Talk:Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Poll

OK, why was my polling deleted? It was super detailed, and showed the current Average of the polls. I need a logical explanation for that. DerÖsterreicher1 (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with all other Spanish opinion polling articles seems a very logical explanation. Impru20talk 00:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should go with a new style, instead following here a traditional style, look at all the graphs they made before. I made new ones, because they were lacking one, and needed a new style, but it's your decision, and I will accept the decision! DerÖsterreicher1 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

electoPanel poll and projections

@Impru20 Despite electoPanel having been included in other articles -such as this one and this other one, apart from those of regional elections-, I would want to point out that perhaps it should be removed from now on regarding this (in Spanish): according to electomania.es, it wouln't be a proper poll, but a projection.

Why would we exclude from sub-national opinion polling articles seat projections -as we did with JM&A, SocioMétrica and a few others in the past- and yet include them in these ones -having taken into account the fact that these vote share projections are mixed with polls in the average as well- ? I mean, that would affect the average in a negative way -specially in electoPanel's case, which tends to create an own separate trend due to its frequency, as seen in the las two electoral campaigns-, thus making it harder to see not only what true polls say, but also whether the poll of polls got to be accurate. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The connection that you try to point out has nothing to do with what you mention, actually. Sub-national results for "JM&A, SocioMétrica and a few others" are not included because there are not true sub-national samples, but regional calculations based on extrapolations from a national sample. electomania.es projections may have their specific polling methods, but they involve asking respondents for their actual voting intentions in a national sample, so these are, at least in part, opinion polls (nonetheless, several polling companies also use their own specific methods, and we do not discriminate them because of this). These get reported by reliable sources (such as this or this) which is enough for meriting inclusion. On the other issue, results at the sub-national opinion polling articles should only include true sub-national samples, because otherwise the articles would be flooded with mere extrapolations of national polling, which is not the point for these. Impru20talk 11:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

@

tendentious and is not allowed (also, this is not done anywhere in any other opinion polling article in Wikipedia). You are providing no reason for deviating from established precedent, but here we are for you to expose your reasons here, if there is any. Impru20talk 19:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Impru20: I just want to add a link that links the "laSexta" to its corresponding article but for some incomprehensible reason User:Impru20 doesn't let me do it, he tells me that it does because it looks hard to read, thing that is false. My addition provides information about which company is the one that makes this poll, i just before said "political alignment" because this defines it the LaSexta article itself, but obviously i dont want to include that in this article, tendentious not at all, that not has any to do, that is what laSexta article says they are of left wing-alignment. I just include the link. Trying to hide information or facts is against the principles of wikipedia, as same as The links to other articles is in every table, in every article of the wikipedia. Sorry but that are excuses that have no foundation. And I see above that you re the one that revert the additions that you don't like from other users, buddy the wikipedia is for everyone.
I just want to change this
To this
Just a link but apparently Impru20 thinks he's the administrator of this page, doesn't let me do it.--BrugesFR (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Impru20: In which part of the wikipedia laws says that links on poll commissioners can not be included in the tables? Give me an article about what I would like to read.--BrugesFR (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: I'm going to take this discussion to the table of the Open discussions of the wikipedia, so that several administrators can discuss.--BrugesFR (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
NPOV issue. Opinion polls have never been classified according to the political alignment of the media that publishes them, be them left-wing or right-wing, and if anything it is not the scope of this article to handle such issue. Further, it is already referenced everyone that this polls has been published by "laSexta" (just as is done by every other poll), so it is false that any information relevant to the article is hidden. Impru20talk 19:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
In which part of the wikipedia laws says that links on poll commissioners can not be included in the tables?
WP:TE utterly forbid editing pages to raise particular points of view of your own that are not backed by sources. That you think that the "political alignment" of the media publishing a poll is relevant does not turn it into relevant, and may be seen as an attempt from you to try to discredit or disregard some opinion polls over others as well as introducing yourself a political bias into the article. Impru20talk 19:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Impru20: I am not, nor do I want to add from any point of view of mine in the article, stop arguing for that, because I only said it once, but nothing more, I am neutral in my editions, and placing links that lead to another pages is neutral and something positive to the page. And not on this article it does not say that this poll is published by LaSexta, that yes I consider that this TV channel gets carried away often by its political position. But I ask you to stop arguing that, it is just a link that I intend to make visible, I am not leaving any opinion or unsourced information in the article.--BrugesFR (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
Linking is done only to provide context or relevant information into the article, and considering that the purpose of this article is not to provide information on each different media's political alignments or making any such assumptions ourselves, your proposed linking seems entirely out of place. Linking for the sake of linking is not allowed, and when done because of political motives it is neither "neutral" nor "something positive to the page". Impru20talk 19:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Impru20: LaSexta, PP, Podemos, PSOE, VOX are media companies or political parties that are often managed according to their political preferences, and It is possible that the links of pp, psoe and the other parties were added by wikipedia-users who sympathize with those parties so according to your logic, there should be no links in this article because of that. you know what, We can't understand each other. I will take this discussion so that other people can contribute to a solution.--BrugesFR (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrugesFR: In case you hadn't noticed, opinion polls report on political parties' electoral trends. So yes, it is logical for links of political parties that get polled to be present in the article, because they are the main focus of opinion polls, and this is an article about Spanish general election opinion polling. However, links for parties are not used because of any implication on their political or ideological alignments, which is the main (and very relevant) difference with what you intend. You can keep pushing this into the absurd if you wish, but the more you reveal on your motives, the more convinced I get that what you intend is very wrong. Impru20talk 20:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: I'm just going to tell you this, and I have every right to let you know that you are wrong with certain things, for example if an article is not completely neutral, any user can do so just by demonstrating a wikilink that testifies with reliable sources in the other article that Just maybe question its neutrality such as that case. And you are assuring me that you had told me that a general consensus had been reached that Spanish polls publishers can not have wikilinks and what I could see it in similar articles, that was what the other user made clear to me, and you did not you did it. I just tell you something because I worry that you take the same pattern with any other users that "you see their editions with political reasons". Focus on the editions that the user makes in the articles: if they have veriafibility (based on reliable sources), if they add information to the article, if they make it larger or better to the article, not in what motivated him to make an addition to an article of the wikipedia, or What ideology do you think he have, because that violates the freedoms of expression, or choice of the person, as well as some person might think that it is some kind of political hunting. I will not say anything else. I just leave this here. bye.--BrugesFR (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop this rather depressing fixation on me throughout various discussion pages? This is the second or third time that you say you will leave this here, yet you keep it going over and over again. Everything in the article is neutral, as it limits itself to presenting statistical data as offered by sources. So far, you have not demonstrated otherwise. I told you several times that these fields are typically not linked in opinion polling tables ([1]) and that opinion polling tables throughout Wikipedia do not tend to link the "Polling firm/Commissioner" field unless it is to an external link to the actual source itself ([2]). If you are unable or unwilling to understand something so simple then that is your fault, not mine, but you won't solve it by going into a rant full of personal attacks and accusations against me just because you were unable to get anyone else to support your cause at the other discussions. Whatever the case is, please let it go.
About the focus on the motives to edit Wikipedia: sorry, but editing articles for ideological or political reasons is forbidden. Wikipedia is not a place where you come to express "your freedom of expression" nor where you come intending to
not a soapbox, a personal blog, a webhost or in any other form of vehicle for political propaganda. If you seek a place to express yourself freely and to defend your preferred ideology, you go to a political-dedicated forum or chatsite, not to an online encyclopedia. Now please let it go, because this is becoming troubling. Wikipedia articles' talk pages are not meant for some people to disestress their personal feelings. I consider this discussion as over now. Impru20talk 14:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Impru20: No, you are misinterpreting, when it says that it is not a soap box or a personal blog, it means that you cannot add unfounded personal opinions in articles or editions that are not supported by reliable researchers or institutions. not that a person adds something coherent or that shaped the article but does it motivated by political reasons, it is very different.--BrugesFR (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 of
disclose in such a case. So, it is wrong for you to assume that editing because of political reasons is good, because you'd be acknowledging that you are editing from a biased POV. Impru20talk 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.. It is still neutral while endorsed by a good reliable source. If it says that the TV channel is left-wing, it is left-wing, that does not take away neutrality from the article, it is only a fact.--BrugesFR (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly what I said. Note the from a neutral point of view-bit which I pointed to you and which you copy-pasted from me. You can report in
is not pertinent to the article's topic and/or exceeds the article's scope, and a long etcetera. This said, I don't know what is the point that you are trying to make now seeing that all of your points have been addressed already despite your ongoing accusations on me. No, it is not encouraged for you to edit Wikipedia out of political motives. No, Wikipedia does not provide a shelter for your "freedom of expression", nor is it a place for you to express yourself freely and to seek the righting of great wrongs. Yes, focus can be put on editions that are done skewed by a political stance or ideological position. I believe this has been made clear already. Impru20talk 15:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
We better leave it like this, I hope there is no other discussion between us because if it's important I don't think it ends in 4 months--BrugesFR (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Encuesta

