→2020 polls in main article: Fix typo |
Wikimucker (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
:::::::Given the short period of this campaign, there is perhaps merit in including polls published since the dissolution of the Dáil, which I think is also the same as those published in 2020. I generally think other countries' elections and politics projects are a good guide, but we don't need to be bound by them,and can still tailor our approach for this campaign. My reason for moving the polls in the first place was because polls stretching back to 2016 were now clutter where there is a focus on candidates and the campaign for this election, but polls since 14 January are different. This is a page we're designing for the general reader, and these recent polls are useful information for them to have immediately to hand, rather than on a separate page. Now, of course, we should still reach an agreement or consensus on this talk page before making a change on the page! –[[User:Iveagh Gardens|Iveagh Gardens]] ([[User talk:Iveagh Gardens|talk]]) 14:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::Given the short period of this campaign, there is perhaps merit in including polls published since the dissolution of the Dáil, which I think is also the same as those published in 2020. I generally think other countries' elections and politics projects are a good guide, but we don't need to be bound by them,and can still tailor our approach for this campaign. My reason for moving the polls in the first place was because polls stretching back to 2016 were now clutter where there is a focus on candidates and the campaign for this election, but polls since 14 January are different. This is a page we're designing for the general reader, and these recent polls are useful information for them to have immediately to hand, rather than on a separate page. Now, of course, we should still reach an agreement or consensus on this talk page before making a change on the page! –[[User:Iveagh Gardens|Iveagh Gardens]] ([[User talk:Iveagh Gardens|talk]]) 14:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::<small>{{u|Iveagh Gardens}}, you said "Support" in your edit summary (and "seem" to imply your support above; although I am not 100% sure), if you do "support" the motion, you should indent and bold your !vote accordingly for clarity to others. Conversely, if you don't "Support" it, you should clarify that too. thanks. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 14:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)</small> |
::::::::::<small>{{u|Iveagh Gardens}}, you said "Support" in your edit summary (and "seem" to imply your support above; although I am not 100% sure), if you do "support" the motion, you should indent and bold your !vote accordingly for clarity to others. Conversely, if you don't "Support" it, you should clarify that too. thanks. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 14:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)</small> |
||
:::::::::::Consensus is now to include 2020 Polls in the article (and to maintain the exact same data in the sub article on polls. Consensus is not an ad hoc form of guillotine motion so we should all quietly wait until the morning to see if contributions appear below from those who has not yet contributed. I'll summarise around 08:00 UTC, when this section is 48 hours old, if the section creator has not kindly summarised for us all by then. [[User:Wikimucker|Wikimucker]] ([[User talk:Wikimucker|talk]]) 14:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Include Independent Alliance in Infobox? == |
== Include Independent Alliance in Infobox? == |
Revision as of 14:55, 27 January 2020
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Ireland Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Elections and Referendums Start‑class | |||||||
|
Opinion Polls. Main Article or not.
Given that Ireland is small and polls are infrequent compared to other countries I see no real utility in a separate article for polls, it would be different if 2 or 3 were published daily like, say, in Germany during a campaign.
In Ireland it is likely to peak at 3 to 4 a week at most and with a snap Amárach 1 question poll on occasion. I therefore think Opinion Polling can remain in the main Election 2020 article.
Thoughts along the lines of agreed or not agreed sought from other editors. Wikimucker (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Aréat: already started up top Wikimucker (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Wikimucker: As said below, the polls may not be frequent, but the table added up over the years still is huge, and force users to scroll down a lot, when the graph alone is enough. And there's still a link to the page with the detailled table for those who want to see the detailled polls. It's how it's done on all election pages with long polls tables, as well as how we did it in previous irish election pages. If it wasn't a problem there and then, I don't see why it would be one right now.--Aréat (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Aréat:@BrownHairedGirl: It is very difficult for any responsible editor to describe an Irish Election campaign without veering into (WP:NPOV) problems. So far we are 1/3 of the way through this one and only 2 small parties have manifestos. Therefore we are forced to Nowcast what we do have and opinion polls are really important there.
After the election is over the Campaign section will be hugely expanded (with hindsight helping us a lot) and so will the results section with the polls moving out around then as they will be completed. With no polls included there is virtually no article left in my opinion. It would simply look crap until the election is over.
I could say (and most would agree) that the big issues so far are housing and health while the campaign "highlights" so far are 1. A Tent in Dublin, 2 Paddy the Hooligan, 3. Greta 4. Pensions for 65 year olds but not 66 year olds and 5. Beef. But these have no place in the article save in hindsight, if ever. For now we need the polls as we are nowcasting.....and there are not so many of them anyway compared to France or Germany.
I also pinged a senior contributor to Irish Political content in the wiki to see if they maybe have 2c to offer us all here. I would like the polls to remain in the article for the duration of the campaign though. Wikimucker (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's normal practice to split the full opinion polling table to a separate article once it gets beyond a certain size. Aréat is the third editor to attempt to apply this practice to this article. Number 57 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article is over 90kB long. It wouldn't be an issue if it was just the tables, but it is not (the main scope of the article being the general election, not the opinion polls), and currently, the opinion polling in the article only makes it unnecessarily long to read. Because of this, customary practice both elsewhere and in previous Irish elections has been to split the opinion polls into a separate article, because even if there is not as many as in the UK or Germany there are still a lot of them. I concur with all others in not seeing any reason for this article to be an exception. Impru20talk 13:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It is normal practice in larger countries with many polls published daily, yes. The Spanish Parliamentary election 2019 page (with no polls) is 107k in size The French Parliamentary election 2017 page (with no polls) is 250k in size Like you say Impru20 this page is 90k in size but it is smaller (with polls) than those 2 are. Your comparison is not really that relevant and the opinion polls can be removed after the event. Wikimucker (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It is normal practice in larger countries with many polls published daily, yes.
Sweden, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Norway, Portugal, Finland, etc. All of these do not have opinion polls "published daily" yet they all have their opinion poll sub-pages split from the main articles. So what you say is simply not true, as you have been already told by others.- As for Spanish general election articles, all of them since 1982 have their opinion polling separated from their main pages. Nonetheless, I should note you that the opinion polling article for the November 2019 election has existed since April 2019; this is, the very time the first opinion poll after the April election was published. It is also done as such as of currently at Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, and it was also done so for the 2015, 2016 and April 2019 general elections. Plus, this is customary practice elsewhere as well. Opinion polls are not split into new articles after the elections, but the other way around: they already exist even long before the date for the next election has been set.
