary alone, but there is a massive difference between that and the repeated highlighting in the same row we have at present. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you're complaining, but can you tell us what the problem with diminishing the other elements are? The emphasis is on the winning party, the winning party's share of the votes and the winning party's lead. Everything else is thereby diminished, but what is the problem that you have with this being emphasised and other things not? 123.2.85.195 (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We are in a situation where whichever party it is that is in the lead is getting less than 1/3 of the support of those who intend to vote, but not just 100% of the emphasis, but 100% of the emphasis repeated again and again within a single poll report row. Even if, as in recent weeks, the lead swaps, attention is disproportionately and unnecessarily drawn away from the parties supported by the other 1/3 plus of the voting public. DrArsenal 85.133.27.19 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Clever, 46.208.137.165 You have made a big change without gaining consensus, you have only made a partial change going back 3 weeks so the formatting is now inconsistent, and the table is to my mind now much more difficult to read at a glance, and hence less informative. And you want to be a major editor on this page but can't even be bothered to set up an account. I think the emphasis should go back to what it was. Complaining that the lead party's figures are bold and coloured is like complaining that Impru20's graph shows undue influence as the leading party is at the top. Saxmund (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Saxmund, as I understand WP policy, it is intentionally not required to set up an account. At the moment I haven't seen any advantage, and just don't want another password to forget. It isn't a question of "can't be bothered": please don't use the talk page to cast unwarranted aspersions on others. As for the substance...

Yes, I knew there wasn't consensus, but you stopped responding a week ago, since which time the discussion had been just me and 123... and the discussion had moved on a bit, so I was trying to initiate a bold, revert, discuss process. That is why I only edited a few weeks, rather than trying to be really consistent in the table: it wasn't worth the effort for an edit I fully expected to be reverted quickly. So, thanks for coming here to discuss, I will not get remotely upset by the revert. I disagree with you, though. Complaining that the lead party's figures are bold and coloured is not like complaining that a graph has the leading party at the top. It is just as possible, as I showed, for the table to display the data without that emphasis. It is simply not possible for the graph to do what it is supposed to do usefully without having the leading party at the top. So, or analogy just doesn't hold. If you are going to disagree with me, as is your right, please come up with arguments that hold water a bit better. Thanks. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi DrArsenal, I didn't realise it was you or I wouldn't have been so snotty, I thought it was just a passing IP editor. Particularly if you post from different IP addresses maybe that is a good reason for having an account, we know who it is. I have always assumed that it was courtesy to have an account name if I am going to regularly edit an article, but YMMV. The reason I haven't posted recently is partly I have been busy on another interest, partly because I see little point repeating the same opinion. I don't see emphasising the leading party is giving undue emphasis, as the leading party can change. Other countries' polling articles might not do this, but in the UK's old two (and a bit) party system it has always been the custom to give the Tory/Labour lead as a key part of reporting the poll. The highlighting helps to guide the eye in what is otherwise 8 columns of undifferentiated numbers and is useful for that alone. I don't see having bold numbers and a coloured background as being two levels of emphasis: I see it as one cell with emphasis. Maybe at this point we need an RFC?

One problem is that the UK political system has evolved quite a bit during the lifetime of this page. Back in 2010 it no doubt seemed entirely reasonable that the table showed the "main three" parties and a Tory/Labour lead, and of course UKIP and now the Greens have caught up. We maybe need to think about displaying the table more like other countries which have mature multi-party systems. But with an election only 5 months away I would suggest we wait until it is over and we have a new "Opinion polling for the next UK General Election" page. We are going to have to make other changes as the GE approaches in any case, I would have thought at least an additional graph to effectively show the large number of polls published in the last few weeks of the campaign. Saxmund (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I know I have been arguing to overturn a widespread and longstanding practice, and it may be an RFC is the only way of getting a sensible debate, but I have never been active on talk pages before (iirc not at all, before the RFC on this page had already closed), so I don't really know. Can anybody point me to where there has been a discussion before about whether to include in the same row all of bold, coloured column and coloured 'lead' column (whether for UK or elsewhere with a multi-party system)? If it is something based on a real, debated decision at some point, it is worth thinking about the arguments put forward at that time. If, on the other hand it is something that is being done because it has always been done, or just unthinkingly copied from US practice, then perhaps it is time for an RFC. I don't know. I don't really understand the criteria for an RFC. Or is there something less than an RFC that could be tried first?

PS, Saxmund, while it is nice to be thought of as better than a 'passing IP editor', can I mention that I have been reminded below not to bite newcomers? Meanwhile, I can certainly understand 1) having plenty of other things to do and 2) not seeing the point in keeping repeating the same thing. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• "We are in a situation where whichever party it is that is in the lead is getting less than 1/3 of the support of those who intend to vote, but not just 100% of the emphasis, but 100% of the emphasis repeated again and again within a single poll report row. Even if, as in recent weeks, the lead swaps, attention is disproportionately and unnecessarily drawn away from the parties supported by the other 1/3 plus of the voting public."

Can you tell me what the problem with that is? I understand how the current system works, but why do you want to go back for years of the tables and change it? 123.2.85.195 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To me the problem is that it doesn't comply with the Neutral Point of View policy - three quotes from that policy: "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." I don't doubt that giving some prominence to the lead in any given poll is compatible with NPOV, but I can't see how the amount given is proportionate. If we have, for years, been violating NPOV, we should change it, even if it needs going back through years of tables. If, OTOH, there has been careful thought and current practice has, therefore, been decided as fitting with the requirement to be proportionate, I would expect someone to be able to find it, and then I can read it, appreciate it, and shut up. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see why highlighting the leading party whatever it is violates NPOV, especially as the Tory/Labour lead is a key component of how opinion polls are reported in the UK. It's not as if we're making it up. Or if we highlighted a party because its score was particularly interesting.Saxmund (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

DrArsenal, why doesn't it comply with neutral point of view? Who do you think is preserving the current arrangement because of bias to one party or another? I feel that it does not violate my neutrality to say that Labour, or the Conservatives, are leading. Although the leader is treated differently to those who are not the leaders, the leader can always change. If we only treated the lead like we did for Labour, that would certainly be biased, but it appears that we do the same for the Conservatives when they lead. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Green Party (2)