Quería saber el motivo por el cual has borrado la encuesta de OkDiario que puse y porque solo pones la de medios afines a la izquierda...

@Danielpm 87: No se ha borrado, se ha movido a su lugar correcto en el tiempo. Su trabajo de campo es del 14 al 17 de abril. 17 de abril va antes que el 20 de abril, salvo que puedas demostrar lo contrario, cosa que veo francamente difícil.
Normalmente no hablo en español aquí (es la Wikipedia en inglés), pero tu acusación tan burda (incluso con un claro sesgo ideológico) me ha obligado a hacer esta excepción. A ver si aprendemos a leer y a entender lo que significa la política de
"asumir buena fe". A partir de ahora, agradecería que te expresases en inglés dado que es el idioma que entiende el resto de la gente en esta Wikipedia. Gracias. Impru20talk 09:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Row highlighting

I would like to make a proposal to add the "mw-datatable" class to the opinion polling tables, as this would make it easier to follow the multiple polls in such big tables. Togiad (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Togiad: I've done this for the main table, since it's the one that, due to its sheer size, could give the most problems in following the polls. Impru20talk 12:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Barómetro laSexta: el 38,4% de los encuestados preferiría que Pedro Sánchez fuera presidente del Gobierno". laSexta (in Spanish). 1 December 2019.
  2. ^ "Barómetro laSexta: el 38,4% de los encuestados preferiría que Pedro Sánchez fuera presidente del Gobierno". laSexta (in Spanish). 1 December 2019.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Statistical Data

This problem seems to come up a lot on many opinion polling articles. I am currently looking for ideas and solutions. zsteve21 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concern. This article lists weighted voting intention estimates, unweighted voting preferences, likelihood of victory, and voting intentions in hypothetical scenarios. I believe unweighted preferences and victory likelihood might be excessive. I would also suggest limiting the number of columns to major parties, and placing others under "Other" (as is done on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election), as well as removing the turnout column and predicted number of seats. This would hopefully make it less messy overall. Cilidus (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem at all (neither with this nor with other articles which include way more information). Both unweighted preferences and victory likelihood serve as additional indicators of voters' mood, and 1) Not so many pollsters include these, 2) Those columns are automatically collapsed, so they occupy little visual space, and 3) The most that I could identify as a mess would be the wiki markup size of the article, that may cause the page to lag while editing. But a secret: that comes not as a result of the columns, but because of the sources, which take way more than half of the article's size. And you cannot do nothing about that since if there is something you cannot go without is the sourcing.
About the limitation proposal, I would relate to you my experience of more than 10 years editing Spanish opinion polling articles: it wouldn't work. I myself attempted to do that in the past, but then you would encounter a number of issues: 1) What to consider as a "major party" (the incument government is a minority one, and many of the lesser parties are actually very relevant ones in the day-to-day governing. Arbitrarily excluding some of these may amount to a
WP:NPOV
violation), 2) The "Others" column is useless, as each pollster depicts the parties they wish (i.e. sometimes they would include PNV and Bildu in "Others", sometimes ERC and JxCat as well, sometimes they will include a party that they will end up excluding from that column later on, sometimes they just depict all parties with parliamentary representation, etc.), 3) You may find a "minor party" turning into a "major party" halfway into the parliamentary term, requiring you to do the job of re-establishing the column for that party; 4) The predicted number of seats is a very relevant aspect of Spanish opinion polls (to the point that some polls, specially into the election campaign, only use seat projections to show their results).
I would invite you to get aware of each country's particular reality before suggesting a solution that actually hinders the visibility of the data for that country, just because you got a quick opinion with only one passing-by view. The Spanish political system (and opinion polls' representation of such system) has nothing to do with the UK one, and vice versa, and the same is appliable with respect to the Italian, French, German ones and etc. Impru20talk 20:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have responded hastily; your points are very considerate of the situation and I appreciate your experience in the field. I do however propose two possible changes:
a) categorizing parties that are consistently polling at under 1% as "minor" (i.e. CUP and rightward in the tables)
or, b) distinguishing regionalist parties from nationwide parties, as exemplified below:
Polling data PSOE PP Vox Cs Regional parties
ERC–Sobiranistes JxCat PNV CUP CC–NCa BNG NA+ PRC TE
The latter is a minor change (hopefully without NPOV violation) that would help clarify some of the data. Cilidus (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I thank you for your contributions. Your worries legit and the exact same I had several years ago (note the current design of tables in Spanish opinion polling articles, which were mostly designed by myself, includes a lot of trial and error processes, many re-designs and a one-decade evolution in an attempt of seeking the best way of presenting for this data, including the addition/removal of parties. Many of the concerns that some people bring from time to time were concerns I myself had to face and overcome a long time ago).
In your case, for example, it would initially appear as logical to address a party with less than 1% as "minor". That's what would be the case in most countries in the world, indeed. But in the specific case of Spain, and because of the nature of regionalist/nationalist parties, you can end up seeing that <1% of the vote may still amount to 10-20% of the vote in some regions (for example, Teruel Existe got just 0.08% in the last election, yet it meant almost 30% of the share and scoring in first place in the province of Teruel), and that would translate into a sizeable amount of seats (Bildu has 1.1% but 5 seats, for example, which is a seat count that has allowed the government to pass its 2022 budget this very same week). We also have the current dilemma of the incoming formation of the Empty Spain platform: hypothetical polls so far have given it around 1% of the vote but as many as 15 seats in Congress (which is a lot in Spanish terms for a regional party, and even for a nationwide one before the political fragmentation in place since 2015). From my experience, I would say that the 1% threshold would end up not working.
On the other hand, the distinction of regional parties as opposed to nationwide parties, aside of meaning one extra row in the tables (and, thus, more wiki markup size for the article), would serve little purpose, and could end up being problematic should one of these parties chose to go nationwide (TE within EV, for example. Even Más País is currently more of a regional party than a nationwide one, since it currently runs only in Madrid and in a few provinces more, not in the whole territory). Impru20talk 21:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your points into account, I think it still makes sense to categorize regionalist parties as such (in regards to getting drastically more seats than votes). It would also be quite helpful to foreigners, who are not as proficient in Spanish politics. As it stands, regionalist parties can easily be mistaken for minor nationwide parties, and a regionalist banner would help contextualize them. I do understand that "semi-regionalist" parties such as EV and Más País could cause problems, however.
While I understand your concern that Spain is different and shouldn't be compared to other countries' articles, I would like to point out Opinion polling for the 2021 Dutch general election. Because of the large amount of parties, the information provided has been reduced to simply the number of seats each party would get (with an additional table for vote share). Perhaps it would be a drastic change, but since votes don't directly correlate to number of seats (with regionalist parties), it could be a feasible option. As user Zsteve pointed out the complexity of this article above, perhaps a Dutch-style article would be a more user-friendly solution? Cilidus (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again: each country has its own specifics. On the Dutch example, it's not that "the information provided has been reduced to simply the number of seats each party would get", but that most Dutch polls only show the number of seats (unlike most other countries, where it's the other way around). A separate table for seat projections is not a feasible option here since it would make the article almost double in wiki markup size (it means double rows, double columns, double links, etc., as well as double work when it comes to updating. It also deprives readers of useful info on the comparison between a party's vote share and its projected seat totals, coupled with the historical comparison. Believe me here, I tried that option a couple years ago and was an absolute failure). What may work for a country may not (and will typically not) work for another.
I don't see any particular advantage of explicitly differentiating them as regional parties (and a number of issues, as have been commented), specially when they are not differentiated as such under Spanish law, and with the aforementioned issue that any "regional" party can go nationwide at any point of time if they wish. For that bit of info, you already have each party's link to access and obtain more info on what each particular party is. Impru20talk 08:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input; you clearly know way more about this than I do. It is possible that this is indeed the best way to present the information, and I appreciate the work you have done to arrive at this layout. Although some might complain, I will say that it is a huge improvement from this set of opinion polls. Cilidus (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's basically what I found when I first started updating opinion polling tables for Spanish elections 10 years ago! Since then, there have been many (really, many) intermediate versions as part of that trial and eror process in search of improvements (as a matter of example: Feb 2012, Apr 2012, Jun 2012, Jul 2012, Apr 2013, Jul 2014, Feb 2015 and so on (the current one is probably the more successful and more stable formatting that we have achieved). As you may see, many of your proposals were already attempted back then, but then circumstances (both from real situations –such as the arrival of new parties– and from the pollsters' changing methods as well –I still remember a time back in 2011-2012 when many polls showed figures only for PP and PSOE and no other party–, and so on) required for adaptations or different solutions. Obviously, I'm not saying that further improvements are not possible, nor should my opposition to some of the proposed changes be interpreted as some form of
Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the current layout comes precisely as a result of incorporating the many ideas and improvements proposed both by myself and by other users in all of these years. But as a matter of experience, I've already encountered many of the issues that some people may just find out right now, and a solution will probably be already in place for such issues (or, alternatively in some cases, the less harmful solution of all may be implemented). From the common contributions and experience we all may learn and work towards improving the project! Impru20talk 10:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