- I'm not seeing any good reason being forward by you other than "the article is not complete enough" (not a valid reason, as per WP:NOTFINISHED; that something is not finished enough does not preclude the fact that it will someday, and under that anticipation we already know right now that opinion polls in this page are unsuited for the main article) or "the separate opinion polling article is not updated" (well, if you hide the link from the view of readers, it will be difficult for them to spot the article's existence and update it, indeed). We know already that there are a lot of opinion polls, and even you acknowledge that you accept those being split after the election. There is thus simply no reason to wait until that. Impru20talk 14:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Uk General election 2019 article, 200k+ in size.
The size argument really does not wash when this article is 90k in size and by no means an outlier in comparative terms or in bandwidth terms. Were there substantially more polls then I would concur but there has been 1 since the campaign started and we are 1/3 of the way through. I expect c.1k more in data terms, that is all. Wikimucker (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC
- You have not replied to any of the counter-arguments that I presented to you. On the size of other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. The comparison is not even correct because those articles you mention do not even include the opinion polls within it (which would make them incredibly larger). So far, over 2/3 of this article's size comprises opinion polls alone, which is not acceptable and enough of a reason to justify its split. Impru20talk 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with moving the polls to a separate page. I hadn't commented as I was the one to do so initially, but as it's now up for discussion, I'll add my vote to the separation, on the basis that it makes the page unwieldy, and particularly as in any case, only the very first few here relate to the election period itself. It's also standard practice on Wikipedia for many other countries' election. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- You did so improperly, it appears... page should probably be deleted, and recreated after the election. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(Copied from below): Someone who doesnt' want to scroll doesn't have to, because there's literally nothing after the opinion poll section except footnotes and references. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor. There may be editors who love nothing more than making every election page uniform, but certainly this reader, and plenty of others would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days.
(Adding): We're 17 days out from the election. The opinion polls are here for 4 years. It makes complete sense to be able to see the opinion polls on the 2020 election page, and makes no sense to not have to click off to another page to do so, right before an election. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply. and walls of text from people who [[W{:OWN|love editing multiple election pages]] aside, we will likely see one, maybe two more polls added, from B&A and Red C. That's all. 17 days. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- [Copied from below):
Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor.
This is precisely the point I am trying to make. You have been editing the article for 4 years. It's now, when the election gets close, when the most readers come to visit it. And precisely when this happens, when the page stops being relatively isolated in a bubble to get much more attention, is when people start complaining that it's difficult to navigate. You are making assumptions of something which has not happened, i.e. that "many readers" "would like" to see things your way. Well, where are those readers? Because the more new readers that come to this page and post their opinions, the more support there is for the split of opinion polls into a different article. You are acting like if the few people editing this page for the last four years and other Irish people have any superior right or claim over this article, when that's not true. - (Adding):
and walls of text from people who [[W{:OWN|love editing multiple election pages]] aside
I'm seeing no one writing a wall of text here, though I acknowledge this is an argument you like to bring when you are not on the "winning side" of a discussion. Please comment on content and not on contributors, shall you? P.S. "Editing multiple election pages" does not constitue WP:OWN. Hinting that none of us should touch the opinion polling section and that we should do as you command until after the election is held because you have been editing this for 4 years, does. Impru20talk 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)'I'm seeing no one writing a wall of text here
Right you be Ted! You don't do you?? Wikimucker (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)- Looks like it indeed goes down to personal considerations when there are no arguments left. I will not be entering this.
- So far, Aréat, Number 57, Iveagh Gardens, Bondegezou and myself have voiced support for splitting opinion polls from the main article. Bastun and Wikimucker are against it now, but do not mind it happening after the election is held. All in all, there seems to be a general agreement for splitting, the main issue being on the "when", for which there is a strong consensus in favour of doing it right now (in fact, it is already done because the split article already exists, the only issue being the information still being shown in this article). So, what should the next steps be? Impru20talk 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think 5–2 is a reasonable consensus for proceeding with the removal of the polling tables from this article, so someone should just be bold and do it. Number 57 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It already was, and was reverted. So if you do it, it'll be reverted as WP:TE. There's a process that needs to be followed. And seriously - it's the last section on this page, so is not in anyone's way. Leave it for 17 days. (The irony of having to talk about splits today is not lost on me... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't be tenditous, and it's really quite a nonsense to suggest it would be (any attempt to report it as such would be quickly dismissed as vexatious). The BRD process has been followed. The bold first edit was made a while ago. It was reverted. We discussed. A clear consensus emerged that the split should be reinstated. Number 57 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- So just to be clear, Impru says raising WP:OWN is a personal attack if someone says it about them, but it's ok for them to do it about someone else (can't find the actual diff, but it's timestamped in the later section at 15:15/ Also note the existence of the other page is irrelevant, as it was created absent the People's Front of Judea process, losing the history, and should therefore probably be deleted. Size? Someone has added over 9.5kb to this talk page, just in one day... could have been better spent elsewhere. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It already was, and was reverted. So if you do it, it'll be reverted as WP:TE. There's a process that needs to be followed. And seriously - it's the last section on this page, so is not in anyone's way. Leave it for 17 days. (The irony of having to talk about splits today is not lost on me... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not entirely sure what the history edit trail could usefully show to posterity. My abiding problem with the sub page was that nobody maintained it after it was first created, around 5 days ago. Wikimucker (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Bastun: Making affirmations such as "It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks", "this reader, and plenty of others would would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days", and threatening with edit warring should anyone try to implement the reached consensus here while trying to command others how and when should they edit this or the other article, is clearly WP:OWN behaviour. "Editing multiple election pages", as you suggested, does not even come close of constituting OWN (unless you want to blame Number 57, Bondegezou, Aréat and many others of ownership behaviour just because of being prolific Wikipedia editors). The reference to the "wall-of-text" when it wasn't due is a clear example of commenting on the contributor and not on content.
- WP:SPLITTING establishes that
If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split
. This was done three times by three different users at three different points of time and the split article already exists. All these three were reverted only by the two of you. The full WP:PROSPLIT procedure is required to establish consensus on the issue, but such a consensus already exists here as per WP:BRD. There is no justification for going through the full PROSPLIT procedure just because two users "would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks". Reverting the reached consensus won't be even close at tendentious editing, but such a reverting could very well be considered as a refusal to get the point. Impru20talk 19:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This was done three times by three different users at three different points of time and the split article already exists. All these three were reverted only by the two of you. I am lost. Can you perhaps explain this sequence in plain english?....no WP anything required. Thx.