I publicly thank User:Chessrat for having inserted the poll numbers of the Green Party of England and Wales in the main table. They deserve to be there. I would add the poll numbers of the SNP and PC to the main table too. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Chessrat for all the work. Given ongoing discussion on the matter, it would have been nice to have reached consensus here first. I too am uncertain about adding the Greens without also adding SNP/PC, and indeed there is an argument that the BNP should be included too, i.e. using the detailed poll table further done the article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering whether to wait for official consensus first, but it seemed that almost everyone agreed that the Greens should be included in the main table, while many thought the other parties (SNP/PCY etc.) should be included, but their inclusion is more contentious. So I added the most popular change even before the formal consensus, in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Chessrat (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is about time to include them on the main table. Last time it was discussed, the Greens had reached the LD score a couple of times and were being mentioned in the headline results only I think by Lord Ashcroft. YouGov have now joined him in this and there have been a few more occasions where the Greens have matched or exceeded the LDs. I think we can now say it is being sustained. As the table shows the "main parties" in the UK, originally only the big 3, it seams reasonable to add a new party as and when it shows its ability to match one of the existing "main" parties on a sustainable level. So I wouldn't add any other parties unless they grow to a point where they can match one of the new "big 5".Saxmund (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Saxmund, now Greens are being mentioned routinely in Sun_Politics tweets and on UKPollingReport, as well as the sources you mention. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting bored of pointing out that matching one of the 'existing main' is logical nonsense for an argument. It is completely irrelevant whether a party scores higher or lower than the lib-dems, the lib-dems are not a yardstick. It is frustrating that some refuse to understand this. Iliekinfo (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're getting bored of pointing it out, it's because you are just expressing an opinion, if you think it's logical nonsense then how about deploying logic and explaining why.Saxmund (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Iliekinfo that has only been mentioned by one of the contributors to this thread, who also mentioned extra RS who were routinely mentioning Greens in headlines. So, few of us are using LibDems as a yardstick. Are you OK with the page with the Greens' column or not? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Chessrat on everything. Also, I would add the Greens and SNP/PC both in the table and the graph. --Checco (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ps: At least the Greens should appear in the graph as they are now in the table.

Oh no you don't, that was very sneaky. YOu have not involved any of the main contributors to this section and you have deliberately done this in as discrete way as possible. Edit will be reversed, besides a few days is not a sufficient amount of time to overturn such a consensus. Edit will be reversed. I think this page may need to be protected. 212.159.166.201 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

^Sheffno1gunner? It's against the rules to use a sockpuppet to evade a block, for obvious reasons. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

123.2.85.195 - I don't know who you are suggesting is sockpuppeting - if it is me, please say so. But 212.159.166.201 and 123.2.85.195, can you please note and heed the instructions at the top of the talk page: "Assume good faith". thanks DrArsenal 85.133.27.19 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I always assume good faith, and I ask you to do the same, 85.133.27.19. 212's talk page shows multiple blocks for sockpuppetting. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, 123.2.85.195 - an odd football/politics juxtaposition. _I'm_ new enough around here to not know to look at an IP editor's talk page to find things like that out. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, you seem to be one of the most contributors around here. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

212.159.166.201. I could not agree that adding the column was done "in as discrete way as possible". There has been renewed discussion on this page, as you can see, since 21st Oct. The first resultant change was by me, adding a note, rather than the column, for which I waited 24 hours after I raised the possibility here, and even then I did it explicitly in the spirit of boldness, it was reverted quickly, and we all allowed it to remain reverted. However, the discussion didn't go away. On 26th Oct because of subsequent developments I argued "The circumstances at the time of the RfC no longer hold. Something needs to change on this page". Nobody defended the status quo, then another editor (Chessrat) added the column on 28th Oct. Rather than leaving the edit summary empty, which would be consistent with "in as discrete way as possible", Chessrat explicitly said in the edit summary what was being done, and that it was in the spirit of boldness. NOBODY reverted that change or came to the talk page to argue that Greens should not be listed in the main table until you deleted the column on 4th Nov. The arguments were all about how to deal with SNP/Plaid and BNP, not about whether to include Greens in the main table. Now, you delete the column without first joining the discussion on this page and waiting to see what happens as a result of the discussion after you join it. Please join the discussion, and in doing so, assume good faith. Do you accept that circumstances have significantly changed, in that considerably more reliable sources are routinely including Green poll results in headlines/initial reports? If you don't, how do you justify that position in the face of the evidence given on this page? If you do, how do you suggest the page should take account of that change? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support Bondegezou's suggestion for having a more detailed chart further down with lesser parties included, at least those for which we have enough data to do so.--ERAGON (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Eragon, welcome to this field, and thanks for your input. I can't quite work out what you mean though. Are you arguing for both a main table that includes Lab/Con/LD/UKIP/Greens/others and a detailed table that includes Lab/Con/LD/UKIP/Greens/SNP/PC/BNP/others (the status quo) or are you arguing just for a table that includes Lab/Con/LD/UKIP/Greens/SNP/PC/BNP/others (which is what Bondegezou is arguing for, afaik)? Meanwhile, your input on topics further down this talk page would be welcome: you will see mention of timelines. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I like the current arrangement of things, but I would advocate an additional graph down at the bottom which plots all of the parties we have data for. So there would be two graphs on the article- one at the top with 'the big four', and a detailed graph at the bottom with the minor parties included as well.--ERAGON (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ERAGON. I think, though, you aren't agreeing with Bondegezou. My understanding is Bondegezou is arguing JUST for the Lab/Con/LD/UKIP/Greens/SNP/PC/BNP/others table. Very few people have said anything about the graphs. Perhaps we will discuss that in time, but we haven't got to a settled position on the tables, and which columns to include yet. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Scottish only opinion polls

Where can this information be placed?

