Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election/Archives/2013/March

Lib Dem UKIP box colouring

Ok so we have alternating boxes coloured in between the Torys and Labour to see who has topped the poll and by extension who is ahead out of the 2main parties. However, there is another position in the polls that is clearly in contention, 3rd. What I suggest we consider is colouring the box for third place in each poll, for all polls durring the year of 2012, making it more user friendly. This will mainly mean that the Liberal Democrats box is coloured in yellow but towards the 2nd half of the year we will see it alternate more. I do not believe that this will cause confusion because there is a collom for %lead and that is boldly coloured in, with the leading parties colour. It's a case of making the tables more illustrative in terms of how we communicate the pollsm much oeuser friendly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'm in favour of that, it wouldn't be confusing and I think it is relevent. It very clearly shows the poll winning party in a specific column and the colour is bolder as well. This is a good idea because as you say it does give a better visual illustration of the data, quite important considering the lack of graph at the moment. Nick Nick Dancer 16:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the most important thing in all polls is who is winning the poll, this is clearly highlighted in the far right hand column in the party's colours. The repeated change between 3rd and 4th place is also note worthy and this is a good way of showing this! Good change, I think it would be consistent with previous decisions to do this for the entirity of 2012. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great that's that settled, I picked the lightest possible purple that vaguely matched UKIP's colours from the background colours section. I also picked a yellow that I thought worked quite well for the Lib Dems. Have now completed the changes over a series of edits. Nick Nick Dancer 18:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, that looks realy good! I think it work's quite well actually, I approve of how you've split the polling sections as well. I do wonder if the chart titles need to be in bold or not but it's not a big deal to me! All we need is a new chart, I suggest we wait until May 2013 for this, that way we'll have a years worth of data! A significant date to start the chart from does seem to be the May elections, we seem to have some form of election every May, so it just seems to be our ideal cut off point, apart from 31stDec/01Jan. I'm easy whichever we use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Very good! I think that works really well and it isn't at all confusing because of the column on the right stating who is in the lead of the overall poll. As far as charts go: yea, if I'm honest I don't think much to the chart in the section above, I think it'd be better if it looked more like the one we have for 2010-2012. Also I agree, I think we should wait 6months before we look at creating another, we could even wait a whole year but I'd say at least 6months. Also I think the new time scale should be Jan-Dec, so the new chart should start from 01/01/12. It really doesn't matter about us covering the same 7months twice because in fact this justifies why we have made the change to including 4parties and others. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Started column for 3rd place, if anyone wants to help, by all means go ahead! Also make sure the LD winning %s are written in black and UKIP in white as with lab/con for the lead column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. I think this colouring for "3rd party lead" is ridiculous. It's pushing an agenda that wishes to highlight UKIP. I don't see this approach being taken for articles for other countries. It produces an overly busy table. Readers can look at the numbers themselves if they wish to compare any two parties. Bondegezou (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not so sure if we really need to highlight the third party lead. I can't see this happening on any other article. – Richard BB 15:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What we do in other articles is not the be all and end all! Certain elections have different circumstances, Bondegezou seems to like the example of Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013, as you can see this has different circumstances and exceptions have had to be made. With regard to this page, this is indeed note worthy and worth doing. It is one of the most newsworthy occurances in British politics at the moment. It is something of significance and it needs highlighting and illustrating properly! I could understand if this had appeared to be a blip, i.e. a few weeks or months but were actually talking about the best part of 2012 and it's going in to 2013 as well, over 9months! That means that we are not focusing in too much on current events.

Furthermore, if your trying to argue that this change has somehow made these tables less user friendly then you have a rather odd idea of what user friendly is! I will not rehash the arguments that others have made but a number of others have said that there are 2 races in this polling, first and 3rd! That's what everyone else is focusing on, especially in the media. This page already contains endless sources stating that. So if we're using "reliable sources" then that's what we've got to follow, they're all talking about 3rd place more than 1st!

