Talk:Opinion polling for the 2016 Irish general election

Poll chart, local elections to date

Offering this as an alternative chart:

Clearer, no smoothing applied (avoiding synth/OR problem); the only change to poll data is polls published on the same day are averaged. Happy to include base data in image description or upload spreadsheet to Dropbox or Google Drive. (The leaked poll from tomorrow's SBP is included; I would propose averaging that one with the other polls also being published tomorrow). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I like that Bastun so I do.

Any chance you can produce a 2016 _Only_ variant as well as it may be we decide to keep the big chart where it is given all the suffering that came along with it and go with your version of 2016 as well. ?? Wikimucker (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure :-) - How's this:

Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice one, a more blood red Labour and perhaps a reversal of the green codes for SF and FF and now where to put it.

I suggest ( and will wait for others to comment) that it goes in the 2016 Section at bottom. Might as well wait for another 2 polls to come out this evening too.

The advantage of the 2016 graph is that a lot of the action is bunched in the 0-5% space which is hard to make out over the longer timeline in the current graph.

Thanks again for your work Bastun, lets see what others think. Wikimucker (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the (revised and updated) graph for 2016-only polls, with colour changes as requested, as the old graph was (at the time) out of date. It got reverted and replaced with a hastily-updated version of the old graph and an edit summary of "This is up to date" - which was only true after my own upload, as the respective timestamps clearly show. I've re-added this one in any case as it's much clearer on the recent polls and on the smaller parties' actual polling. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Noticed that, sound job and exactly where I thought it was required. Exit Poll this evening c. 10:30 pm on RTÉ so be ready. Wikimucker (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have been bold and applied your very same criteria to your chart, as it was outdated. I understand that you added yours because mine was outdated. As mine (the chart that met consensus) is now fully updated, I thank you for your effort and restore the original one. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You contributed nothing to the 'flash' 2016 data chart or to the discussion on it in this talk piece . I have reverted your revision of the article deliberately removing it.

Let Bastun update the 2016 chart in their own time. Wikimucker (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wikimucker, I see you just told me that "my chart was left alone". Actually, Bastun unjustifiedly deleted my chart, on the grounds that it was outdated, as you can check here and here. He could have just asked me to update it. Or he could have just added his without touching mine. But no, he just removed mine to replace it with his. Because he has never accepted (and still doesn't accept, it seems) my chart, and wants to remove it by any means possible. So, I just applied his same criteria, and removed his chart for being outdated. And also because, seeing how the reason given by him for adding his chart and removing mine was that mine was outdated, now that mine is more updated than his, I saw no reason now to left his there. Maybe Bastun can actually explain to us what his criteria is, though, so that we can actually understand what criteria should we use in his opinion. Impru20 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User Impru20, your chart in this article is intact. You are referring to the removal of YOUR chart...about which you are very possessive as I know...from another wiki article.

Leave this article alone as it is not the article you are on about and take that issue up in the pertinent talk page for which you supplied a link here. I am minded to observe that the timeline for Bastun's graphic in the general election article is more compliant with the timeline for the general election article. That is if you want to start a talk piece in there. Please keep it out of here for now. Thanks. Wikimucker (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

My chart is intact because I restored it. I put you proof of Bastun removing it without justification. Bastun removed my charts from both articles, this one too. It's the second link I put to you: here