• http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/297729-stv-poll-labour-would-annihilated-if-general-election-held-tomorrow/
• https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3469/SNP-open-up-significant-lead-ahead-of-General-Election-vote.aspx

This would result in some pretty major changes north of the border. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Already covered at Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_individual_constituencies#Scotland. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales aren't individual constituencies. Even if they're constituent countries, they aren't constituencies. The significance of the SNP is about as significant as the rise of UKIP, especially since the SNP is likely to win more seats. It should be reflected on this page, relevant to next year's election. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We've had some discussion about whether the sub-national level polling should be on the Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_individual_constituencies article or somewhere else, and indeed whether we can re-name that article to something better. That article's Talk page has details: please do weigh in to the discussion there. One possibility is to have a new article for nation-level polling, or indeed for Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland each separately. To an extent, I'm less bothered which article the data is in, as long as it is clearly signposted where it is.

The SNP is included in the detailed polling table in this article, for GB-wide polls. I'm in favour of dumping the first table and just sticking with the detailed table, including the Greens, SNP/PC and BNP. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales and the BNP?

There's been significant changes on this article, and I think there needs more to be addressed. Currently we have a system where the main poll results are displayed in the featured table, which now includes the Green Party. I agree with that, but it only leaves the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the BNP (as well as the larger parties) in the detailed poll results. There are many inherent problems with this system, and I think the solution is quite obvious.

• The detailed poll results do not address the significance of polling results for the nationalist parties. A doubling of Commons' seats for SNP or PC could come about from what appears to be a very small percentage change.
• I don't know why BNP is listed here, and it shouldn't be at all. It's polling far too low for us to consider it as a legitimate party in opinion polling and should be considered with the rest of the "others".
• Most of the data in the second poll table repeats data in the first table and provides no new information.

The only conclusion I can make from this is that there should be two separate sections for opinion polling.

• The first: much as the current table is now for the whole of Great Britain. Tory, Labour, UKIP, Lib Dems, Green and Others, and the lead. The accompanying graph should probably also include a line for Green and Others.
  • There could be a combined Nationalist vote included in the main table, which would remove most of the Others, simply because it is at the same Lib Dem/Green level.
• The second: separate polling results for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which show purely results and polling data relevant to the next general election. This shows adequately the position of nationalist parties and the changes of all parties in those specific regions.

The current system, especially now that the Green Party has been added to the main table, is obsolete. The BNP is irrelevant and the data for SNP and PC is useless. We need these changes to accurately convey what the opinion polling is saying. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The BNP are included because the polling companies (generally) include them. Following WP:RS, that is the most obvious approach to take -- we report what the (reliable) polling companies report. For us editors to make a decision to include some parties reported by the polling companies but not others, it seems to me, would be in violation of basic Wikipedia principles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS is a policy about identifying reliable sources, and we've already acknowledged that the main polling companies are reliable. I'm not sure how following WP:RS in this instance would improve the article. There are many scientific articles, and when they source a study they do not have to present all the information in the study. It is irrelevant and useless, per WP:RELE. They poll less than 1%, and reliable sources routinely ignore the BNP but report on UKIP, the nationalists and the Green Party. It would be a violation of Wikipedia principles not for editors to remove useless information. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Many reliable sources report Con, Lab, UKIP and LibDem and don't cover the Greens or SNP/PC when discussing polls. Indeed, most reporting of GB-wide polling doesn't mention SNP/PC. If we go by how polls are reported, as far as I can see, we should stick to Con, Lab, UKIP, LD and maybe Green. If we go by what the polling companies report themselves, then we should reflect what they say with the same emphasis they give, as per WP:UNDUE. The polling companies' reports give the same weight to the BNP as they do to the Greens or SNP/PC. (WP:RELE is an essay, not policy nor a guideline, and I don't see how it applies here.)

At the moment, (thankfully) the BNP vote has collapsed and the party is in disarray. However, this article covers all polling since the last general election, and the BNP were doing better back in 2010: they got more votes than the Greens, SNP or PC. An article on polling across this period should clearly cover the BNP if it covers parties who got fewer votes in an election at one end of that period. Wikipedia articles shouldn't get too caught up in short-term, recent developments. Bondegezou (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not report on the BNP but they do report on Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP and Green for the whole of Great Britain. Reliable sources further report on Plaid Cymru in Wales, Scottish National in Scotland, and the main parties in Northern Ireland.

I agree with when you say "by how polls are reported [...] we should stick to Con, Lab, UKIP, LD and Green". What I am suggesting is that we keep those five for the GB-wide poll (with "Others") and then publish the poll results for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This would preserve the GB-wide poll summary for those polling high enough, while the nationalist parties can be seen better as 40% of the Scottish vote instead of 3% of the British vote, which reflects reliable sources. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any comment on my second point, that across the full period represented, the BNP were more significant than they are now? Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the article doesn't, and does not need to be, a pure reflection of the polling results. It's not in the spirit of the article and the encyclopaedia to give all the information possible in the same way that polling companies do. If the BNP become large enough in polling to significantly affect the next election as UKIP and now Green is doing, then they should be added. The best polling result for the BNP was 3% at the beginning of this article's span, and has been down since then. SNP and PC are actually relevant to the electoral outcome and should be compared with their respective Scottish and Welsh opponents, whereas reporting on the BNP's polling results is utterly irrelevant and completely pointless.

The threshold for UKIP was to consistently rival (at the time current) Lib Dem results. If your point is simply that the BNP had more votes last election than other minor parties we report on, I'd like to remind you that the name of the article is for the next general election. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

An article like this isn't merely about predicting the next general election. It has a historical purpose, describing parties' popularity over time. As such, I feel it should reflect all the ups and downs over this period, not merely what's going to matter at the next election. The collapse of the BNP over the period is part of the story, as is the rise of the Greens and the SNP, and of course the decline of the LibDems and rise of UKIP. Were the article merely about the next election, there wouldn't be any point keeping all the results from 2010-2013! Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't think there is rationale to add the BNP on the same level. The BNP doesn't have relevant ups and downs, following WP:UNDUE. It started this parliament with a low vote, too low to be a notable participant, and now it's even lower. UKIP's results were added in from 2010 because they were retrospective when they were beating the Liberal Democrats. If UKIP or Green never rose to past 5% then they would not be notable enough for this article. The SNP is much like the BNP when considering Britain as a whole, which is why the nationalists should be compared in their nations.