January 2022 discussion

I think a simple compromise would work best here. We can keep ERC, Junts, PNV and EH Bildu in the table, while omitting the Canarian party, BNG, NA, PRC and TE. While one or two seats may have an impact in a minority government like the current one, it is almost useless information to display here on its own. Likewise, we don't need to be drastic and remove all the minor parties from the table either, particularly the ones polling at five seats or more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC) As for references, I would suggest we cite the polls as an external link instead of a reference. This would be difficult to change for the citations already in the article, but we can use external links for polls in the future. There is also the option of splitting the article by year. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better: instead of recklessly removing data (how in Earth would you think removing that would work as "a simple compromise"???), we can sort it out better ways to reduce the article's size (i.e. transclusion). I know you are keen on removing data (it's not the first discussion of this kind we have), but that's not a solution nor a "compromise" of any sorts, specially by laying out such random criteria as you do. Also, suggesting external links for polls in the future goes blatantly against Wikipedia policy of
external links, so I'm astonished this is even suggested. Impru20talk 06:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You should explain why you think an edit was reckless, or withdraw that description. Likewise you should also explain what "random criteria" you think I have proposed.
It would be a simple compromise because it's not removing all of the minor party polling results, just the ones for parties that are polling at the most statistically insignificant levels. This has been a concern raised by others in this discussion, and I share those concerns.
Transclusion would simply not be a solution. It would only reduce the perceived file size of the article, and not at all reduce the actual file size. The download size is also only one aspect of the article's size problem, with the main problem being that the tables are too wide.
I suggested using external links instead of citation references because that is what is used in the United Kingdom polling article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Done. I've trimmed the article by splitting the main opinion polling tables into separate templates to be transcluded into this article, thus saving over 425 kB of article size without having to remove any of the data. This is a way better solution than unilaterally cherry-picking which parties are to be deemed as "suitable" and which ones aren't, while providing for a solution that saves us a lot more article size. This is surely a perfectly nice compromise. Cheers! Impru20talk 07:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Outrighly blanking over 60 kB of article content without an alternative solution for keeping it and without any previous discussion or consensus on the issue is reckless. This is not the first time you do something like this nor the first time you meet with opposition along the way (and not just with me, but with multiple users throughout multiple articles), so please let us save ourselves the melodramatic procedure of introducing facts that we already know. The fact that, knowing this, you deem it as a "simple compromise" is only further proof of the recklessness of the edit. Now, the implemented solution solves most of the perceived issues in a much better way your edit did, so this is a clear improvement overall.
"I suggested using external links instead of citation references because that is what is used in the United Kingdom polling article" Yeah, the UK opinion polling article does not comply with Wikipedia's policy on
WP:EXT and has not done so probably for years, but the content to modify is just too large for a single person to do it on its own. However, we surely should not mirror practices that are not recommended under WP policy, right? Cheers! Impru20talk 07:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
edit warring, thank you. Impru20talk 19:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
We can discuss the issues of the article after you self-revert. This edit is fundamentally the same bold edit that you made hours before which I contested and reverted. You contested and reverted a bold edit of mine, which is fair enough for you to do, but now I have done the same to yours so the status quo has to prevail. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted just now, as the last edit had the effect of removing all of the references from the tables. But I have some other questions: 1) What are "Voting intention estimates"? Is that just supposed to mean "opinion polls"? In which case, why not just say that - especially as "estimates" is an incorrect and confusing term if what is meant is "opinion poll on voting intentions". 2) How are the estimated seat numbers being arrived at? 3) What are "hypothetical scenarios", and how are they arrived at? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: Replying to your questions: 1) In Spain, "vote intention estimates" are different than direct "vote intentions" (in essence, vote intentions are the raw data obtained by the polls, whereas estimations are obtained through their own statistical methods of weighting and apportionment of undecideds; 2) The estimated seat numbers are given by the pollsters' themselves. They are the ones calculating them; 3) The same applies to the "hypothetical scenarios". Cheers! Impru20talk 21:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: The transclusion had no direct impact on your edit and was not directly related to it. Arguing that others have to revert their edits because they reverted yours "so the status quo has to prevail" is weird to say the least. Impru20talk 21:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was not directly related to the previous bold edit I made which you reverted. I opposed and contested the bold edit you made for completely separate reasons. I use the example of the status quo prevailing after you reverted my bold edit as an example of how contested editing, particularly BRD, should work. I most certainly would not suggest that your edit has to be reverted because mine was. The reason your edit should have been reverted was because someone contested it and it didn't have consensus. Now that it has been reverted, I would be more comfortable discussing that on either of our user talk page's and leaving this article talk page to discussing improvements to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll now address what you have said before which I have not yet responded to. First of all, you shouldn't be "astonished" that I would suggest this article use a style that is used in other prominent articles, even if you think it is against guidelines or policy. We can disagree with ideas without having to suggest they are astonishing, when this one plainly isn't.
Secondly, thank you for elaborating on why you felt a certain edit was "reckless". The edit I made did end up removing about 60kB of content, but that is no more reckless than the 60kB of content being added, given what the content was. I would appreciate if we do not characterise good faith edits like that. As I have said on your user talk page, the issues with the article and other large articles are well beyond what can be measured by the markup size. The markup size should only be seen as an indicator of a problem, and not a problem itself.
If you have other ideas on changing the article, I would be happy to hear them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(
POINTy behaviour. Since the transclusion is broken at the current time, it will be a non-issue, so please let's focus on the issue at hand and elaborate on what your original complaints were. Impru20talk 21:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Seen your new edit (I edit-conflicted with it), I will answer to it in shortly. Impru20talk 21:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be even more clear then. I used it as an example of BRD working as it should. I made a bold edit, you reverted it, so I won't restore it and instead we should discuss it. I disagree with your revert but that is the proper process. I most certainly do not mean to imply that my reverting of your bold edit, the one which was doing the transclusion, was in any way related to my bold edit you reverted, or to any other edit or dispute. I was using it as an example to demonstrate why you should have not restored your edit after I reverted it, and why you should have self-reverted after you did restore it. That is now redundant since the edit was reverted for the second time by a different editor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip, seriously, what you say is a textbook case of POINT: imitating another editor's behaviour only to "demonstrate" something to that editor is POINTy. Let us not focuse on this, please. I will consider this aspect of the discussion over here and will proceed to answer your other complaints. Cheers. Impru20talk 22:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making such an accusation about me then. Once you reverted my edit to reduce the amount of parties in the table, I considered that the end of the matter. I reverted your edit not to make a point, but because I opposed the edit. Anyone would agree that a transclusion of the article is something big enough that opposing it is not trivial or frivolous. I only brought up your revert of my edit because it was a case of BRD working how it should, and I felt that BRD was not being followed after I already reverted your edit and you restored it without consensus.
I feel great disappointment that we have to discuss this on an article talk page for several comments, but you can't accuse me of something serious like that without me responding to it. Please
WP:DROPTHESTICK on this and we can move on to discussing the issues of the article. I strongly believe we both can contribute constructively to such discussion without reflecting on editors themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) Ok, so, answering to the other part of your comment:
  1. On the issue of external linking: External linking is not "a style". External linking comes provided under
    verifiability