I do not see how the changes create any confusion what so ever! The 1st part lead is as plain as day as is the 3rd party lead. Furthermore, there is even a detailed explanation of the tables layout. Frankly, the explanation is stating the blinking obvious but hey! I do not see any grounds for disputing this other than political! We're merely reflecting what is going on, basing our approach on the aproach of reliable sources!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of raking over old coals, do you want to answer/get involved in today's discussions i.e. "Compile all Charts (old & current)under one Thumbnail" at the bottom of this talk page!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For God sake! Not this again, you people are impossible! I notice your both Lib Dem's as well (I respect your right to your beliefs but tolerance is limited when you behave like this), so I'm really not surprised you disagree with the page reflecting what's actually going on out there! I'm really not! Like Sheff said, it's all clear and all of your own reliable sources (selected by yourselves) justify this layout. You can't have your cake and eat it!217.41.32.3 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia policy is to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass! There is no sense in reverting this. Accept it, it is done and has been established this way for some months, get over it! Nick Nick Dancer 22:43, 20 January 2013

Lovely turn of phrase, couldn't have put it better myself. I nearly said that they were flogging a dead horse as well! Now I wish I had!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall ever saying I was a Lib Dem. Regardless, I'm glad I wasn't the one who suggested this; I was only vaguely in agreement with removing the third party, but if consensus is against me (which it seems to be), I'm more than happy to let it drop. – Richard BB 09:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

3rd party lead: OR concerns

A bit of an arbitrary break here for clarity... Anyway, as I was saying, I remain concerned that the "3rd party lead" is original research. That is, I understand why some editors feel it is helpful, as has been stated above, but Wikipedia articles cannot simply reflect editors' interests. We must follow reliable sources. I have not seen any reliable source present a table with 3rd party leads and, indeed, a Google search of "third party lead" does not show anyone else using the phrase (in this context). This must be a huge warning sign. This is basic Wikipedia policy and the discussion above has far too little reference to policy. If there are reliable source examples, that's fine: just show them to me. If not, I feel a re-think is appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've sought additional opinions at WP:NORN; see my comments there. Bondegezou (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What to include in a table of opinion poll results is difficult. We have ended up with is 6 columns, the parties down to UKIP (but notthe SNP/Plaid or the Greens, who have MPs unlike UKIP!), a column for who is in the lead, and a "3rd party lead" column, the last something of interest mainly to those who want to argue that UKIP is now the 3rd party of British politics. This seems to me WP:UNDUE focus on UKIP.

Compare other articles: Opinion polling for the Israeli legislative election, 2013 has columns for 16 parties, but no 'lead' columns. Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2013 similarly lists numerous parties, but no 'lead' columns. Ditto Icelandic_parliamentary_election,_2013#Polls. Ditto Opinion polling for the next German federal election. Ditto Next_Irish_general_election#Opinion_polls. Ditto Next_Danish_parliamentary_election#Opinion_polls. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 has the two main US parties and a 'lead' column, but also a separate table including multiple additional minor party candidates. Indian_general_election,_2009#Opinion_polling has a somewhat different approach, but no lead.

Most opinion polling articles don't even have a first party lead column, but they do include many smaller parties. No-one else has a "3rd party lead" column. As I said, reliable sources don't give "3rd party lead". So why does this article do things so differently and in a manner that highlights one particular party (UKIP)? Why does this article find space for a "3rd party lead", but not to report SNP/PC or Green? Bondegezou (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

::Looking at everything (there has been a hell of a lot of reading), I am inclined to say keep the 3rd party lead column. I don't see how the 3rd party lead column is original research when the 1st party lead column isn't. Comparisons only work up to a certain point, an apple is not an orange and when you put the 2 together you don't make banana cake. I have tried to look at this on it's merrits and it seems that the press, including the reliable sources are making a bigger thing of 3rd place than 1st. I don't think it is original research to simply state the difference in the 2 numbers. Ordinarily I'd say if something is so obvious it doesn't need stating but in this case because the changes are so frequent it does make it more reader friendly to keep the column. On the other hand I am inclined to agree that the coloured highlighting of the 3rd place in the parties columns is a bit OTT. I'd vote for removing the highlighting but I do think the column is of value and I don't think it breaches policy. However I can see the argument that the highlighting draws undue attention to 3rd place. The column is a good readers aid but I can see why highlighting should just be a 1st place thing. So I'm against removing the column and agree that, that discussion has been exhausted and remain closed. However I am open to discussing the highlighting and the highlighting only. Nick Nick Dancer 11:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thought this was over! When one editor disagrees with a decision that has been discussed at length, that editor must accept the decission and Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass!130.88.52.66 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a modicum of reliable source interest in the question of whether UKIP are overtaking the LibDems in the polls. However, there hasn't been very much (I looked for citations on this before). None of them talk in terms of "3rd party lead"; that's a neologism novel to this page. None of them do this comparison on each poll, probably because it's of questionable value psephologically speaking. Reference to those news articles in the text of this page is appropriate and I added those I could find previously. They don't support inventing terms.