The role of the BNP here was not the purpose for this discussion. I think there should be a consensus on separating the article into two sections, one with the results of the five main parties, and one with the main parties of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, polls specifically for the four nations are already covered at Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_individual_constituencies. I, personally, have no strong view about whether they stay there or are moved here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be best for the three (not four) national Westminster polling to replace the detailed polling section. They would be replacing SNP and PC results in their respective countries for more accurate and clearer results, leaving only the BNP which I believe the consensus would be against keeping BNP as giving undue weight. This has nothing to do with the individual constituencies page. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is any England-only polling, I don't see why we would exclude it. You say this has nothing to do with the individual constituencies page, but that's where the Scottish and Welsh polling currently is.

There has been a long and wide-ranging discussion on several overlapping issues (which parties to include in what tables in what articles), going back some years. I don't know what consensus is; I do know consensus has been hard to achieve previously! I would suggest an RfC process would be a good way of trying to sum up thinking, put forth specific plans, and determine what consensus is. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Three, because there isn't any England-only polling. Having these results on this article does not have to change any other article.

I think if there was every option that could possible be considered, the community would be infinitely divided that consensus would be impossible. I think a compromise of GB-wide five-party polling with a section for polls from Scotland and Wales covers the seven political parties, making the detailed poll section redundant. It's not what any person including myself would most want, but it's the option that would cover most reasonable people's idea of the article. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is generally considered a bad idea to have blocks of the same material repeated. If you want Scottish/Welsh/N Irish polling in this article, it should be removed from the other article.

I'm not suggesting every possible option is considered (& I agree with you as to why not). I am suggesting that you, or someone, put forth a specific proposal in an RfC format, encourage people to comment on that (including putting links to the RfC on other Talk pages) and then we see what the consensus is.

On a tangential note, Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election is an interesting example of a polling article where a party has surged in the polls and what they've done about it. I note table and graph include parties regularly polling below 5%. Bondegezou (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest having every party that is included in the polls on the main table. I think every party regularly polling above 5% should be included in the main table (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP & Greens). The detailed polling should probably be removed - as the only other parties included are the BNP and the SNP/Plaid alliance. Additionally, there is missing data on the table, which now can't be added to this table as the polls have been deleted from the relevant websites. The BNP and Nationalists should just be included in the other category of the main polling section as the BNP are polling around 1% and the SNP/Plaid alliance is only relevant to Scotland and Wales.

On where the Scotland and Wales polls should go. I put the Scotland polling originally in the constituency article, as I felt that it had more of a place in that article, than the main article. There are currently only 17 polls from Scotland included (plus five from Wales & NI), so they should have their own page at this time. The page could be renamed "localised polling for the next United Kingdom general election" to solve the issue of where they should go (or something along those lines). Clyde1998 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we should try to come up with a cut-off ourselves, like every party regularly polling above 5%. What is that cut-off based on? Not anything in Wikipedia policy, and it's not consistent with polling articles for other countries. Instead, I feel we should follow what reliable sources do, what they report. However, if you go with that cut-off... Last 20 polls listed in the article, as I write, Greens were above 5% in exactly half. And that's a recent phenomenon: go back to August, say, and the Greens are hardly ever above 5%. If that's the cut-off that is chosen, then I think it's questionable whether the Greens should be included (at least yet). Bondegezou (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Clyde that not every polled party should be included, and that 5% is a good benchmark considering that the party has to be consistently above that mark and not simply reach it once. The detailed polling was basically for the Green Party when they weren't in the main section, and I think bringing the Scotland and Wales polls into this article removes any more need for the detailed polling since it covers SNP/PC much better. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we are heading towards broad agreement to keep the Greens in the main table and delete the 'detailed poll results'. As the person who has added the most rows to that table, I couldn't say I mind too much, but I would like the data there of the Greens share earlier in the year added to the main table, rather than just deleted. Could someone with a table editor work on that, please? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel like we're heading towards broad agreement. Most people who took part in earlier discussions have not expressed a view now. That's why I feel a more concrete effort to establish consensus, like an RfC, is appropriate. I feel editors wanting a change should put forward concrete proposals and then seek to bring in opinions from multiple editors. I, for one, don't feel there is strong argument for a table including the Greens but excluding SNP, PC and BNP. I see no reason to drop the 'detailed poll results' table. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the main table should include Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens. The Nationalists shouldn't be included as they only relate to Scotland and Wales - and with the separate tables for these countries, there isn't any need for them being included in the main GB table. Additionally, the samples for Scotland and Wales are far too small (usually around 10% between the two) to draw real conclusions about how the Nats would perform on a national scale. The BNP are polling very consistently below 1%, so shouldn't really be included in the main table. Clyde1998 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I'm not sure what you mean by there is no strong argument. The arguments have been made, and if you disagree then that is your opinion. There hasn't been a discussed consensus for the detailed polling or for adding the Greens. Most of the information in the detailed polling is already in the first section (especially since the Greens have been added), and Britain-wide poll results do not help to display PC and SNP results. I suggest we follow the same methods for editing, since the detailed polling table was very good at the time (before Greens added). 123.2.85.195 (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The argument made does not seem strong to me: I am unclear how it is rooted in Wikipedia policy (WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENCY, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS), it does not appear consistent with other Wikipedia aritcles, it entails cut-offs for which no specific reasoning has been given, and the cut-offs suggested don't appear to support the changes suggested (Greens barely meet the "regularly polling above 5%" suggestion and are barely above the SNP). It doesn't seem to me that there is yet a consensus for the changes (see the debate above in "Green Party [2]" section). Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, it is true there isn't perfect consensus. A single editor undid the inclusion of Greens in the main table and added some accusations to the "Green Party [2]" section above. However, that editor has not yet engaged in real discussion. If what that editor says is correct he/she has not, so far as we can tell, ever been involved before in discussion on this talk page. I have made two relatively minor 'undos' and left a message on that user's talk page, in addition to here, to try to get that person's engagement in discussion on this page. Apart from that it appears that everybody participating, yourself included, is arguing for Greens to be included in the main table, and the scope for discussion is precisely what to do about the parties mentioned in this section heading, currently listed in the 'detailed poll results'. I think that is because pretty much everybody discussing accepts that a significant number of reliable sources are now routinely listing Greens' poll results. In addition, it is a reasonably regular occurrence (eg tonight's YouGov again) for the Greens to be level with the Lib Dems, and sometimes Greens are ahead of LDs in poll results, making it inconsistent within the page for one party on 7% to be listed, but not another: to do otherwise may be undue.