- Of course: it means that when there is a consensus that doesn't go your way, you are still required to respect it. Plain enough? Impru20talk 20:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- At a moment like this I always ask my children.....'Well WHY was the PS4 in the Pram in the first place?
- Nobody touched the sub article...which was not split.
Wikimucker (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
FFS. Discussion is ongoing. B, R, D. It has already been pointed out that the split article was created out of process, lost the history, and was challenged. This discussion section isn't even 24-hours old yet, so stop trying to railroad things! If you want to split - fine! Follow the process, Aréat. It's listed here: WP:PROSPLIT. When you begin to do that, I'll happily advertise the debate in the usual locations. While pondering why this article is of so much interest now to non-Irish editors, one of whom seems to have a personal vendetta against WM and I. Seriously, I'm really not getting Impru's impatience to split, when there is nothing to be gained and no benefit to readers, who, as has been pointed out, do not have to scroll past the poll content to see anything else bar references. 00:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are the only one arguing that this was done out of process. It was not. A discussion has happened and a clear consensus has quickly emerged under WP:BRD; WP:PROSPLIT is for situations where such a consensus can't be achieved the simpler way. I do not have any impatience to get this done, but it looks like you are only trying to unnecessarily bureaucratize the issue so that it gets bogged down for long enough to allow for the election to be held, which is what you have repeteadly insisted on waiting for. For these cases, WP:SNOWBALL exists.
one of whom seems to have a personal vendetta against WM and I.
Enough. These are very serious accusations. I have had to withstand both yours and Wikimucker's impertinence and continuous mocking on me for no reason since I chose to intervene in this discussion at good will. As you say, it's not even 24-hours old and you have already run out of arguments and gone into personal attacks on me for some reason I ignore. If you seriously think there is any such "personal vendetta", I dare you to bring me to the appropiate venue, where you would also have a valuable opportunity to explain to any independent third parties your behaviour here; otherwise, stop this routine of veiled accusations, or else the next time I will have no choice but to bring you to ANI myself. I am not here to waste my time on personal disputes of any kind. Impru20talk 00:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- In what world is 5:2 anywhere approaching WP:SNOWBALL - in less than 24 hours?! Get a grip! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is not any time requirement for consensus to be reached. If it was 5:2 in a discussion with substantive arguments from both sides, we could surely take more time for it to receive more input, but it is not the case: essentially everyone in here agrees on the split, the only significative difference being that you (Wikimucker's motives seem to differ) intend for it to be delayed for 17 days because you "would like for it to stay", which does not seem enough of a reason to forestall consensus' application.
- Worth noting is that such a delay should have—under your words, twice—the consequence of having Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election deleted, only for it to be re-created once the election is held. Unless there was a sensible reason for deletion, such a bureaucratic procedure of deletion and re-creation would be pointless.
- In this sense, and seeing how you are so prone of procedure, maybe instead of asking for WP:PROSPLIT when consensus already exists you should nominate the article at WP:AFD and see where it goes. Impru20talk 01:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- In what world is 5:2 anywhere approaching WP:SNOWBALL - in less than 24 hours?! Get a grip! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The only snowball effect in here is the wall of serially obtuse text that appeared in less than 24 hours and with random reference to WP:Whateveryouarehavingyourselftoday interspersed to make it look in some way considered. Absolutely nonsensical and textbook WP:TE Wikimucker (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously, you should really stop. Impru20talk 08:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Further, the discussion may be 24-hour long, but the issue has been ongoing since at least nine days ago and that time has only led to the consensus on the opinion polling's split to be strengthened. I am certainly not seeing any consensus for the opinion polls to be kept in the article nor there has been any in that time. People calling for discussion to be kept ongoing are seemingly (and ironically) unwilling to discuss any further except by issuing unproductive comments and threatening others with administrative action should their preferred version not be respected. Maybe it should be the other way around, and a consensus for the opinion polls' reinstating within the main article should be reached, but it is a certainty that a pair of users can't just pretend to stalemate the discussion forever just because they can't win it over. Impru20talk 09:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, so we're not supposed to warn users that they're potentially about to breach 3RR now? News to me. Can you point to where this new admin rule was discussed? This has now gone beyond a joke. You've expended over 19k of text on this talk page in less than 24 hours! But you're not writing walls of text, right? :-) Why is this issue so important to you - you abandoned the page three years ago? Why are you unwilling to follow the outlined process rather than railroading through your perceived "consensus" in less than 24 hours? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- You can mark me down as favouring a proper split out of the current Opinion Polling section BUT 2 graphics were deliberately left behind by an editor when the current opinion polling section was deleted and those 2 graphics constituted an immediate (WP:NPOV) violation once shorn of their context. I reverted for that reason.
- The 2 graphics must also move in any split to avoid (WP:NPOV) issues arising as a consequence of the split. Wikimucker (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- We clearly have sufficient consensus to do a split now. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: Consensus is obvious but someone is simply refusing to get the point.
Wait, so we're not supposed to warn users that they're potentially about to breach 3RR now? News to me.
You would have sounded much more credible had you warned Wikimucker for the same reason as well: revert1 revert2 revert3. Further, with this revert Wikimucker has essentially breached 3RR already. Where is your careful, thoughtful warning to them?Why is this issue so important to you - you abandoned the page three years ago?
The issue is not important to me, but it's obviously important to you, with it being a problem because of the way you are behaving in this discussion. Any other such discussion in any other article would have already led to the article being modified, but you keep persistently blocking it so as to fulfill your wishes to "delay it for 17 days". Further, it's clear that you are letting your personal feelings to get over you on this. I do not care at all about what happened three years ago (btw, it is not polite to remind someone that you forced them to abandon the page years ago), but you have taken it personally on me from the start by mocking my responses, ignoring to reply to any substantive argument and just attempting to hijack the page. Do not worry. You will be able to explain your current behaviour at WP:ANI. Concurrently, I have reverted Wikimucker and issued the 3RR warning to them, because we are supposed to do this, right? You are welcome. Impru20talk 12:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)- You were told to split the article properly were you not?? You were also told to stop relying on a wall of text style of tendentious editing to clog up talk pages to get your way. Not by me but I agree with the wall of text observation.
- Your first contribution to this section was to complain an article was too long at 90k. You have effectively added 20k to this talk page in less than 24 hours with the unreadable gloop we all see above.