    policy requires that content be properly sourced and cited (and external links are not citations!). The way the UK opinion polling articles use it is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. The issue is that many newcomers and other not-so-experienced people typically use the UK polling articles as an example for almost everything, so they typically copy-paste their "styles" into their own polling articles (basically, what you suggested to do as well). That does not mean it is correct, that only means the same error is replicated everywhere. And it does not have an easy solution since the content to modify would be massive and night-to-impossible to accomplish by one person alone. I was once one of such not-so-experienced people replicating the external linking of the UK polling articles, but got eventually mauled by some admin who brought EXT to me, and I proceeded to modify the referencing style to citations in the Spanish election articles. Yes, it is a size nightmare and I am aware of that (most of the size issues come from referencing alone), but there is no solution to this.
  2. "The markup size should only be seen as an indicator of a problem, and not a problem itself": Ok, you have made this clear before a number of times already, but still do not explain what the problem itself is, so I can barely know what I am supposed to reply to. What is it that needs to be solved, of which the wiki markup size is only an indicator? Impru20talk 22:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of POINT behaviour: really, stop it man. You attempted it, I already said I am willing to overlook it. Do not keep on it because it is becoming problematic for the discussion to continue. Stick to the issue at hand. Impru20talk 22:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you are now no longer making the accusation, I am happy to leave it there. I hope we can have constructive discussions without bringing personality into it.
I used the term "style" very broadly, not to describe it specifically. Using external links for opinion polls instead of reference citations does have at least some of the issues you describe, but it is an established precedent we could use to reduce the size of the article. I'm not advocating for it though, I was only raising it as an option, and it shouldn't be seen as astonishing to propose it. We should continue to explore solutions to the size of the referencing for these articles, which can include a separate guideline for opinion polling articles.
Your second point is really asking what the problems are with large articles. The problem with this article isn't simply that it is large. Yes, the markup size creates extreme editing issues which is a problem itself. Similarly, the download time is too restrictive for the size this article has reached. Another problem is that too much information is being displayed in the tables, making it much harder to read and view. It would potentially be justifiable if all the party polling results were significant, but many of them are polling at most what equates to only a few seats, and often aren't even being polled at all. These parties are much better assessed in articles that track regional or constituency polling. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... no, going against a guideline is not "established precedent". The abuse of external linking in other opinion polling articles is something that needs to be addressed eventually so that it complies with policy. Going backwards is a big no. Really, I would love it and would at least partially solve some of the size issues, but it goes against policy. It is not up to you or me to decide that.
On your second point: transclusion actually helped reduce editing issues and download time.
Further, the regional parties you seek to remove are polled by almost every pollster (the tables already omit some parties that secure seats only sporadically). Plus, one or two seats are significant here considering that the investiture of the current government passed by a 167–165 result. Indeed, pollsters have never polled regional parties of such small size as frequently as at the present time (precisely because they now consider them much more relevant). I understand your preferences against such parties (you had the same ones a couple years ago already), but the situation here is vastly different and the amount of size saved by its removal not so sizeable (60 kB, as opposed to the +400 kB of the transclusion). Impru20talk 22:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I am going to bed now, so feel in no hurry to reply, since I will probably be unable to answer until tomorrow. Good night! Impru20talk 23:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be against a guideline, but it is an established precedent nonetheless. If you have an issue with that, you have an issue with the precedent. These guidelines can be changed for these circumstances and we should be open to changing them. I do not see how transclusion helps solve the download issues. It solves some of the editing issues but it creates others. Reducing the article by 60kB is very sizeable in its own right, while other changes can be made to reduce the size further. Transclusion does not reduce the size of the article by 400kB. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: It seems that we don't need to include results for the parties that poll at only 1%, given the overwhelming size of this article. Those alone are taking up a massive portion of the tables. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your concerns above here:
External links: It goes against a guideline, so it is not (and cannot be) "established precedent"; it is malpractice. If you think those guidelines should be changed because you do not agree with them, then ask for it at the proper venues. That goes beyond the scope of this discussion and this is not the place to address such an issue.
Article size: Transclusion removes over 400 Kb of content from the article, which greatly alleviates the lagging issues in terms of editing in a much more efficient way than your proposal of deleting 60 Kb of content by deleting party columns does. You stick to some concept of "download size" (though I could not see any download issues when the transclusion was in place) and to "actual file size" vs. a "perceived file size". My question: where is that metric of "download size" and "actual file size" in
WP:SIZESPLIT
or any other policy/guideline relevant to the topic? Those focus on readable prose size and on wiki markup size, it feels as if you are making up new metrics here out of nowhere.
Parties: Here you are suggesting to remove figures that are reported by most pollsters. You are unilaterally considering these parties as non-relevant by cherry-picking thresholds for exclusion, despite most sources reporting on these parties (and on the 2020 investiture margin being literally two seats only! You even acknowledged yourself earlier in the discussion that one or two seats have a not-negligible impact in the present situation, and sources do consider it like that as well). I accept that you may have this opinion against minor parties, but I think you are letting it obscure your sense of reality, to the point of ruling out other viable solutions and proposing to go against guidelines only because you want these parties removed.
Remember, we are here to improve Wikipedia. Guidelines are written and inspired by that principle, and going against them does not seem like an actual improvement. Impru20talk 05:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can be both malpractice and precedent. Regardless, you are strongly opposed whereas I am indifferent.
No, transclusion does not remove content from the article. Removing content is what removes content from the article. To answer your question, the size of the download would be the markup size of the article plus the size of all the transcluded content. Readable prose size is not applicable as this is not a prose article, and markup size is completely irrelevant if most of the content in the article is transcluded. If we had an article that contained 1000kB, but 999kB was transcluded, we wouldn't call it a small article even though the markup size was only 1kB.
Here you are suggesting to remove figures that are reported by most pollsters. We have to draw the line somewhere when there is far too much irrelevant information. You are unilaterally considering these parties as non-relevant by cherry-picking thresholds for exclusion I don't know how to consider anything bilaterally or multilaterally, considering I am one person. When there are so many political parties being polled, it is more than reasonable to set some inclusion criteria which would exclude some parties. You even acknowledged yourself earlier in the discussion that one or two seats have a not-negligible impact in the present situation The margins in the legislature aren't relevant to inclusion criteria. The total number of seats per party can be relevant, and most of these minor parties would fail on that measure as well. It's not relevant whether the government has a strong majority or if it has a precarious minority.
I accept that you may have this opinion against minor parties, but I think you are letting it obscure your sense of reality, No, and don't make any personal claims about me again, I do not want to have to repeatedly warn you about this. We are capable of constructively discussing the article without these personal accusations. I have argued for the inclusion of minor parties in opinion polling articles where minor parties weren't included and is one of the reasons I created a Wikipedia account. This is all publicly available knowledge and if you had bothered to research it or asked me, you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous claim about me. Now let that be the last personal claim you make about me. If you would like to discuss my edits and how my views may affect my editorial opinions, you are more than welcome to bring that to my user talk page.
I have no general opinion of minor parties or major parties, but parties polling at 1% are simply too minor to be covered by these articles, especially when there are several examples of them. Where parties poll at 5%, I am very much inclined to include them in polling tables. We must ensure we are following guidelines as best as practicable, which includes drawing a line to the amount of political parties we can include in polling tables. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Malpractice is not precedent. Going against a Wikipedia guideline is not a precedent. Period.
Transclusion empties the wiki markup size of the article and eases navigation and editing. For helping tackle the lagging issue, it works. I am not sure of the puzzles and turnarounds that are you building in your head on the issue of content and how transcluding it is not a true "removal", frankly. Transclusion was done to ease the issue of lagging. It helped? Yes. Did it hurt? You still have not explained how.