As for WP:RECENCY that is not Wikipedia policy. There is no clear policy I can find (despite searching) requiring consistency between articles. Certainly WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is relevant, but what "community consensus on a wider scale" do you feel is being overridden? It isn't at all clear to me that WP:UNDUE is at stake here if Greens are mentioned in the main table and the detailed table is deleted, because SNP and Plaid both get a good degree of prominence in the country-specific tables, and BNP is regularly polling at well under 1/10th the support of the Greens or the nationalists, at such a low level that fairly frequently a sample of 2000 fails to find a single BNP supporter (ie relevant margin of Error consistently greater than level of support, so failure to find a single supporter is happening more frequently than could be explained by the 5% of polls falling outside the confidence interval). You need to make some case why you think including Greens but not SNP/Plaid/BNP in the main table is undue attention/emphasis. Dr Arsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I'd like to hear how you think keeping the BNP in the polling data is helpful for the article itself, outside of any policy. I don't see media sources reporting on the BNP as much as PC or the SNP. 123.2.85.195 (talk) Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, hello! I think if you read the thread you will get as much idea from Bondegezou as you could from Bondegezou repeating. I would tend to agree with Bondegezou's stance that BNP earlier in this parliament had enough reporting of their polling in RS and a high enough vote share to warrant inclusion. However, I don't think that is terribly relevant, because nobody is likely to add the data to show that they had a higher vote share earlier in the parliament. Nobody has added as many rows to the detailed polling results table as I have, and I don't think it is worth the effort, or at all likely to happen. Bondegezou argued, and argues, for inclusion of all parties mentioned by the pollsters, but then doesn't implement it (neither here nor at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election in individual constituencies). And as anybody who tries to add detailed polling results for 2010 will find, a lot of the links to the tables for polls conducted in 2010 are now dead (indeed quite a few for earlier in 2014 are already). And what is the point of including BNP in a table because of them polling at levels that we don't actually record? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for a considered reply, DrArsenal, and for your continuing editing work on the article.

We had a long debate about these issues quite recently, culminating in an RfC concluding in August ("RfC: Should the Green Party, along with other parties be included in the table of polling results" section above). We then had considerable post-RfC discussion through September and beyond ("Achieving two tables" and "What on earth?" sections above). It seems to me rather soon to ditch all that for a new proposal. You are right that WP:RECENCY is just an essay and not policy, but it is a much cited essay that is worth considering, I think. It expands on WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy. The main driver for new proposals is a very recent rise in the Greens' support that, for all we know, could dissipate just as quickly. This section has seen a long and dense discussion, but few are participating in it. I see the best solution to this scenario to be a new RfC, clearly stating what is being proposed. This will garner more attention and will help crystallise discussion. I am unsure why there is resistance to this idea. (By the way, I don't see why it is relevant that the editor objecting to the inclusion of the Greens in the "Green Party [2]" section above has "not, so far as we can tell, ever been involved before in discussion on this talk page". WP:BITE!) I think a better approach is to drop (or de-emphasise) the main table and just give detailed poll results, including Greens, SNP/PC and BNP. I think this is better because:

• (a) It better reflects prior discussion, including a previous RfC (as above).
• (b) We should be guided by the sources we cite. This article reports the activities of polling organisations. Those pollsters, in their reporting and when they prompt for different parties, treat the Greens, SNP/PC and BNP the same. Ergo, we should treat them the same.
• (c) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS argues we should not make up our own rules just for UK polling articles. Articles like Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, Next_Italian_general_election#Opinion_polling, Opinion polling for the French Presidential election, 2017 &c. all report parties with low levels of support along side parties with higher levels of support. The arguments put forth here to exclude certain parties do not appear to arise for those articles. If those articles go for an inclusive approach, why don't we here?
• (d) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news source. The purpose of this article is not a rolling list of recent polls to help predict the next general election; rather, it is an encyclopaedic archive of all polls in the period between the last and next general election. As such, decisions on what parties to include in tables should be based on that whole period, not just the last month or two. The BNP were much more significant at the beginning of this period than they are now. While I take your point, DrArsenal, that data from some years back is harder to find and someone has to fill in the table, policy is clear here that that is not an argument against the approach: see WP:IMPERFECT.
• (e) The argument made for including the Greens is that they are close to, and occasionally overtake, the LibDems. Yet the SNP is close to and often matches the Greens on GB-wide polling (and SNP+PC sometimes overtakes the Greens). I do not see the clear blue water between the Greens and the SNP such that it makes sense to include the Greens and exclude the SNP. I do not accept the argument that the SNP's performance will receive due prominence because there will be a Scotland-only poll. The GB-wide poll will clearly get much more attention from readers. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, while (as I mention above) I have never been active on talk pages before (iirc not at all, before the RFC on this page had already closed), I did read the whole of this page, so I was aware of the RFC above. I can certainly see your point that it "seems ... rather soon to ditch ... for a new proposal". I have, I think, done more practical editing to implement the outcome of that RFC than anyone else.

I don't think WP:NOTNEWS is relevant. The bit that is newslike is the reporting of each poll as it happens, and if we didn't do that, the page would not exist. It is suitably encyclopaedic to list Greens (and other parties - cf. ipsos-mori) in that especially as we aren't constrained by paper. What has happened over the couple of months since the RFC closed is that failure to list Greens, in particular, has become considerably harder to justify than it was before. I think I would agree with you in that, as I argued above on 2nd Oct (in what I think was my first ever contribution to a talk page), any party that is reported as polling 2% should be included in the table for the whole year. All I have been saying here is that by trying to implement it, I have learnt just how hard to implement it retrospectively is. I don't have any strong opinion between dropping the main table that we currently have or dropping the detailed polling results, but I do want realism.

You "don't see why it is relevant that the editor objecting to the inclusion of the Greens ... has 'not ... ever been involved before in discussion on this talk page'". It is relevant because the if they had been (or acknowledged they had been, if you believe accusations), then we would have more to go on about their reasons. Clearly the editor in question has reasons, and I am not arguing that their view should be discounted, but the editor in question hasn't really justified their position, despite my attempts to get them to discuss. (I'm not sure WP:BITE is so relevant with an editor whose first ever edit was apparently to a talk page more than a year ago, and whose first edit on this page is to make accusations and who says the page should be protected).