We have ended up with two key editing decisions that suit and highlight a UKIP agenda. Defence of this change repeatedly talks about it being reader-friendly, but it seems to me only friendly to readers who are trying to push a pro-UKIP position. We have to be guided by WP:POLICY, so show me policy support for this change or show me these reliable source citations supporting this change.

meanwhile, I suggest you both look at WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A wall of yellow is hardly a pro-UKIP agenda! Yes it shows that for most of the year UKIP are only 1/2% behind the Lib Dem's in most polls but the fact that most of the column in orange, if anything over emphasises the Lib Dem lead, so, no I am in agreement with others that haxe said the column is actually useful in pointing out the difference. I don't see how this is original research either, where's the analysis? One area that Nick has mentioned that I think is possibly open to discussion is the highlighting, in my view simply highlighting 1st place would be more apt, I don't see the need for highlighting 3rd when we have a column for 3rd but if the majority want the highlighting to stay I will go with that. I hate to repeat what's already been said but Bondegezou needs to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass!130.88.114.115 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want the 3rd place highlighting. Nick and IP editor aren't very keen on it. Shall we remove it then? Does anyone want to mount a defense of the highlighting in particular? Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think everything that there is to say on the matter has already been said! I don't know what more to say to you Bondegezou, it seems that no one else does either. This column is here because it's useful, others seem to agree and have expanded my arguments, you say that no one else does this but that is not the point. Wikipedia is the only place where we publish every single pole, not even the BBC does this! I don't want to argue about this. Just because I am less able to spend as much time on here nowadays does not mean that I will let things drop on the basis that I haven't time to make the case....that case has already been made! I will also repeat the rather apt phrase that everyone seems to have grown fond of: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

While you and IP editor keep talking about sticks and horses, I note that you still have not addressed my concerns. Where is the policy support for this? (The article you mention on dead horses is an essay, not policy.) Where is the reliable source equivalent? It should be relatively straightforward to defend any major edit on those grounds.

You keep talking about the column being useful. Lots of columns would be useful. It would be useful to have a column showing the SNP/PC, or the Greens, but we don't have those. The "3rd party lead" is easy for the reader to calculate themselves, but they have to chase down citations to know how well these other parties are doing, parties who have MPs. It would be useful having a column giving the maximum margin of error (as it done for one of the US Presidential polling articles), but we don't have that. Given finite space, given this table is inherently a summary, why is the "3rd party lead" more useful than these alternatives?