To answer your question, the size of the download would be the markup size of the article plus the size of all the transcluded content. I asked you to show me the metric or relevant guideline on "download size/size of the download" as a relevant factor to split or reduce an article. I have not asked you to give me a definition and your opinion on it, I am asking you where is the relevant Wikipedia policy on the issue so that I can read it myself, because it is nowhere to be found at
WP:SIZESPLIT
or any others that I have consulted. You have not answered my question.
We have to draw the line somewhere. Yes, it is: currently, the line is drawn at showing what most reliable sources report, with the most reported parties being the ones currently shown in the tables. That's an objective and unbiased criterion. You are proposing cherry-picking on your own which parties should be in and which ones should be out (by setting an arbitrary line at 1%). You then go on to discuss the government's majority and its status in the legislature, when I never made any mention of it: I mentioned the investiture (i.e. the government's election itself) which succeeded by just two seats. That is a good measure of one or two seats relevancy here. But the fact is that it is not even me, but sources, giving such relevancy.
I will take the paragraph where you go full personal as if you did not write it, sincerely. I am not going to waste my time in personal disputes.
parties polling at 1% are simply too minor to be covered by these articles According to whom? To which policy? To which guideline? Sources do frequently report on those parties.
WP:EXT guideline). Impru20talk 09:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's definitely a precedent, for better or worse. That's not saying it's a good thing, it's just acknowledging the reality of it. That doesn't prevent it from being bad, as there can be bad precedents.
Transclusion does not reduce the size of the article and does not make navigation or editing easier. It doesn't change navigation, and it makes it harder to edit by spreading the content across different pages. It doesn't reduce the lag and it's simply not a removal because the content is still there. If no content is removed from the page, then there is clearly no removal. All you've done is make the page generated from content on other pages.
The readable prose size is the closest guideline to use here. Since this article is not a prose article, we should look at the size of the content within the tables, as that content is the equivalent of the prose content in a prose article.
Drawing the line at every party that sources report is too permissive in this case, and is frankly not drawing a line at all. I am using government majority and investiture interchangeably, they are both irrelevant here.
I will gladly take that as an acknowledgement you will refrain from making personal reflections about me, for which I am grateful.
The 1% line is an inclusion criteria. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, per
WP:VNOT. With regards to WP:EXT, I will forgive the misconception of what I am saying. I was proposing the guideline considered to be changed, which would be general for opinion polling articles, not that we should ignore the guideline. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
So why are we wasting our time discussing it? It is bad, it is against Wikipedia guidelines, we seemingly and finally agree on it, so we should not be following it. Period. Bring your EXT concerns to the guideline page itself if you want it to be changed and seek consensus for it if you will (you will have a hard time achieving it because what you propose it goes against WP's citation policy, but you are free to attempt it).
Are you aware of how transclusion works? It does make navigation and editing easier. I have been working for years with transcluded articles and the improvement with respect to the lag is very noticeable, so please be serious here. On the issue of it being "harder to edit by spreading the content across different pages", it takes less time to reach those pages and editing them than editing such content into the main article with severe lagging issues. Arguing that as an argument against transclusion would make
WP:TRANSCLUSION
itself useless, but its use is not discouraged, so I would say it is not as you depict it. Indeed, there is no policy or guideline against transclusion, nor did you yourself oppose it for years until you felt you had to respond to my revert by reverting an edit of mine and maintain the status quo version of the article.
The readable prose size is the closest guideline to use here. Since this article is not a prose article, we should look at the size of the content within the tables, as that content is the equivalent of the prose content in a prose article. Ok, so you are basically acknowledging you have no guideline to base your claims into and are instead making your own re-interpretations and turnarounds of those. Fair enough. You have still not responded to what is this "download size" concept and how is it a metric for article splitting or content removal.
Drawing the line at every party that sources report is too permissive in this case Two issues: 1) That's not the line. The line is drawn at parties that get reported by most sources, so that columns are not virtually empty. Having a party reported only in very few sources would not justify having an (almost) empty column for it, and as a result those are not included. Plus, for example,
WP:NPOV territory by selectively determining, without the backing of sources, what is relevant and what is not). Impru20talk 10:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Transclusion should be for repeating the same content on multiple articles, and even then it should be transcluding the content from one article to another. I don't agree that it makes navigation or editing easier, but that should not be the main goal of whether to transclude or not, and other potential changes to the article. The main consideration should be the experience of the reader in reading the article.
Why do you persist on making those accusations about me? Reverting your attempt at radically transcluding the content in this article had nothing to do with you reverting any edit of mine. If my bold edit came after yours, I am sure you still would have reverted mine and you would have been entitled to do so.
What I am saying about size crosses over with our long-standing policies and guidelines on article size. By "download size", I am referring to the size of the article actually being downloaded by the reader.
We should not necessarily draw the line at parties that get reported by most sources, and certainly not in this case. We should rely on sources to determine which parties are polling more relevant than others, with PP and PSOE on one end, and the parts on <1% of the vote on the other end. Since there are over ten parties included along with seat projections, we have to draw the line somewhere between those two ends. It has nothing to do with what an editor's point of view may be, it has everything to do with making sure we present data in the best way possible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, repeating the same content on multiple articles is one of the possibilities of transclusion, but not the only one.
WP:TRANSCLUSION
clearly provides for other possibilities, and even more clearly provides for transclusion from different documents (not just articles, but templates as well) to others. Transclusion is used in all forms and variations throughout Wikipedia, so I do not know from where are you getting this (note that rather than having a clearly defined starting point, it would appear as if you keep re-formulating your reasonings as the discussion progresses depending on what I say. This is chaotic).
I have only pointed out that you only contested transclusions when I reverted you, not having done so in the years previously. I am not going to re-discuss on acknowledgements you yourself made, really. Call them the way you wish, I will call it "hey, I contested your bold edit, so let it go back to the status quo version, just as we did before" which is what you called it.
On the issue of size: Again, I asked you to show me the metric or relevant guideline on "download size/size of the download" as a relevant factor to split or reduce an article. I have not asked you to give me a definition or your opinion on it. You have still not answered this issue. Indeed, you seem to be going around in circles, because there is simply no policy or guideline that supports this view, right?
So "we should not necessarily draw the line" at what I say. However, we should draw the line you demand to draw because you say it so. Most sources do include these parties, so the line of including these parties that get reported by most of the sources means we remain faitful to the principle of
WP:V, and ensures that it is a policy-guided decision. Can it be contested? Obviously, but then you would have to provide something more than your own opinion for it to even be considered: so far, you only say we should remove some of these because "we have to draw a line" (once again: we have according to whom?) but are unable to provide a basis other than your own opinion for such a move. That is arbitrary (and yes, it has everything to do with your point of view, since it is the only source for your claim). Impru20talk 11:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The size of the page as it is downloaded is obviously the technical measure that is relevant to the reader. This is usually similar to the wiki markup size, but reducing the apparent wiki markup size by splitting the article and then transcluding the content back into the article doesn't reduce the amount of data being downloaded, which is the point of measuring wiki markup size. This is purely factual and supported by our size guidelines.
Again, verifiability does not itself justify inclusion. The reason to reduce the amount of parties shown here is because there is too much tenuous content in the tables, which can be removed proportionately to their lack of prominence in reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the page as it is downloaded is obviously the technical measure that is relevant to the reader. And the policy stating this is...? This is purely factual and supported by our size guidelines. Which are...? Again,