Enough for now. May respond more later. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my earlier response yesterday was a bit incoherent: that meant it wasn’t a reasonable response to yours, Bondegezou: I ran out of time to knit it all together coherently.

You call for a new RfC. I just don’t know: it seems to me that an RfC is a way of avoiding WP:Localconsensus causing problems. But at the moment, I don’t see how the (attempt at reaching) local consensus is resulting in us making up our own rules. You repeatedly say we should be consistent with other articles, and I repeatedly point out that consistency between articles doesn’t seem to be Wikipedia policy (unless someone can give some evidence to the contrary). Perhaps we are making up (or trying to make up) our own rules, but if we are, I don’t think you have yet put your finger on how. Your point (b) hardly gets us anywhere: afaik some of our reliable sources mention 8 parties routinely, some a slightly different 8, most are now listing 5 or more, but some are still only listing 4, while Ashcroft seems to mention any that are >0.5%, so doesn’t necessarily mention the same number twice running on his ‘published’ page.

I absolutely agree that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IMPERFECT are relevant in the ways you list in point (d), but I now think that arguing for BNP to be listed on the basis of its higher polling early in the parliament isn’t so much arguing for “work in progress” as arguing for a merely theoretical possibility. When I started editing the “detailed polling results” only two months’ worth of data was included and it had an out-of-date flag. I added more than 5 months’ worth of further data. Since the start of September, the number of rows added by people other than me to that table is in single figures. I might put in the effort to take it back to 1st Jan 2014, but can’t see myself taking it further back and I really don’t think over the next 6 months anybody is going to take it back significantly before that date, or add much at the 2010 end; and past 6 months time, it won’t be “Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election” any more, and even less people will feel like editing it. “Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010” has had a total of 10 edits in the last two years, most of which I think were by bots or gadgets. So, in theory I think it would be better to include all the parties currently in the “detailed polling results” for the entire parliament, in practice, I don’t think it is going to happen, and we need to think whether the likely incompleteness is going to render what is there rather nonsensical. You could, of course, make the point moot by adding a significant number of months when BNP were polling better for yourself.

The key argument for including the Greens is encyclopaedic coverage of polling for the 2015 UK GE ought to include all parties that are significant. It ought to include parties that grow in significance before they were polling at high levels to show that growth in significance, and it ought to include parties that decline in significance showing that decline. But significance is not just measured by polling levels. I have no doubt that SNP claims to significance are stronger overall than Greens, despite Greens currently polling higher than SNP. I simply don’t know whether SNP will get due prominence by listing Scotland-only polls. I have tended to take the view that if (people who I think are) SNP supporters are happy, then SNP are getting (at least) due prominence. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I'm not aware of your reasons to keep the BNP in polling. As I said previously, to which you did not respond, "Bondegezou, I'd like to hear how you think keeping the BNP in the polling data is helpful for the article itself, outside of any policy. I don't see media sources reporting on the BNP as much as PC or the SNP. 123.2.85.195 (talk) Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)".

To your four points, I cannot find them sufficient enough to support the changes you seek.

• Prior discussion is not relevant, only current consensus is.
• Polling companies do not treat the main parties, the nationalists and the BNP as the same because they do not treat political parties. They treat people who respond to polling, and do not decide, influence or intend on how polling is reported. This is done by reliable sources (per WP:RELIABLE) who rarely if ever report on the BNP.
• This is an unusual interpretation of WP:Local consensus, which suggests that a WikiProject's community cannot override generally accepted guidelines and policies, which happens anyway. Wikipedia does not "employ hard and fast rules", and we are entitled to edit an article to make it as suitable for an encyclopedia as possible. The articles that you linked showed unequivocally bad ways of reporting polling, and there are opposites such as Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013 and Opinion polling for the 42nd Canadian federal election.
• DrArsenal brings up the point, which I concur, that it's not tenable to add the BNP in polling when your basis is because of the first polls, which would then require all reported polls since then to provide criteria for the BNP. I still must disagree that the BNP ever had a high enough share of opinion polling in this parliament to be considered along UKIP and the Greens, let alone polling at a consistent level.
• I think adding the SNP to main polling is a separate matter, but even if they were included, they would not be receiving due prominence since the likelihood to win more than half of Scotland's seats is not expressed in a percent below 5% (of Britain) like how it is above 40% (of Scotland). The national polling gives better context for the SNP and PC, which stops them from being considered as one party which should definitely not happen at all.

Apart from policy, I simply can't see why you would want to find all the polls you can and find poll results for the BNP as far back as you can find and then continue to add their very low results. It seems to be a useless endeavour that serves no actual purpose for the reader other than a reminder that an irrelevant party is still irrelevant. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

PCC by-election

I deleted the line about the 30th Oct Police and Crime Commissioner by-election and it was reverted. In my view it is not sufficiently notable because 1) it was PCC rather than parliamentary, and so is effectively a local election 2) it was not part of a nationwide series of elections, and so as with local election results, should not be reported for just a by-election 3) it doesn't seem to have had an significant effect on polls (I waited to see, rather than deleting earlier) 4) turnout was so ridiculously low. To me, it is a case of a local government by-election, most similar to a mayoral by-election, which, so far as I can tell, haven't ever attracted such a row when they have occurred (indeed, neither have mayoral elections in general, such as in Leicester in 2011 or Bristol in 2012...). DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose my counter would be (1+2) We reported the (national) PCC elections in 2012, and although this is a local election, it covers a number of Westminster constituencies so is a fairly large electorate (3) We don't know that it hasn't had an effect on polls. It could be that Labour or UKIP would be lower without this election having happened - an effect on polls can be to prevent a change that would otherwise would have happened. There may be Westminster by-elections that don't cause a change in the polls and we would include them anyway (4) turnout is low for other elections including local and European parliament elections. But happy to go with consensus. Saxmund (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