My chart was added by consensus, while the addition of Bastun has no consensus (you yourself stated above that you should wait until more people discussed it). But I'm not even discussing that. Bastun started the conflict by unilaterally removing mine, without discussion, without reason, without warning and against consensus. I just applied his same criteria to his chart, which I think that, if coherent, he would respect. Tell him to respect consensus, be respectful to others, be coherent with his criteria, and I'll be fine. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bastun just recognized that his criteria was not based on a rational basis, here. I believe this solves the issue. Thank you all. Impru20 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It solves nothing. You are deliberately talking about this article Irish_general_election,_2016 in the WRONG talk page. Wikimucker (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimucker No, I'm talking on this article too. It's not my fault that user Bastun used the same reasoning for removing my chart from both articles, but it includes this one too. And you brought the issue here, so this is being discussed here, as it also concerns this article (again, check the link). And yes, seeing how Bastun recognized that his own criteria had no rational basis, this is solved. And, seeing how I said this is solved... I'm not sure why you now come saying it's not, unless you want to keep this discussion alive for some reason. Cheers, and good night. Impru20 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As of this moment 'your' chart you are so possessive about is in this article. Now stop Impru20 . Wikimucker (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimucker Uh, I stopped two comments ago, pal. I already said this is solved, so I don't know why you still keep maintaining this ongoing. I don't like your tone, but I'm not going to directly attack you as you do with me, as that's not polite. I just request you to stop sparking a conflict. Thank you, and again, good night. Impru20 (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop reverting perfectly good charts by other users then, simples. Your overall behaviour Impru20 is clearly within WP:OWN territory at this stage and if you comment any further on this section of this talk page I will flag this issue higher. Wikimucker (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I just applied Bastun's criteria to remove outdated charts. Maybe you should have said this same to him when he removed mine using the very same argument. You shouldn't abuse of Wikipedia guidelines in order to supply a lack of arguments. I already said this was solved three comments ago, yet you still keep this discussion ongoing, and even go on to issue threats to me. Stop it now, Wikimucker. Btw, you can't obviously command me where should I comment or not, specially if you're talking to me, and more specifically if you're doing it in such a hostile behaviour. Discussion should by over by now. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Impru, please do not presume to speak for me. Thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak for you; just applied your same criteria to your chart, but it seems it got a different reaction from both you and Wickimucker that when you used that criteria on mine. Nonetheless, I accept your rectification that such a criteria had no basis, and eagerly expect for your chart to be updated. Sincerely. Impru20 (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol, just seeing this now. Chart was/is up-to-date; the "missing" polls were exit polls. Exit polls are a) pointless; b) not opinion polls. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sampling dates column

I really think that the sampling dates column isn't necessary. There's already enough columns and the sampling one provides no important information. VG31-irl 22:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

it is very useful in the last 10 days of an election campaign. I'll take it out once the voting ends friday if you like. Wikimucker (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with VG31-irl, there's already a "Date" column. Adding another one is just redundant. Furthermore, it's just five days until election and the column is not even near to complete, so it's just unnecessary, specially if intention is to remove it later on. Impru20 (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

the date column is when the information is first published (or leaked) . The sampling date is what it was acquired.

Anyway if nobody else wants it by midnight then revert it by all means.Wikimucker (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it'd be better included in the source footnote rather than as a column in its own right. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

OK so move the data to a Mouseover Popup and delete the column, I have no issues with that. Wikimucker (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of opinion poll of 25th Feb

The poll conducted for The Journal and published on 25th Feb seems a bit dubious for inclusion - a poll "by market research students at the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) who interviewed a random sample of over 1,000 adults between last Friday and Monday." In other words, not carried out by an established market research company with a track record, published sampling methodology and full results including stated margin of error; but instead, by students in and around Dublin only, who are doing one module of a marketing course. It also has no source data bar the news report itself. I'm going to remove it from the table. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

correct decision I think. all the above rationale applies. Shall we start the next opinion poll article for the next election?? Wikimucker (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lol - I predict a shorter article, somehow... :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bastun May as well add post election polls from the big four/media to this article for the foreseeables. We have absolutely no idea when the next election is and its is probably 2016 or 2017 latest. Wikimucker (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, happy to. I'd say 2016 for the next one (assuming they manage to actually form a government!) Thought: should we remove the colouring for "most popular party" - it seems superfluous in an Irish context where there have only been coalition governments for years? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, added the SBP/Red C poll to Next Irish general election#Opinion_polls, Wikimucker - probably better there than here, at least for the moment. I've also taken the liberty of removing the background colour from the most popular party - it doesn't really seem useful information when the most popular party is well short of 50% and will have to be a part of a coalition. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of opinion poll of 12th March