- Show some basic courtesy to your fellow editors, and also the poor admins you now called in on this one , and who ALL have far better things to be doing than read through that gloop. Wikimucker (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- A "wall of text" is not the random aggregation of comments made by anyone in a discussion (otherwise, both Bastun and you would be text-walling yourselves) but excessively long posts posted for purely disruptive reasons. You should carefully read WP:COTD before going on to accuse anyone of text-walling: some arguments just need more length than others to be elaborated. It is so that
dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling" or "TL;DR"
is equally disruptive. Impru20talk 13:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- A "wall of text" is not the random aggregation of comments made by anyone in a discussion (otherwise, both Bastun and you would be text-walling yourselves) but excessively long posts posted for purely disruptive reasons. You should carefully read WP:COTD before going on to accuse anyone of text-walling: some arguments just need more length than others to be elaborated. It is so that
- We clearly have sufficient consensus to do a split now. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wait, so we're not supposed to warn users that they're potentially about to breach 3RR now? News to me. Can you point to where this new admin rule was discussed? This has now gone beyond a joke. You've expended over 19k of text on this talk page in less than 24 hours! But you're not writing walls of text, right? :-) Why is this issue so important to you - you abandoned the page three years ago? Why are you unwilling to follow the outlined process rather than railroading through your perceived "consensus" in less than 24 hours? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Splitting proposal
I propose that sections 2020 Irish general election#Opinion_polls be split into a separate page called Opinion polling prior to the 2020 Irish general election, from 8th February 2020. The content of the current page is on-topic, does not interfere with readers in any way, as it is the last section on the page, but such a split happening on other pages and the content being of sufficient size and interest to justify its own article, there is no reason to maintain the content here too after the election of 8 February BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- They are already split into Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election. If you really wanted to use a different name, you should have used WP:MOVE/WP:RM instead. On the split, you don't need a consensus for it because such a consensus already exists: the only thing you are seeking with this is to unilaterally abort the splitting until 8 February for your own, personal reasons. This is a deliberate attempt to skip consensus and game the system through persistently disruptive ways. Your call. Impru20talk 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- A new split doesn't seem necessary where there already is a page. It's one I created, but I did so on the model of election pages in general on Wikipedia. See 2020 Israeli legislative election#Opinion polls, for example, in the case of a comparatively close election. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- While yours was a good faith creation, Iveagh Gardens, it appears to me that it missed out reference to the existing section it was copied from, and therefore lost the page history, which is a requirement of WP licensing, per WP:PROSPLIT: "Note: To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name..." I've no objection at all to the article being deleted and re-created at your article's name if and when this goes ahead. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I did say earlier today that I am entirely amenable to a proper split as long as the entire Opinion Poll section and all the graphics therein are all hived off separately to the main article along with the relevant history. Creating a new article and copy/pasting loses the history and is a somewhat suboptimal solution here.
- I am easy as to the precise date of a split, it could be before or after the 08 February but the 09 could well be better than the 08 as there will be an exit poll late on the 08 to bookend the entire series. Wikimucker (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- While yours was a good faith creation, Iveagh Gardens, it appears to me that it missed out reference to the existing section it was copied from, and therefore lost the page history, which is a requirement of WP licensing, per WP:PROSPLIT: "Note: To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name..." I've no objection at all to the article being deleted and re-created at your article's name if and when this goes ahead. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Does not the announced result sometime in the following week do that nicely, too? ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wikimucker, Number 57, Bondegezou, and Aréat:
- If this is about the lack of a note referencing the edit history, I'm quite happy as the page creator to support it being deleted and then immediately recreated with the correct notation. But i would support this solit happening now, rather than on or after 8 February. While short now, we will be adding to this page over the coming two weeks, and polls dating back to 2016 are more appropriate for a separate page, while retaining the graph, as on the Israeli election page linked above. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- That was the whole problem with those 2 graphs, they are not a poll of polls type single graph which is what appears widely near opinion poll links.
- No recognised poll of polls series is published in Ireland and even if there were one the methodology could be questioned until some agreement were reached on its validity. Not before this election anyway. Wikimucker (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- If this is about the lack of a note referencing the edit history, I'm quite happy as the page creator to support it being deleted and then immediately recreated with the correct notation. But i would support this solit happening now, rather than on or after 8 February. While short now, we will be adding to this page over the coming two weeks, and polls dating back to 2016 are more appropriate for a separate page, while retaining the graph, as on the Israeli election page linked above. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate that, Iveagh Gardens, cheers. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: I have added Template:Copied to both articles' talk pages (here and here); this should solve any lingering issues on page's history attribution. I have used this latest revision for reference, as it's arguably the most complete, though the constant back-and-forth warring and the fact that the two pages were maintained separate for 10 days means that their histories will inevitably overlap. Impru20talk 15:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. The only justification for splitting the article that was advanced, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, was that the article was too long and you had to scroll too much, despite the existence of the 'Hide' function. The article was split. New polls have taken place since, and there will be a couple more between now and Feb 8. There is no justification now for removing this content. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
However, seeing as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is apparently an issue, there is plenty of precedence for including recent polls in the run-up to an election: here; here, and here, for example. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Compromise. It's a thing. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Having read through the ANI on this, I don't think there is anything egregious here. If the main editors working on this article, which is obviously of help to Irish (and other) readers, are happy with a non-controversial structure regarding the opinion poll format, why not let it sit? There is no WP policy on opinion poll formatting (as I know it), and various types of formats approaches are in use. I can see the rationale of both sides, but the materiality of the issue is not high; ultimately, an RfC can be run if needed (but I am not sure it would be worth it)? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bastun: One of your latest reasons for opposing the split was that it was conducted "out of process" and that the page history was lost, raising attribution concers. You now do this, despite consensus for the split, meaning that people may be led to add new opinion polls on this article rather than at Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election (as happened with the latest Red C poll), thus raising new attribution concerns since people adding new polls just in this article will not be properly attributed once those are added to the sub article. Further, you cannot pretend to circumvent consensus in such an egregious way; you should have raised the concern here, then sought a compromise for 2020 polls to be added into the article. Other participants could have then negotiated the issue. That's what WP:COMPROMISE means. Not "hey, I am adding this unilaterally against consensus because I did not like how it went and you now have to accept it haha".