WP:SIZE
does not back these claims. Once again, I ask you to provide the pertinent policy or guideline supporting your claims or to just stop going around in circles. Again, verifiability does not itself justify inclusion. Indeed, but when a majority of sources over a period of two years do give these parties a significant coverage (both in opinion polling and in significant media coverge), it takes more than your opinion to discredit that. Further, you end your statement with a claim on the parties' "lack of prominence in reliable sources" despite most of the sources in this article covering them. There is not a lack of prominence, that is simply not true. Impru20talk 21:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement is so obvious that it doesn't require linking to a policy or guideline. The reader downloads the entire page, including transcluded content. The simple wiki markup size would be meaningless if it said 1000 bytes and if the article contained 1000 kilobytes of transcluded content.
The relevant policy is
WP:SIZE
.
The sources do not give significant coverage to the opinion polling results of the smallest parties, such as those polling less than 1%. At most their results are mentioned with very little prominence if at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you for the policy or guideline showing "download size" as a relevant metric for article lenght's consideration. You acknowledge you cannot prove it.
WP:SIZE
does not state what you claim. This is so obvious that you would have already pointed to the relevant part of the policy long ago should it support your statements, but since you cannot (because it does not support you), you keep ignoring any counterarguments on it and keep repeating the same mantra over and over again.
The sources do give significant coverage to the opinion polling results of these parties, otherwise they would just not depict them at all. I am not going to discuss obvious claims with you, so I will please ask you to stop being circular, stop recycling your own arguments and stop attempting to fight an attrition war here. Cheers! Impru20talk 06:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZE calls it browser size, which can be used interchangeably with download size. The sources clearly don't give significant prominence to all 10+ parties, they give much more weight to the largest parties than the smallest parties. These are just facts, it's up to us what information we put in the article based on that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SIZE does not call for using "browser size" (which is the term you have hastily chosen to pick up after two days of discussion in an attempt to fit your "download size" re-imagined concept somewhere) as a metric for article splitting or size reduction. The sources do give prominence to all these parties, the clearest evidence of it being the fact they are reported. I mean, you are basically issuing false statements here. Keep trying. Impru20talk 07:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's the same concept. Sources plainly give different levels of prominence to Teruel Existe or the Regionalist Party of Cantabria as they do with the People's Party or the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to discuss whether those are the same concept or not because that is not relevant: "browser size" is not a metric recognized by
WP:SIZE for article splitting or size reduction. You are hastily making up excuses to bog down this discussion your own way. As I already told you in my talk page, your judgement on the issue of article size is compromised. You should stop attempting to manipulate the concept of "article size" everywhere throughout Wikipedia and attempting to randomly "trim" articles depending on their listing at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Articles_by_size
; this is disruptive and you have been warned multiple times by multiple users, to no avail.
This article is on the topic of opinion polling. Sources do give significant prominence to these parties, as they are being reported by most polls. We do not need PRC and TE to be given equal prominence to PSOE or PP, significant coverage is enough. Stop casting fallacious statements and doing circular arguments, this is going nowhere. Cheers. Impru20talk 07:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a metric used to recognise when actions to address article size are useful, otherwise it wouldn't be a metric mentioned there at all. If all I wanted to do was address articles based on their appearance on that database reports list, I wouldn't have opposed your transclusion proposal which would effectively remove it from that list, yet I do oppose it. Transclusion for that aim is essentially a trick that makes a mockery of using the wiki markup measurement.
The prominence isn't high enough for the PRC and TE parties to be included here. They don't have to be equal in prominence to PSOE to be included, but they have to be higher than their present prominence. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZE's talk page for re-interpreting the guideline in a way not stated nor supported by the guideline; SIZE explicitly refers to "readable prose size" (something reiterated as recently as November 2021
in the SIZE talk page) when it comes to size reduction. "Browser size", "download size" or any other of your re-imagined concepts have nothing to do with it.
"prominence isn't high enough (...) they have to be higher than their present prominence." That's an entirely opinionated statement not supported by the sources themselves. They do not have to be higher than their current prominence since they are already reported by a majority of pollsters. Further, I do not know on the basis of which knowledge you consider a prominence "high enough" or not, considering you lack of any expertise whatsoever in opinion polling article editing (just as you do in engineering, sports, etc.). This was precisely one of the issues for which you have been previously criticised, i.e. keeping intervening into topic areas you have no previous knowledge or experience with, demanding to split or mutilate articles at will against the criteria of more knowledgeable people and/or subject matter experts, only because of an article's being listed at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Articles_by_size. This is not constructive. Impru20talk 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its talk page isn't guideline or policy, only the policy/guideline page itself is. The guidelines and policies include browser size and there are no limits on what can be considered measurements of size. It's completely irrelevant what my expertise is. You have no idea what I am an expert in and I have not revealed any of that on Wikipedia. It's easily verifiable that I have been editing opinion polling articles for over seven years, but there are no requirements to be an editor. You've previously admitted I have been editing such articles for years. It remains the case that parties like PRC and TE don't belong in the tables for reasons I have given and we can discuss that further. It is completely irrelevant what you think of me or what I think of you. You agree with me that there are size-related problems in the article. It's not valid for you to think there are such problems but invalid for me to think there are such problems, so let's collaborate to find solutions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your opinion and reinterpretation of what is not stated in the guideline is not guideline or policy either. Nonetheless, we may bring this issue to the guideline's talk page and seek input on this interpretation of the guideline you keep making, as well as on your persistent pattern of going against what is explictly stated in the guideline. :)
Otherwise,
WP:SIZE