PCC elections are a new thing, so I don't think we have a developed way of thinking about them. They are local elections, but they do represent large electorates than most local elections. I'm not certain, but I think I'd go with DrArsenal's position that a single PCC by-election should not warrant a row, but that the national PCC elections do warrant a row, just as May's local elections do. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping the line for a specific Police and Crime Commissioner. We have covered other non-Westminster events and non-election events, but looking at the table shows that there certainly isn't too many events in the table. It wouldn't hurt to add more events, since there's hardly any already. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Saxmund, Mayoral (by)-elections also cover a number of Westminster constituencies, but we don’t include them even when they take place away from May local election time. Certainly we don’t know for sure that the PCC election didn’t have an effect. However, we don’t yet know that PCC by-elections even can. By contrast we know from experience that some parliamentary by-elections do have an effect on the polls, meaning that ones that take place and apparently don’t are notable in part for the fact that they didn’t cause an obvious movement. Yes, other low-turnout elections are mentioned (including parliamentary by-elections), so that on its own is probably not a reason to exclude. But the turnout was so low, at under 15%, as to make it meaningless as an expression of the balance of political views of the electorate (and indeed it is further distorted as such an expression by being a PCC election, where only policing and crime were really relevant, rather than a broad range of policies.

123.2.85.195 I’m not averse to the idea of adding more events to the table, if they are warranted, but I would say others (such as the conference season) are more worth including, and I would like the events listed to better reflect the balance of what’s needed to give some hints at the explanations for polling shifts. At the moment, the rise in UKIP support is vastly over-represented among them, in that only one so far this year doesn’t relate pretty directly to the level of UKIP support (either growing or them not quite achieving a breakthrough that would give them a boost). Currently in 2014 Labour are explicitly mentioned 4 times, UKIP (or Farage) 4 times, Tories once explicitly and once as ‘Chancellor’. Clegg mentioned once. Nothing relevant to the SNP/others rise (most obviously there could be a line to do with devolution referendum). Nothing about Green rise. In 2013 There were two mentions of the chancellor and one of PM (but none of Tories as a party), one of Lab and UKIP, one of LDs and one of Depty PM. That was better balanced, even if rather minimalist. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We should not be looking to add more "explanatory" rows to the polling table. Other polling articles don't do this. Discussion of the rise and fall of parties' popularity can go in articles about those parties, with appropriate reliable source citations. Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are you quoting when you say "explanatory"? I think it's a very good addition to the article, and that we should be looking at adding more events. Significant local elections should be included which are generally ones that have a Wikipedia article about them. It's not only there to explain possible changes in polling, but to give a brief history of British politics during this parliament. Whoever thought of it was a genius. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many Wikipedia timeline articles. If you want a timeline of British politics during this parliament, you could create that. This article is a list of poll results. Juxtaposing events within a list of poll results is editorialising/WP:SYNTH. Bondegezou (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

So what's the problem with adding events to the article? There are a few articles that are timelines of British politics in the last few years, and this is one of them. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I too am wary of Synth in these listings, and I am also VERY wary there being a violation of the neutral point of view policy here. I would suggest that 1) including this PCC by-election exacerbates biases already present in the article, 2) even if it didn't, it wouldn't be warranted, 3) even if it was warranted, a row mentioning the Scottish devolution vote is more important and 4) especially if it remains, further actions need to be taken to restore a neutral point of view in regard to these 'notable event' rows for 2014. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what biases may exist. We try to mention key occurrences in national politics that may (or may not) influence public opinion, with as little "editorial" as possible to maintain NPOV. It helps to punctuate the table, and is not meant as a detailed timeline of British politics. The PCC by-election may fail the notability test, and I agree we should add the Scottish referendum (and also in the Scottish table).Saxmund (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is which occurrences to include, that is where bias may lie. Juxtaposing an event in a table of polls implies that event has meaning for interpreting the poll results. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, Bondegezou. Saxmund's understanding of 'bias' seems odd to me (see also the recent discussion above at the end of 'Synth'). I think we have agreement that it would help if we included a row about the Indyref. Perhaps "'No' wins the referendum on Scottish independence"? I don't think that is enough to cure the bias in these rows, but it does help a bit, and it does seem to meet the notability test. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A little while ago there was a discussion about what constituted a political event that should be marked. Concern was expressed that there was too many of them, and it was possible that those being noted might favour one party or another. I think some attempt was made to codify the events. It is, from memory, something like elections, Government set piece statements (such as the Budget) and broadcast election debates. It is here in the archives. So we have already gone through this discussion. I don't think I started editing until 2012 so can't comment on what thoughts the article's founders may have had.Saxmund (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Saxmund. I have read the conclusions of that discussion. I don't think it gives us a clear lead on what to do now, though. Perhaps the 2nd April row should go. By the looks of it Saxmund, you are OK with the PCC by-election row being deleted: I think, on balance, you think it should be kept, but even you seem to accept it is on the edge of not being sufficiently notable. 123... seems to want more such rows in general, but hasn't given any reason to keep the PCC one in particular. With others arguing for less rows, and Indyref having been added, I think it is time to delete the PCC one. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The 2 April one is in on the basis that set-piece radio or TV debates in national elections would be marked (precedent being 2010 general election), there is another one about a week earlier.Saxmund (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you on the Scottish EU result, if it's notable enough to include in the GB section surely it's notable enough to include in the Scottish subsection? Saxmund (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But it is only a single constituency. And as for "notable enough to include in the GB section", I'm not convinced that it is warranted to have separate lines for the European election and the local elections that took place on the same day. IMO is not _separately_ noteworthy that UKIP did well in the local elections that took place at the same time as EuroElections where they topped the poll. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Two lines because the local and EU election results were counted on different days, and hence reported on different dates. Surely the Scottish EU election is a national election, in Scotland. It might only be one UK constituency, you might as well not report any Scottish elections at all on that basis as they are only approximately only one twelfth of the UK total.Saxmund (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that a proper guideline to follow is not to necessarily determine whether an event is deserving of being placed in, but whether there are too many events or not. Apart from not thinking the PCC by-election is significant, there's no good reason to remove it. All the policy that has been quoted is quite tenuous. It just comes down to aesthetic at this point. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As both have posted here, and neither Saxmund nor 123....came back with an argument to keep the PCC by-election in particular since I said I would delete it, I have deleted.