- I have reverted your unilateral reversion until such a specific consensus develops. I am opening a discussion right below. Impru20talk 11:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
2020 polls in main article
As per above, Bastun chose to unilaterally add 2020 polls into the main article, twice (diff1 diff2). The current consensus is for opinion polls to be split into Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election, without making any provision for exceptions. I understand that this is an obvious breach of consensus and that this situation of having 2020 opinion polls in this article would require a modification of the consensus above, considering that it would mean having to maintain a duality of information in two pages and that attribution may not be properly conducted for newly-added opinion polls. I am not particularly opposed to this, as long as consensus favours it and care is taken for information to be added and kept up to date in both pages, though I am obviously concerned at the manners in which this was conducted. Pinging the rest of participants in the previous discussion: @Number 57 @Aréat @Wikimucker @Bondegezou @Iveagh Gardens Impru20talk 11:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- So the question being asked is: Should the main article contain 2020 opinion polls ("support"), OR, should all opinion polls be in the separate Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election article ("oppose")?
- Looks like a clear attempt to game the outcome of the above discussion to me. Number 57 12:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lets see, your first intervention was allegedly because the then article was in your opinion 'too large at 90k' Impru20. It was shorn to around 45k even with the inclusion of that small set of polls conducted during the election campaign. It would likely have reached an enormous 50k at the end of the campaign even with more polls included between now and then.
- I see no utility in your removal of the polls, no improvement to the article overall, and would be perfectly happy were all 2020 election period polls included in the article until the election is held on the 08 February after which they can be collected with the rest of them
- There are still polls in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2019_Spanish_general_election article despite many being removed to a subarticle on polls and that article is now at 106k despite your initially objecting to this article being too long at 90k when you started your uberextensive giving out about it earlier this week. Who might be the one responsible for that egregious bloat in Spain, one wonders.?
- Spleodrach might be interested in voicing an opinion too as might ((u|PaulCler2008}} Leovaradkat CaneFluteMan, all of whom have clearly contributed more of the pertinent article content than most of the people you pinged there. Wikimucker (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Lets see, your first intervention was allegedly because the then article was in your opinion 'too large at 90k'
No, my point was that opinion polls made up 2/3 of the article's size. That, combined with the article being 90k (well-above the 60kB of readable prose limit) was a reason enough for splitting, in my opinion (important point because it did not even have to be the final overall reason for splitting, as other users also made good points on this with different reasons). I did not mean that any article of that size should be split, but here it was obvious that most of the article covered opinion polls only rather than election issues themselves, which is out of scope. Nonetheless, I was not the only one voicing support for the split, so maybe you should just drop the issue already as the splitting issue was already dealt with. It does not matter what you personally thought or said back then; there was a consensus and you should respect it until a new one develops (what you argued back then was still rejected by 5 to 2. So it conceivably means there is not consensus for it right now).There are still polls in the November 2019 Spanish general election article despite many being removed to a subarticle on polls
No, there is only one graphic chart there. There have never been any opinion polls in that article. Further, it is not that 2/3 of the November 2019 Spanish general election article's size are fully committed to any given topic. I do not know why are you focusing this on me; as I said, there was a consensus on this, as four more people favoured the split. Impru20talk 13:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support having the 2020 opinion polls in main article (and the full longer list of all historical polls relating to this election in the separate opinion poll article); and I take it on good faith that the ask that both articles are kept updated is upheld – which seems fair, and I think is being done? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Neutral - neither particularly supporting or opposing the 2020 polls being shown in this page. What I see as the most crucial point of it would be for polling information to be added and kept up to date in both pages, with proper attribution whenever required (I'd be opposed to the 2020 polls being added and updated only in this article but not in the other). Impru20talk 13:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)- On a second thought, I think Bondegezou has a point in their comment below. After all, the risk of divergence in the updating of the two tables is real, and probably efforts would be much more helpful if directed on updating one table rather than needlessly having to update two of them simultaneously, which could result in none of them being complete. Plus, the fact that there is no real reason to have it that way aside from two users just repeteadly pushing for it because they "would like it" is not enough to compensate or to sway me. Moving my !vote to oppose as a result. Impru20talk 10:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think that Bastun's comment that they will maintain both lists address your, and Bondegezou's concern, and should be taken in good faith. Britishfinance (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: I am not making any assumptions on faith, but Bondegezou makes a good point when raising the issue that having to update two duplicate tables at the same time will inevitably lead to the editing effort being split, thus not being as successful or productive as it would be should just one table is maintained. Further, no reason other than personal preference is being brought for the case, compared to the more solid and policy-based reasonings given against. This is what makes me lean towards the 'oppose' camp. Impru20talk 12:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Impru20, you said
I am not making any assumptions on faith
, but this is what Wikipedia does. WP:5P4,Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others.
I think perspective is being lost here. A material amount of time (and text) has been sunk into a very (very) minor issue, that we have assurances (from the editors who created all of this content for our readers), will still be covered??? Britishfinance (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)- A material amount of time has been sunk into this because of WP:OWNy behaviour by Bastun. We could have just followed standard practice with other election articles and respected a clear consensus among editors here. Instead, we have all of this. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- But that is one perspective; there are other perspectives that an UNIVOLVED person could take having read the ANI and this RfC that could differ with this as the only conclusion. The most important thing is that this dispute is really, post the good-faith assurances below, is now moot. I see no further value to Wikipedia, or to anybody on this thread, from prolonging it? Britishfinance (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: I said I am not making any assumptions on faith: neither on bad-faith, nor on good faith (which is not needed because Wikipedia takes it for granted, as you say). What I do not understand is why do you keep insisting on this: I do not have to agree with the proposal, and you are not providing any new meaningful reasonings that make me change my stance. Conversely, you are complaining about a "large amount of text" being added while you keep adding such text yourself right now by systematically answering to every 'oppose' comment from both Bondegezou and me to complain about why are we opposing it. We have explained our reasons already.