clearly states it is readable prose size what counts, and "browser size" is not readable prose size. You did not even mention "browser size" until today, the third day into the discussion. Further, and all of a suddenly, it is "browser size" that counts rather than that "download size" concept that was nowhere to be found. You are manipulating the guideline into your own interests; many people has complained on you doing this over the years, and yet you keep doing it!
I have been in Wikipedia editing opinion polling articles for over 10 years and have scarcely seen you involved in such articles. Indeed, I have only seen you discussing opinion polling articles when those have appeared at Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size, and only to attempt to "trim" them (i.e. splitting them or mutilating them at all costs, usually over the opinion of the usual contributors of those articles). So yes, I have a very good idea of what your expertise and experience on this field is. Plus, I have not admitted that you have been editing these articles for years. I admitted you did the same thing you are attempting to do here at Opinion polling for the 2015 Spanish general election two years ago. That is not the same thing.
It remains the case that parties like PRC and TE don't belong in the tables for reasons I have given The reasons you have given = Your opinion and your opinion alone. As I said, that is not enough to counter what a majority of sources report. Impru20talk 08:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You agree with me that there are size-related problems in the article. It's not valid for you to think there are such problems but invalid for me to think there are such problems, so let's collaborate to find solutions. Do not manipulate my words to do your bidding. I am not invalidating your thinking that there are such problems, but your methods. I already proposed a valid and policy-accepted solution that you keep denying on a whimp (and without any policy-based reason) only because it does not suit your view that minor parties should be removed. That is the main issue of concern: that you keep blocking any other solution that does not come to pass by removing the content that you do not like. And that is heavily disruptive. We have been discussing for three days, both here and in my talk page, and it is clear no agreement is going to be reached in a solution because you keep blocking it. I would say your behavioural pattern should be addressed at once, but you still have time to drop the stick and heed the many advices and warnings given to you by so many people and stop doing this to articles only because of their overall size. This already nearly costed you a CBAN proposal at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Clarification needed for "article splitting activists", and that will likely be the end result if you keep on behaving like this. Cheers. Impru20talk 08:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in changing or clarifying the guidelines, I am interested in making changes to this article, and this is the talk page for it. I was using download size to mean essentially the same as browser size, which is also equivalent to the wiki markup size of all transcluded content (including default Wikipedia elements such as the sidebar).
Again, it doesn't matter that the reason I created this account in 2014 was to edit and discuss opinion polling articles, even though that's true. This is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. You should pretend that the account I am using is completely new and that you do not know anything about me, because none of it is relevant to what changes should or shouldn't be made to this article.
Finally, on the issue of inclusion for parties like PRC and TE, it is the very sources I am using to support what I am saying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for other solutions that have nothing to do with addressing minor parties. Removing certain parties from the tables should not be the only change made. I don't agree with your transclusion proposal but I would be very interested to consider any other proposals you may have. You're completely wrong in these accusations you're making about me personally, but most importantly they don't belong on this talk page, which is about an article. You are welcome to discuss myself on my user talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:SIZE
's to "change or clarify" the guideline. The guideline is already clear enough, but it is you the one who seems to be unable (either by a lack of competence of just deliberately) to properly understand it, and you the one who needs to be clarified on it.
I was using download size to mean essentially the same as browser size You used a non-existant concept for two days to mean a non-relevant concept in terms of article splitting and size reduction. Ok.
I am not discussing your reasons for creating your account, I spoke of my experience in Wikipedia and in me having scarcely seen you editing opinion polling articles except for "trimming" them your own ways. I am not interested in your motives in Wikipedia editing, frankly. It is relevant to this discussion that you are behaving disruptively as part of a pattern you have been exhibiting in Wikipedia for years, and that in this case has brought you to, basically, keep blocking the most workable solution to address article size (transclusion) only because of your own opinion (in your comment, you yourself acknowledge that removing "minor parties" is a must for you (Removing certain parties from the tables should not be the only change made), so transclusion does not fit you because it allows for a solution that spares the columns of such parties).
Once again, the sources do not support what you say. This back-and-forth discussion is becoming dumb, really. As a matter of fact, the edit in which you conducted the removal of those columns already stated that the reasoning for it was "having no result for many polls" (the fact is that they are reported in most of them, actually) and that you did that "as per talk" (no discussion on this talk page ever agreed to remove these parties, at most ot was discussed to re-arrange their presentation -in a way that actually increased the article's size and that was finally not implemented-). You already started all of this by issuing manipulated statements, which you keep doing on every comment. Thus, I am interested in further input other than yours on this issue. I have had enough of this already and will not keep playing your attrition game. Have a nice day. Impru20talk 09:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your comment is just personal attacks, so I won't respond to most of it. My position is that more than one solution can be implemented, and one of those should be addressing which parties are included. I am open to other solutions and I assess each on their merits, from anybody. I am against the transclusion proposal, for reasons that you have not accurately characterised. In future, it would be best if you didn't attempt to say why I support or oppose something, and let me explain that myself.
I do not think there is more to be gained from you and I alone discussing this. You are welcome to discuss changes to the article if you can refrain from talking about editors personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Arbitrary break to start a new stage of discussion. Let us end all of this right now. To sum it all up until now: You have provided no policy-based reason to support any of your arguments. You say you are contrary to transclusion but are unable to provide any policy-based reason against it, other than your own re-interpretation and manipulation of what "article size" is meant to be. Firstly, by sticking to some invented concept of "download size", then changing to "browser size" when (I guess) you cared to actually enter into the

