This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
The article is mostly comprised of tables, with actual readable prose size below 2,000 bytes. Under WP:TOOBIG, readable prose, and not wiki markup size, is what should be considered in terms of size, thus casting off any need for splitting. Impru20talk12:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Prosesize (which is one of the tools hinted at WP:TOOBIG to measure the readable prose size of an article) the article size accounting just prose size including text (i.e. the "readable prose size") amounts to 1,647 bytes. If you also include all HTML code, it would still rise to just 6,863 bytes.
Obviously, the amount of tables makes the wiki markup size quite large, but this is common for all articles (and specifically for this case, opinion polling articles) which include a lot of tables (take Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015, Opinion polling for the 2017 German federal election, Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2018 or others as examples). Article splitting out of size reasons is justified when such a size is a result of a vast amount of readable prose (which makes an article difficult to read in full) but it is much more difficult when it comes as a result of tables and lists. This is further complicated for opinion polling articles when you consider that it is hard to guess out how to split those and the fact that, in most cases, even splits would still lead to large articles (in terms of wiki markup size) and would increase navigation difficulties (as you would be required to search the info on opinion polling throughout several, separate articles, instead of just one). Impru20talk13:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're hung up on prose size. Anyone downloading the page on a metered connection uses almost half a megabyte of their data allowance. The page is effectively uneditable in Visual Editor, even on a high-spec machine. The fact that other pages exhibit the same problem - so also need to be split - is not a justification for making the problem persist on this page And you have advanced no argument as to why the content needs to all be on a single page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
you have advanced no argument as to why the content needs to all be on a single page I said literally that 1) "it is hard to guess out how to split those" (indeed, you came to this talk page yourself asking for the best way to split this article, an issue which you will find for all the other linked pages); 2) "splits would still lead to large articles" (so, unless you are suggesting we split tables themselves, or spreading related tables throughout different articles, this is not a viable choice); and 3) "would increase navigation difficulties (as you would be required to search the info on opinion polling throughout several, separate articles, instead of just one)". So yes, that's at least three arguments. One additional argument for particular of this article would be that this one is already a spin-off from Opinion polling for the 2015 Spanish general election.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on prose size. You initially argued the split in terms of the article's wiki markup size (other arguments have not been brought until later), but the TOOBIG guideline on article size refers specifically to readable prose, excluding tables (and I do not agree that there is a "need" for splitting the other pages, as set out in the guideline and, indeed, through consensus many times for these (i.e. [2])).
Anyone downloading the page on a metered connection uses almost half a megabyte of their data allowance And? Content is all related. Indeed, you could see it the other way around: if you split it you would be requiring people to make separate content downloads throughout several articles to get the whole info, so you would end up requiring the same data allowance but would also require an additional effort in terms of navigation.
Finally, you say it is "uneditable in Visual Editor". Maybe it's me but I've checked it and I don't find it difficult at all, nor do I see a connection between article size and any particular hardship on article editing. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say it is uneditable "even on a high-spec machine". Impru20talk15:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither 1, 2 nor 3 - and especially not your "difficulty guessing" - are reasons not to split the article; and are absolutely not arguments as to why the content needs to all be on a single page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could say that about your arguments likewise (specifically when you disregarded the readable prose argument completely despite the guidelines on WP:SIZESPLIT and TOOBIG being very explicit on it), but if we start not recognizing each other's reasonings as valid arguments, we will go nowhere. Nonetheless, as has been made clear, this is done like this in a wide range of articles covering opinion polling (all of which, not just this particular article, would be affected by your alledged issues), so unless you are willing to bring this into some centralized area so that there is a global policy revision on all of these (some of which have already a long established-consensus as to why large articles containing tables should not be split unless becoming extremely unmanageable), I do not see any reason why there should be a cherry-picking of articles to be split, without breaking consistency along the way. Impru20talk15:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was not an attack or something even close to it. I think I've been civil and respectful all the way through here, but if you think I wasn't, I cordially invite you to report it at the appropiate venue. Impru20talk16:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