- But that is one perspective; there are other perspectives that an UNIVOLVED person could take having read the ANI and this RfC that could differ with this as the only conclusion. The most important thing is that this dispute is really, post the good-faith assurances below, is now moot. I see no further value to Wikipedia, or to anybody on this thread, from prolonging it? Britishfinance (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- A material amount of time has been sunk into this because of WP:OWNy behaviour by Bastun. We could have just followed standard practice with other election articles and respected a clear consensus among editors here. Instead, we have all of this. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Impru20, you said
- @Britishfinance: I am not making any assumptions on faith, but Bondegezou makes a good point when raising the issue that having to update two duplicate tables at the same time will inevitably lead to the editing effort being split, thus not being as successful or productive as it would be should just one table is maintained. Further, no reason other than personal preference is being brought for the case, compared to the more solid and policy-based reasonings given against. This is what makes me lean towards the 'oppose' camp. Impru20talk 12:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think that Bastun's comment that they will maintain both lists address your, and Bondegezou's concern, and should be taken in good faith. Britishfinance (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- On a second thought, I think Bondegezou has a point in their comment below. After all, the risk of divergence in the updating of the two tables is real, and probably efforts would be much more helpful if directed on updating one table rather than needlessly having to update two of them simultaneously, which could result in none of them being complete. Plus, the fact that there is no real reason to have it that way aside from two users just repeteadly pushing for it because they "would like it" is not enough to compensate or to sway me. Moving my !vote to oppose as a result. Impru20talk 10:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Wikipedia does not exist to satisfy anyone's pleasures, and anyone means anyone. It does not matter how badly you think that some users "created all of this for us": they have still no right to be granted any specific editing privilege, nor for WP policies to be applied more laxly to them. Being the creator of Wikipedia content does not make you the owner of such content, so such implications are out of question. Impru20talk 13:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Impru20, I have not said you "have to", I am implying you "should". There is no Wikipedia policy regarding formats of opinion polls – none. The valid earlier concerns raised by Bondegezou and yourself are now addressed: (1) the amount of opinion poll data in the Head Article is small, and (2) the editors who actively edit these articles and maintain the data have made undertakings to keep it consistent. WP:5P4, a policy, should guide you that there is little more to be achieved here – even for your own sanity and enjoyment of Wikipedia (this cannot be enjoyable, for anyone, and for an issue that is moot)? Britishfinance (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neither I "have to" nor I "should". I am free to give my opinion in a discussion, right? You cared nothing when I posted the neutral !vote, yet since I switched to oppose you are pushing for me to change my stance without any actual rationale other than we should somehow make a favour to other editors. Bondegezou and I validly oppose the proposal just as others (including yourself) validly support it. That's it. In the end, the weight of arguments shall determine the final consensus. On WP:5P4 just highlighting what it establishes:
Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others
. Now check who's been breaching that throughout the last days and ask yourself whether you are applying 5P4 on the correct people. Impru20talk 13:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neither I "have to" nor I "should". I am free to give my opinion in a discussion, right? You cared nothing when I posted the neutral !vote, yet since I switched to oppose you are pushing for me to change my stance without any actual rationale other than we should somehow make a favour to other editors. Bondegezou and I validly oppose the proposal just as others (including yourself) validly support it. That's it. In the end, the weight of arguments shall determine the final consensus. On WP:5P4 just highlighting what it establishes:
- Impru20, I have not said you "have to", I am implying you "should". There is no Wikipedia policy regarding formats of opinion polls – none. The valid earlier concerns raised by Bondegezou and yourself are now addressed: (1) the amount of opinion poll data in the Head Article is small, and (2) the editors who actively edit these articles and maintain the data have made undertakings to keep it consistent. WP:5P4, a policy, should guide you that there is little more to be achieved here – even for your own sanity and enjoyment of Wikipedia (this cannot be enjoyable, for anyone, and for an issue that is moot)? Britishfinance (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Wikipedia does not exist to satisfy anyone's pleasures, and anyone means anyone. It does not matter how badly you think that some users "created all of this for us": they have still no right to be granted any specific editing privilege, nor for WP policies to be applied more laxly to them. Being the creator of Wikipedia content does not make you the owner of such content, so such implications are out of question. Impru20talk 13:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Nearly all election articles with separate poll articles include no poll results on the main article. Wikipedia practice is to avoid having information duplicated across two articles because of problems with updating. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. That is a common set-up Bondegezou, but we have a live election going on with active editors updating the polling (and article) in real-time, so is less of a concern. Where such editors want to use a reasonable, and inoffensive, variation of such common set-up for their readers, then I am sympathetic to it, per my !vote. It can all be restructured in the long-term if needed; the appeal of these editors to combine the main 2020 polls into the head article they are building while the event is live, seems a fair request? Britishfinance (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- If there's active editing, then I would have thought that problems with consistency are of greater concern, not lesser concern. The more editing going on, the faster it's happening, the more risk of divergence and having two tables, neither of which is complete. I've edited a large number of election articles through polling days and I've never seen this done before. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really follow - I would expect an actively edited article to be able to keep both up to date (and there aren't that many polls in 2020?). Who built the original large tables for historical polling on Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election – where they also built by the creators of this Head article. thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)?
- If there's active editing, then I would have thought that problems with consistency are of greater concern, not lesser concern. The more editing going on, the faster it's happening, the more risk of divergence and having two tables, neither of which is complete. I've edited a large number of election articles through polling days and I've never seen this done before. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, barring some huge change in Irish media circles, this is a non-issue. There will be at most three to four more polls by mainstream media between now and the election coverage moratorium, plus an exit poll on the day of the election itself. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: the more edits going on, the more confusion there is. These big polling tables are fiddly. This is a context in which errors are more likely to occur. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Per my comment above to Impru20, this concern is of a disproportionate level to the time (and editing) sunk into debating it? I can't see how it is credible to still have this concern when: (1) the number of polls in question is so small, and (2) the creators of almost all these polling tables/content in these articles have undertaken to specifically maintain the integrity of the data? This is not a good use of any of our time, to advocate otherwise makes no sense – the "oxygen" of this dispute is not really the substance of the matter in hand (as it is so minor, and is now no longer an issue given the assurances), but the result of the "unhappy interactions" from discussing the matter? Britishfinance (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support 2020 polls in main article. Wikimucker (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support 2020 polls in main article. If I want to read about the election happening 12 days time, I should be able to read about them on the article on that election. There is a case to be made for not having all opinion polls since the last election, in 2016, on this page (a case I don't agree with, as the section is the final one on the page and the table has 'Hide' functionality), but there is no merit in removing the most recent polls, i.e., those conducted in 2020. Although I dislike using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, others have done so, and the retention of recent polls is common practice on other articles. I will be more than happy to maintain both tables, including attribution. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