Saxmund I understood why it had arisen that the election results of the 22nd May elections were reported on two rows, but I am not sure it was justified. I note that the local election results are reported on polling day, even though virtually no results came that day. Reporting it as 22nd May suggests that it was polling day that was significant, not counting (or media report) day. Similarly General Elections and by-elections are listed according to polling day, even though only a couple of constituencies ever complete the count before midnight. DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Events are normally reported the day they happen. I recall I originally added a note about the EU results being out on the Sunday which made it clear why there were two rows, but someone changed it to the current (admittedly briefer) wording. It seemed inaccurate to list it under the 22nd as the results weren't out until Sunday/Monday. In any case, if we put both the local and Euro elections on the same date, the wording will still take up two lines.Saxmund (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The essential reason to combine would be to reduce undue emphasis/prominence for UKIP (as I have outlined above, in 2014 Lab mentioned 3 times -now, UKIP (or Farage) 4 times, Tories once explicitly and once as ‘Chancellor’. Clegg mentioned once. Nothing about Green rise). Undue emphasis on UKIP would be improved by keeping to the standard practice and reporting election results as being on the day of the election. Maintaining a neutral point of view is an absolutely fundamental wikipedia principal, that should be respected. To combine the two with very nearly same essential content as now I would offer "The UK Independence Party comes first in the UK component of the 2014 European Parliament elections, while it and Labour make gains in local elections". It would, incidentally, also give some chance of reducing the amount of text, so it wouldn't always take up as many lines (the current version usually works out as two rows each with just over a line of text on my screen). Ideally I would make more changes to the content to further improve balance, but one thing at a time... DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in 2009 the same was done, but that doesn't mean it was right to do then, either. Also in 2009, there was a single row for "The Daily Telegraph begins publishing full details of MPs' expenses", even though for that reporting over an extended period was a crucial element to it having so much impact. So, in 2009 we have an example of an event (the 5th June elections) listed on two rows because it was reported on two separate days, and another event (expenses claims being revealed) that is only listed on one row, despite being reported on separate days.

The previous EuroElections (2004) fall within an opinion polling table with precisely no 'notable events' listed. Can anyone think of another country where the EuroElections are combined with a simultaneous election - what is done on their opinion polling table? DrArsenal 46.208.137.165 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of them, but by and large, other country's polling tables do not include any notable events other than the actual election in question (e.g. Opinion polling for the German federal election, 2013, Opinion polling for the French Presidential election, 2017, European_Parliament_election,_2014_(Italy)#Opinion_polling, Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election (particularly interesting to see what's included in that one), Opinion polling in the Polish parliamentary election, 2011 (DrArsenal, you might like the colours in that one!), Romanian_legislative_election,_2012#Opinion_polling). As I've said before, why do we do UK opinion polling articles so differently? Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Those Polish colours are a bit lary for me! Anyway I think it's quite a poor table, it needs some spot emphasis to help guide the eye. I would ask why other countries' pages don't include information on current political events, as it helps the reader to make some context of what is otherwise endless tables of figures. I would also ask why the two practices can't exist side by side. WP:NOT states "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." It suggests "using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". Judicial use of both emphasis and chronological notes in my view helps enhance the readability of the data table while not compromising on NPOV.Saxmund (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I note WP:NOT reads: "In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely." In other words, it gives a specific example relevant to our context here and the solution given is that the polling article is a big table of data, and the election article discusses and contextualises. If Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 is being held up as the standard to which we should aspire, then let's try to copy it. That means no additional notes in the table. It also supports the current emphasis of the lead party (sorry, DrArsenal). Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou. That is useful. Cutting the 'notable event' rows seems appropriate (even if my proposal to merge the two 22nd May election rows was adopted, the Rochester and Strood by-election will mean that very soon more rows will be about UKIP than any other party again, restoring the degree of undue attention to UKIP in a problematic way. I absolutely concur that all the 'notable event' rows should all be deleted.

As for emphasis of the lead party, the issue isn't as big with a two party system (as the US is, especially for presidential elections). Contrary to what some people seem to think I do not oppose having some emphasis for the lead party in each row. With a two party presidential system, either one candidate/party is clearly ahead, in which case he/it is on course to take all of the prize, or the lead switches, so both gain from the emphasis, meaning it isn't ever undue. On the other hand, with a multi-party parliamentary system, nobody is on course to take all of the prize (ie all of the seats in parliament), and even if the lead switches, all of the emphasis is shared by those who it switches between, meaning smaller parties are consistently under-emphasised (there is nothing wrong with smaller parties getting a smaller share of the attention, which is why some emphasis of the lead is OK) DrArsenal (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

On "notable event rows", the reason UKIP may be getting the publicity is because they might happen to be winning by-elections. If you look further down the table, the other parties get them. So no-one is getting undue attention. We have already reduced the number of notable events to bona fide political happenings, as people were wanting an "event" every time, for example, the Leader of the Opposition made a speech. I would also ask why this practice has been OK for the previous four and a half years this page has been in existence (and previous ones) and is only now being questioned. WP policy hasn't changed.

On highlighting the lead - it might have occurred to you that our political system is more like the US, being a first past the post election. A lead of a couple of percent might genuinely mean the difference between the Tory or Labour party having an overall majority. This page started out with the UK having a 2+ party system, if current polling VI figures hold up at the election we could genuinely be moving to a multiparty system. I also think the tables on this page are much more readable than the ones you hold up as shining examples (as well as previous UK ones). It only has 6 months' life left to the GE. Why not leave it as it is and argue about the 2020 polling page? Otherwise changes are going to have to be made going back ro 2010 and the page is going to be in a state of flux going into the GE, when it will become more useful and more people will want to read it.Saxmund (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How could you be saying I haven't made an argument? 123.2.85.195 (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We've had debates about the practice of what events to list for some time. I've argued my position often before and we've had some variation back and forth in editing. This isn't a brand new issue.

123.2.85.195, I'm not certain to whom you're replying. If I've just agreed with you, good! If I haven't, perhaps you can expand? Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it was me who 123... was replying to. 123... argued there should be more 'notable event' rows, but neither that none should ever be deleted, nor that "the PCC by-election in particular" should be kept. It was only the in particular that I was saying you hadn't made an argument for, 123... DrArsenal (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying I'd like to keep the row for the PCC by-election. That's what I've said. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)