In agreement with Impru20 here, Wikimucker - I don't see the advantage of including the post-election SBP poll on this article. The general election marks a natural break point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the edit of an IP editor who added back the opinion poll to the table with no grounds behind it. The editor had no past contributions to Wikipedia (meaning that edit was his/her first) and the edit was tagged as "possible vandalism", as well as seemingly being done from a mobile device. I don't want to think that was Wikimucker from a logged-out account, since he was the only one defending the inclusion of that poll in this article. Anyway, I suggest any editor trying to press this case forward to discuss it here first. As it seems, there seems to be a reasonable agreement for the general election marking a "natural break point" on opinion polling (which I think is an obviousness anyway) and the inclusion of polls corresponding to different periods of time would have to be very well justified just to even consider it. Impru20 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. You may also want to consider using proper edit summaries yourself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

?? Why would I want to see WP:NPA? Can't understand your reference to edit summaries, either. Your reference to if I say the earth is a sphere, you'd feel obliged to argue that it's flat in the other article feels kinda funny right now in this situation... Impru20 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, English isn't your first language. Above, you imply Wikimucker is socking. That's a personal attack. You complain about the IP's edit summary, but you have a habit of not using them. Clear? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The only guy resorting to personal attack is you. I did not even address you on the above comment and you came here ranting against me. I only noted on the coincidence of an IP editor using a rather generic edit summary to perform the very exact edit made by Wikimucker; an IP editor who happens to edit on Wikipedia for the first time, and happens to do it in this article after Wikimucker's edit was rejected both materially and in this talk; an IP editor whose edit was tagged as "possible vandalism" and, seemingly, spotted to be made from a mobile device. That's a suspicious coincidence and I noted it here just for the case Wikimucker wanted to comment on it (since he seems to have just vanished), but I'm not directly accusing him of nothing (so far, you're the first one openly talking of "socking", I did not mention it). It could also be a coincidence for a random IP guy who happens to edit the Wikipedia for the first time to perfom his very same edit, but it's curious at best. In any case, this would rather be an issue of WP:GOODFAITH (which wouldn't be, anyway, since I'm just noting on this coincidential event and that it resembles Wikimucker's doing, not that it's him) and not of WP:NPV. You, on the other hand, accuse of me of "I don't know what" babbling regarding "edit summaries", which I can't really see what the point of it is in this discussion. There is no personal attack here, except for, maybe, your rather "brutal" handling of situations. Impru20 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"I don't want to think that was Wikimucker from a logged-out account, since he was the only one defending the inclusion of that poll in this article." - is a clear passive/aggressive implication of socking by you. Go to WP:SPI if you believe it to be the case; otherwise, shut up about it. Wikimucker, like all editors, is a volunteer and is under no obligation to you or anyone to be here every single day. It's the weekend, some people have a social life? I'm not babbling, I'm saying - clearly - that looking at your contributions, you fail to use edit summaries. Please do so. Nice "scare" quotes. Good night. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, I note on the coincidence of it. Nothing else. If I wanted to make a formal accusation I'd have made it; since I didn't do it, you could please stop ranting on it. In any case, I think Wikimucker would be pretty much able to defend himself if a formal accusation was made, which, nonetheless, has not been the case. Now, on yourself: you keep making "scare" quotes each time you answer this discussion. It's not the fact on how clearly you say the "edit summary"-think, but rather, the fact that it has no connection with the theme of discussion. How does that help the discussion at hand, I wonder? Stop your bully-like behaviour and discuss serious things. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Seat projections

Why are we including a "seat projections" section in an article about opinion polling? The projections were made on the day of the election on the basis of one exit poll, are completely inaccurate, were superseded the following day when the actual, official seat count was available, and furthermore, are not mentioned in the reference given.

If they can be sourced, they might warrant inclusion in the Irish general election, 2016 article - in a sentence along the lines of "On the day of the election, based on an exit poll, RTÉ released a projection of the number of seats that would be won by each party which turned out to be completely inaccuate." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)