the retention of recent polls is common practice on other articles
Yes? Which ones? Impru20talk 12:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The ones listed in my comment above, made at 11:40 yesterday in the sub-section above this one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- On 2019 United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling, these are not opinion polls, but predictions and seat projections based on polling aggregations (you may see that those are not included at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election, and just one of them is conducted by an actual polling company). The two others you link are sub-articles by themselves, not the main article. I cannot see your point here. Impru20talk 13:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- An irrelevant observation, there is no poll of polls or a reliable derived seat projection in Ireland because of the nature of the constituency and voting system. A few recent polls is as reliable a data stream as there is available. It should be assumed here that Irish editors would have found one.... were there one. Wikimucker (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
there is no poll of polls or a reliable derived seat projection in Ireland because of the nature of the constituency and voting system
Then that answers your question. Many election articles elsewhere do not report poll of polls or seat projections because they do not have them, yet they do not make any attempt to fill such a vacuum by copying opinion polls from their polling articles (because there is no requirement to add poll of polls at all, the UK article being one of the few exceptions). Why should this article be different? The observation is not only relevant, but very pertinent. Impru20talk 14:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)- Given the short period of this campaign, there is perhaps merit in including polls published since the dissolution of the Dáil, which I think is also the same as those published in 2020. I generally think other countries' elections and politics projects are a good guide, but we don't need to be bound by them,and can still tailor our approach for this campaign. My reason for moving the polls in the first place was because polls stretching back to 2016 were now clutter where there is a focus on candidates and the campaign for this election, but polls since 14 January are different. This is a page we're designing for the general reader, and these recent polls are useful information for them to have immediately to hand, rather than on a separate page. Now, of course, we should still reach an agreement or consensus on this talk page before making a change on the page! –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Iveagh Gardens, you said "Support" in your edit summary (and "seem" to imply your support above; although I am not 100% sure), if you do "support" the motion, you should indent and bold your !vote accordingly for clarity to others. Conversely, if you don't "Support" it, you should clarify that too. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus is now to include 2020 Polls in the article (and to maintain the exact same data in the sub article on polls. Consensus is not an ad hoc form of guillotine motion so we should all quietly wait until the morning to see if contributions appear below from those who has not yet contributed. I'll summarise around 08:00 UTC, when this section is 48 hours old, if the section creator has not kindly summarised for us all by then. Wikimucker (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Iveagh Gardens, you said "Support" in your edit summary (and "seem" to imply your support above; although I am not 100% sure), if you do "support" the motion, you should indent and bold your !vote accordingly for clarity to others. Conversely, if you don't "Support" it, you should clarify that too. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Given the short period of this campaign, there is perhaps merit in including polls published since the dissolution of the Dáil, which I think is also the same as those published in 2020. I generally think other countries' elections and politics projects are a good guide, but we don't need to be bound by them,and can still tailor our approach for this campaign. My reason for moving the polls in the first place was because polls stretching back to 2016 were now clutter where there is a focus on candidates and the campaign for this election, but polls since 14 January are different. This is a page we're designing for the general reader, and these recent polls are useful information for them to have immediately to hand, rather than on a separate page. Now, of course, we should still reach an agreement or consensus on this talk page before making a change on the page! –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- An irrelevant observation, there is no poll of polls or a reliable derived seat projection in Ireland because of the nature of the constituency and voting system. A few recent polls is as reliable a data stream as there is available. It should be assumed here that Irish editors would have found one.... were there one. Wikimucker (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- On 2019 United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling, these are not opinion polls, but predictions and seat projections based on polling aggregations (you may see that those are not included at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election, and just one of them is conducted by an actual polling company). The two others you link are sub-articles by themselves, not the main article. I cannot see your point here. Impru20talk 13:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The ones listed in my comment above, made at 11:40 yesterday in the sub-section above this one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Include Independent Alliance in Infobox?
Should we not include Independent Alliance in the Infobox, if necessary with a footnote explaining their precise status? Admittedly, they are not technically a party, but they are treated as one by the opinion pollsters, and are the 4th largest such party in the latest poll and in many other polls. At the last election with 6 seats and 4.2% of the vote they were the 5th largest party by votes and joint 5th by seats. They are a non-negligable part of the minority Government's parliamentary support, and as such currently have 2 Cabinet Ministers and 3 attendees at Cabinet. So it seems both odd and somewhat misleading to our readers to leave them out of the infobox because of a seemingly largely irrelevant technicality which can be clarified in a footnote. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea - I don't see any reason why they should be excluded, and as you say a footnote can explain their status. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal. Spleodrach (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks like we can go ahead and do it. I may try to do so myself later, but I'm a bit busy so I'm not sure precisely when I'll be able to get around to it, so if anybody wants to go ahead and do it before I get around to it, please feel free to do so. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've now added it, in 5th place (as they had same seats but more votes than Solidarity-PBP at the last election). I was mistaken above - they only have 1 Cabinet Minister and 2 attendees instead of the 2 and 3 I mistakenly mentioned above. I've had a difficulty with their party colour, which is currently showing as a darker shade of grey (C0C0C0) than we have in our opinion polls section (which is perhaps roughly E0E0E0, which is then not very clearly visible), but seems perhaps about the same as the 'hex=gray' which is used in the Composition Bar in the infobox of our article on them. Maybe somebody who knows more about how Wikipedia assigns party colours might fix this.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal. Spleodrach (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose we should have Feargal Quinn as 'leader' given he's the closest thing they have to any leadership (chairman). Irishpolitical (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, they don't have a leader. Anyway Quinn is retired from politics. Spleodrach (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
We should probably get ready to remove the Independent Alliance from the Infobox. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aaaaand replace them with what exactly??? Independents for Change are a more obvious deletion seeing as they nearly all buggered off to Europe last year but I cannot decide who could replace them. The Healy Raes have more elected members than I4C.
- For aesthetic reasons there should be 6 or 9 parties, 3 per row, in the Infobox. 12 is too much altogether.
- We either go with 6 or 9 in the Infobox then and I am more inclined to prune it down to 6 and leave the selection at FF FG SF GR SD and finally 'Solidarity/PBP. Wikimucker (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Likely to see 7 parties in the next Dáil - don't forget Labour - so that number seems a good compromise. Culloty82 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with 6, but it should be the current largest 6, i.e. FG, FF, SF, Lab, S-PGP and Green. No room for SocDems, I'm afraid. Spleodrach (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies Spleodrach for the premature switch, cache hadn't refreshed on this. I'd be inclined towards 6 as well. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for forgetting Labour, are we moving to 6 in the Infobox and FG, FF, SF, Lab, S-PGP and Green. I am agreed with those 6.