If the "3rd party lead" column is so useful, why has no-one else -- no other Wikipedia article, no reliable source -- ever done something similar? Maybe because it's not actually that useful to most readers! Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reopening this debate in light of sockpuppetry. Sock comments have been struck. – Richard BB 18:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So, given the above, it appears most people favour removing the colour highlighting of whichever party is in 3rd. Let's do that. OK? How do we feel about removing or retaining the "3rd party lead" column? Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to be the only one that places so much emphasis on the third party (and I'm not sure why, other than the obvious UKIP bias). If the whole "third party" bit were removed, I certainly wouldn't complain. Why do we even have the third party column (other than a biased attempt to highlight UKIP's raising popularity)? It's not at all relevant. The third party isn't going to get elected; the point of these opinion polls is to highlight the battle between the first and second parties, one of whom will be elected. Many of the pro-UKIP socks have argued, "they could be part of a coalition". While that's true, it falls entirely under the banner of WP:CRYSTAL. They might be part of a coalition in the future, but it's not up to us to interpret that. Yes, you're right: this is original research on the Eurosceptics' part. I can't see any reason to even have the "third party lead" column other than to say, "look, UKIP are slightly more popular than they used to be and are often tied for third place with the Lib Dems". We never had a Lib Dem column, and they are part of the coalition. Finally, I'll end with this point: numerous times people have tried to add Nigel Farage to the Next United Kingdom general election article, and each time it's been removed. The reason being is that they have no seats, and so they are unlikely to form a part of the next government. To have a different rule for this article smacks of a popularity contest. – Richard BB 13:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like all the people agreeing about the 3rd party colum ended up being the same person. That explains why there was such consensus about the 3rd party lead column. I never agreed to retain that column unless enough consensus about it was established, which it seems to don't be the case. My opinion for it, is that the able isn't really that useful. I already explained my reasons for it here, but they mostly agree with what Richard BB said. No sense for it to remain, whatsoever. Impru20 (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, the IP editor above is not, as I understand it, Sheffno/Nick. So, there are two people in favour of the "3rd party lead" column, one of whom is on a 1-month ban. There are three of us opposed to it. I think that's nearly everyone who's ever expressed an interest in the issue. As such, there's clearly no consensus to include "3rd party lead". Given no strong argument to include it, I suggest we now remove it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is, however, a rather fiddly process. is the article before any 3rd party lead stuff was added, but that doesn't include the last few polls of 2012. We can take that and add the remaining 2012 polls, then go through the 2013 table line by line... Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I can remove the 3rd party lead without need to going back to a previous version of the article. That way we will ensure no poll is lost along the way. Impru20 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Impru20 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. For the record, the IP's edits do seem to be awfully suspect, but I'll abstain from further accusation without a sock puppet investigation. Yes, the status quo was changes through a false consensus because of this sordid affair, so it's best left removed and kept that way until a real consensus decides otherwise. Thanks all. – Richard BB 17:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Impru20. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?! WHY HAS THAT LAST COLUMN BEEN REMOVED - IT WAS INVALUABLE WHEN COMPARING THE 3RD PLACE LEAD, AND WIKIPEDIA WAS THE ONLY SERVICE ONLINE TO OFFER A CONSISTENT UP TO DATE RECORD ON THAT SUBJECT!!! MOST PEOPLE WHO READ THE WIKIPEDIA PAGES (LIKE MYSELF) HAD NO IDEA THAT THESE SORTS OF DISCUSSIONS WERE TAKING PLACE BEHIND OUR BACKS AND WERE THEREFORE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEBATE. PLEASE REVERT THE CHANGES (AND ALSO PLEASE MAKE THE COLUMNS THICKER AGAIN AS THEY WERE EASIER TO READ) THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. ITS NOT COSTING ANYONE TO KEEP THEM THERE, SO WHY HAVE THEY BEEN REMOVED? SORRY FOR THE CAPITAL LETTERING, I JUST NEED TO GET YOUR ATTENTION :) Thank you

Hi. Welcome. I'm sorry you didn't see the debate before now. You mention that Wikipedia "was the only service online to offer a consistent up to date record on that subject." Part of the concern is precisely that Wikipedia isn't trying to be the only place online for such content. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia reflects what primary sources do, so if here is the only place comparing the 3rd place lead, that suggests Wikipedia isn't being encyclopaedic on the topic. It's not the job of an encyclopaedia to be presenting things in a novel way; it's the job of an encyclopaedia to collate and summarise what others are doing.

I would look to blogs or specialist sites to provide a niche comparison like 3rd party lead. Someone could set that up and use all the data on Wikipedia, and then calculate the 3rd party lead for its readers. Bondegezou (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I just want to point out that the way Bondegezou has handled the edits and objections to this article with regard to Northern Ireland earlier today is the perfect example of nipping an issue in the bud in a respectful manner! Bondegezou did not scream no, no, no. They were not obnoctious, patronising or disrespectful to other editors. Why was this a good way of dealing with the issue? Because Bondegezou explained what the objection was and why in a calm and respectful manner. Certain editors should bare this example in mind!81.149.185.174 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)