WP:SIZE
guideline itself on the third day onto the discussion and actually read it (however, you got stuck to the lede without advancing any further). Now, it is my turn.

Check

transcluding
the split parts. My suggested method is explicitly encouraged by the guideline as is. Further:

  • (1) It helps easening the lagging issues (which is a demonstrated fact: transclusion was in place for two years in many of the Spanish opinion polling articles, and it considerably easened the lagging and navigation issues);
  • (2) It saves much more wiki markup size than the alternative proposal (granted, markup size is not a valid metric for splitting as explicitly stated in the guideline, and you know that, but it helps remove the article from the foremost posts at Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size, which is the criterion that brings you to demand splitting/mutilating articles that you never came across before);
  • (3) It also brings no harm or mutilation to the article. Sure, you may have to access separate templates to edit the numbers in those tables, but 1) Those will be mostly static, as this would be applied to large tables of already ended years –so, no new polling will be expected to be added and editing of these will get reduced to a minimum– and 2) It is basically no different effect than other proposals you yourself made elsewhere across Wikipedia, i.e. splitting large articles into spin-offs and moving content into these (so, it is bad that we have to access separate pages for editing them in here but not when you do this elsewhere? How curious).

Now, you did not even seem concerned on transclusion until you chose to be

WP:SPINOUT
as a solution that does address such concerns! You just did not even care to read the guideline at all.

I had enough patience to keep discussing this with you for over three days, both in here and in my own talk page, despite the obvious wearing-down attempts through empty-shelled arguments, statement-recycling and going around in circles. You had ample time and a lot of rope to justify your statements on any policy-based reason of your choosing (you where explicitly required to do so, multiple times), which you kept refusing over and over and over again, just depicting some alleged "need" to conduct the edits the way you and only you wanted, introducing invented concepts, re-imagining existing ones, denying the obvious with regards to sources and even suggesting that your proposal was only the first of many to be made (suggesting your intention is to mutilate the article even further, again for no policy or guideline-based reason). You just want others to cave-in to your demands just because of a perceived great wrong you think you must right and that you perceive as superior to anyone else's points of view (a similar behaviour as sumed up very nicely at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Clarification needed for "article splitting activists" and that you have been exhibiting for years in Wikipedia).

(Note: To state this is not a "personal attack": you have been told the same by multiple users throughout the last few years in almost every discussion you have had to force article splitting/mutilation your own ways, even in the
drop the stick
and that you cannot hope to indefinitely waste everyone's else efforts and time. If you have any strong arguments to push for an edit, make them from the beginning; if not, just please back slowly away from the horse carcass instead of making-up arguments and re-interpretations to fight for a lost cause. We have lives, we value our time, and all the time we spend attempting to refute your empty-shelled claims is time we are not spending in improving Wikipedia anywhere else or whatever.)

This discussion between you and me can be considered over now. I will gladly await for further input to be added by other users on the SPINOUT-backed transclusion proposal, and this process may take weeks if needed (there is

no haste to conduct it). May the New Year brings you wisdom and knowledge to resort to more constructive ways of improving Wikipedia. Good luck. Impru20talk 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Well I'm certainly not reading all of that. You keep saying you want to end the discussion but then you continue to argue quite personally. What's most disappointing is lying egregiously about what my reasons are. You keep bringing up things that I have no interest in discussing and which have no relation to the article that this talk page is about. Virtually all the things you are saying about me and accusing of me are wrong, and I've rejected them with as much as detail as I've cared for. Fortunately, I don't think anybody who stumbles upon this discussion would care much about what you think of me, or what you think others think of me. If anybody wants to know what my reasons or arguments are for supporting or opposing certain ideas, they should understand them from my own words and not from what you have to say about me.
We have both expressed what we believe to be reasons for our proposed ideas, and for whatever reason we disagree with each other's idea. That should put to rest both of those ideas for now. This whole drama is so ridiculous when the only things that have actually happened to the article are that I made a bold edit which you reverted, and you made a bold edit which myself and someone else reverted. Normally it's completely unremarkable when two bold edits by two different editors are reverted, and certainly doesn't deserve this kind of theatre. I know it sometimes feels bad to have your edit reverted, but that's just how it goes when you make an edit that is contested when there isn't consensus for it.
Anyway, I hope you feel better and I look forward to discussing improvements to the article on this talk page, and nothing about discussing personalities. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is crystal clear, and it is quite straightforward in not supporting your views as has been pointed out (independently on whether you care to read it or not, that is not of my concern). I algo agree we do not need any theater, that is why I do not understand why have you kept it up for so long. Depicting all of it as some drama and personal attack against you in order to avoid addressing the sustantive arguments laid out is quite depressing when it comes to my wish that you actually learn to be constructive around here. That is everything that needs to be said in response to your reply. Have a nice day! Impru20talk 05:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SocioMetrica

Okay so their is not 2 polls, it was just an initial mistake of Sociometrica. EV never had 15 seats. Owenkg98 (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an error of theirs. They have already revised down the figures (from 2.5% and 15 seats to 1.3% and 3 seats) to the correct numbers. Impru20talk 10:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnoficial seats projections

The seats projection attached to the CIS poll is not an official CIS projection. It's an external seats projection made by a private entity unrelated to the original source. In my opinion, if this is considered relevant (something that should be discussed in the first place), this seats projection should be added as an extra row. It's confusing to attach an external projection of seats to the official CIS poll.

Where should we draw the line that distinguishes the seats projections that we attach to each poll and the ones we don't? Should we add external projections of other polls that don't offer a seats projection (Invymark, Metroscopia, Simple Lógica, or even Sociometrica's re-estimation of the CIS data)? 85.48.187.138 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each row is a poll, and seat projections are associated with percentages, so separating the seat projection from the percentages from which it is calculated is somewhat absurd. It's not confusing at all (though I may concede that, for clarity, we may add a note next to the poll explaining than that seat projection is not explicitly calculated by the CIS, but by an external source).
On your second comment, the thing is that Electograph (now Electográfica) only makes external projections for CIS polls. It does not do so for other polls. The seat projections for CIS polls are backed by a reliable source and are of interest since it is a public institute which allows for such projections and alternative estimations to be calculated from their data; if you suggest we should re-imagine ourselves seat projections for other polls, that's a very different thing that would constitute
WP:OR. Impru20talk 19:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Sigma Dos Poll

I Think it’s needed to add the recent Sigma Dos poll for Antena3, it’s not with other polls 84.126.112.198 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the References?

What happened to the References? A few days ago, an edit made disappear the links to the polls. Is there a way to solve the issue?Tuesp1985 (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange, for some reason the reference list and navboxes are only showing up as templates. I tried messing around with it but nothing worked. Does anyone know how to fix this? Jacoby531 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Usually for articles about US elections, polls are linked in the page's text (as an inline external link) rather than as a reference. That would certainly help reduce the number of template calls below the limit. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a more more detailed discussion about this above in #Excessive Statistical Data and that seems to be one of if not the main reason the article's reference section is not displaying properly. Moreover, the problem is going to likely remain a problem as long as the article continues to be expanded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When templates do not transclude, but instead show as links to the template page, this is an indication that
WP:TLIMIT has been hit. If you go to Preferences → Appearance and enable "Show hidden categories", you will see that the page is in Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded, which confirms it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Fixed all of it! Impru20talk 08:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gad3 poll

the gad3 poll recently added it’s not a real poll, and is not recognized by Gad3, even in the article cited, it’s not mentioned Gad3 as poll maker, so in my opinión it must be changed 84.125.79.86 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence

Why is everything listed in reverse chronological order? If we're providing not-so-recent data, we should provide it in order, not backwards. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election&oldid=1209531296"