- Articles Elections 2007 (infobox 6) 2011 (infobox 9) and 2016 (infobox 9) in the interests of balance here but 2016 includes Renua who promptly imploded afterwards. Wikimucker (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:Bold, I've gonae ahead and changed it to those 6. Spleodrach (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- And per WP:BOLD and WP:NOTPAPER, I've reverted. Why would we exclude parties that won seats last time out?! Especially when over the last two elections, we've gone with 9?! "Aesthetic reasons" doesn't cut it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Consensus was 6, Spain only has 6 for example, the 6 largest, as does Poland. I will revert to 6 presently unless a case is made for 9 in the interim. Wikimucker (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile I suggest people look at the richer data presented for those 6 parties in the Polish Infobox ....for inspiration. Wikimucker (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument. Arbitrarily removing relevant material that's been here for literally over 4 years, just 3 weeks out from the next election - and directly concerns the topic of the article - smacks of censorship, to be honest. Honestly - what is the problem with including all of the parties/groupings that have been on the page since 2011, and have Dáil representation?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not arbitrary, both the IA and I4C have essentially collapsed and IA were never a party anyway while I4C is formally registered, a large infobox....in that context....strikes me as inchoate.
I'll raise ya a 404 for your 'arbitrary'. > https://independentalliance.ie/, how is that???
Wikimucker (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Again, it's not arbitrary, the Ind. Alliance and I4C both don't exist anymore, and are not contesting this election. I will be removing them again, unless someone can justify that they remain. Spleodrach (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- As you said above, we include parties/groupings who have "imploded" after (though both the IA and I4C haven't quite "imploded" just yet, managing a couple of MEPs!) and they've lasted 4+ years. In 2007, we listed every party who had Dáil representation (6); same in 2011 and 2016 (9 each). 2011 even includes a one-man party and one with no seats at all... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's foolish and misleading to list groups/parties that are not contesting this election. Spleodrach (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've no objection to removing groups/parties that aren't contesting this election, but those who are should remain - regardless of "aesthetics." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
adriankavanaghelections.org
Can we consider adriankavanaghelections.org to be a reliable source? Yes, it's a blog - but it's specialised, balanced and more fact than opinion based. Thoughts? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely so, yes, he has many sources and has been at this quite a while. Note he mainly lists 'declarations'until formal nominations close (next friday I think) and he is most useful for fast moving news but will need a revisit to double check actual nominations are = declarations afterwards. Wikimucker (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Retiring Incumbents
It might be pushing it to say that Maria Bailey "announced" her retirement and Seán Barrett quietly went away with no annoucement at all.
As nominations close today I propose to prune the retirements subsection to:
a) remove announcement dates. b) change description to "Retiring Incumbents"
after I check they are all really gone and that nobody else joins them by end of business today. Wikimucker (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikimucker Why remove the announcement date? I think its relevant. Spleodrach (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- SpleodrachDate confirmed then, Barrett just went quietly and Bailey only at the 11th hour Wikimucker (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Polls table
@Wikimucker: Polls tables take a huge amount of place, forcing users to scroll endlessly. That's why in every election page, as well as all the previous irish election pages, we place them in their own different pages, and leave the informative graphical summing them up on the election one. It's doing as usual.--Aréat (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's "a huge amount of scrolling" of the content people are coming here to see. Certainly, I find it the most interesting thing on the page - along with the list of retirees. It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks, until the next election is over, if it's all the same to you... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks, until the next election is over, if it's all the same to you...
- I do not wish to sound rude, but this sounds like an awkward WP:OWN. Just because some reduced group of people has been doing one thing for four years does not mean it grants any right for that thing to be maintained that way at these people's leisure and until they wish to allow for changes to proceed. Precisely, it has been when the most people has been coming to this page (this is, upon the election being called) when this issue has emerged; maybe because these people outside the reduced four-year group are finding problems when navigating the page. I don't find it particularly surprising at all: the article should be befitting and workable to all Wikipedia users, not just a few. Impru20talk 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- With other election articles, we generally include polling on the main election article until that section gets so big that a separate article is created. I would say we are at about that point with the polling for this election. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It depends; in many cases articles for opinion polling are created even before that point is reached, specifically for countries where it is anticipated that such opinion polling will get big (Italy, Spain, UK, Germany, etc). Ireland can be a specific case where opinion polling may be so unfrequent as for it to start out in the main article, but when it gets about 2/3 of the article's size it seems like a good time to split it. Impru20talk 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- With other election articles, we generally include polling on the main election article until that section gets so big that a separate article is created. I would say we are at about that point with the polling for this election. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Someone who doesnt' want to scroll doesn't have to, because there's literally nothing after the opinion poll section except footnotes and references. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor. There may be editors who love nothing more than making every election page uniform, but certainly this reader, and plenty of others would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor.
This is precisely the point I am trying to make. You have been editing the article for 4 years. It's now, when the election gets close, when the most readers come to visit it. And precisely when this happens, when the page stops being relatively isolated in a bubble to get much more attention, is when people start complaining that it's difficult to navigate. You are making assumptions of something which has not happened, i.e. that "many readers" "would like" to see things your way. Well, where are those readers? Because the more new readers that come to this page and post their opinions, the more support there is for the split of opinion polls into a different article. You are acting like if the few people editing this page for the last four years and other Irish people have any superior right or claim over this article, when that's not true. Impru20talk 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)- Bastun I had already created a section up top for your 2c if'n you could copy and paste up there. Wikimucker (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't notice that - normal practice is to start new sections at the bottom. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bastun I had already created a section up top for your 2c if'n you could copy and paste up there. Wikimucker (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Someone who doesnt' want to scroll doesn't have to, because there's literally nothing after the opinion poll section except footnotes and references. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor. There may be editors who love nothing more than making every election page uniform, but certainly this reader, and plenty of others would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
TV debates
Are Renua actually standing any candidates, Wikimucker? If they are, grand. If not, their column should be removed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Bastun We don't know for sure until later today but for now....allegedly, yes. They have no leader I believe but I never implied they did. > http://www.renuaireland.com/candidates-2020 Wikimucker (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- "They haven't gone away, you know..." Jaysus! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'll raise that to a Jaysus^2 for you Bastun > https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1219941008437325824 but they are not a registered party AFAIK Wikimucker (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- :blink: :blink: ... No, they're not. But we're limiting this table, and the slogans/manifestos one to "parties that managed to have someone elected to the last Dáil", I presume... anything else would be a bit mad. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
anything else would be a bit mad. There are (my estimate) 5 registered ultra right wing parties running candidates plus the Jaysus^2 pair who are not registered as a party...so more than a bit mad I'll say. I believe we have everyone worth calling a party already but there is a slight issue with S-PBP in Galway West, all 3 components were running someone a few days ago and both S and PBP nominated a candidate in the end. I must investigate that later to see if it happened more widely and whether it means there is a Schplit!!!! Wikimucker (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)