Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
:::::It already was, and was reverted. So if you do it, it'll be reverted as [[WP:TE]]. There's a [[WP:SPLITTING|process that needs to be followed]]. And seriously - it's the last section on this page, so is not in '''''anyone's''''' way. Leave it for 17 days. (The irony of having to talk about splits [[Terry Jones|today]] is not lost on me... [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
:::::It already was, and was reverted. So if you do it, it'll be reverted as [[WP:TE]]. There's a [[WP:SPLITTING|process that needs to be followed]]. And seriously - it's the last section on this page, so is not in '''''anyone's''''' way. Leave it for 17 days. (The irony of having to talk about splits [[Terry Jones|today]] is not lost on me... [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::So just to be clear, Impru says raising [[WP:OWN]] is a personal attack if someone says it about ''them'', but it's ok for them to do it about someone else (can't find the actual diff, but it's timestamped in the later section at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Irish_general_election#Polls_table 15:15]/ Also note the existence of the other page is irrelevant, as it was created absent the [[WP:SPLITTING|People's Front of Judea]] process, losing the history, and should therefore probably be deleted. Size? Someone has added over 9.5kb to this talk page, just in one day... could have been better spent elsewhere. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Remove Renua == |
== Remove Renua == |
Revision as of 19:35, 22 January 2020
Ireland Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Elections and Referendums Start‑class | |||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Opinion Polls. Main Article or not.
Given that Ireland is small and polls are infrequent compared to other countries I see no real utility in a separate article for polls, it would be different if 2 or 3 were published daily like, say, in Germany during a campaign.
In Ireland it is likely to peak at 3 to 4 a week at most and with a snap Amárach 1 question poll on occasion. I therefore think Opinion Polling can remain in the main Election 2020 article.
Thoughts along the lines of agreed or not agreed sought from other editors. Wikimucker (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Aréat: already started up top Wikimucker (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Wikimucker: As said below, the polls may not be frequent, but the table added up over the years still is huge, and force users to scroll down a lot, when the graph alone is enough. And there's still a link to the page with the detailled table for those who want to see the detailled polls. It's how it's done on all election pages with long polls tables, as well as how we did it in previous irish election pages. If it wasn't a problem there and then, I don't see why it would be one right now.--Aréat (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Aréat:@BrownHairedGirl: It is very difficult for any responsible editor to describe an Irish Election campaign without veering into (WP:NPOV) problems. So far we are 1/3 of the way through this one and only 2 small parties have manifestos. Therefore we are forced to Nowcast what we do have and opinion polls are really important there.
After the election is over the Campaign section will be hugely expanded (with hindsight helping us a lot) and so will the results section with the polls moving out around then as they will be completed. With no polls included there is virtually no article left in my opinion. It would simply look crap until the election is over.
I could say (and most would agree) that the big issues so far are housing and health while the campaign "highlights" so far are 1. A Tent in Dublin, 2 Paddy the Hooligan, 3. Greta 4. Pensions for 65 year olds but not 66 year olds and 5. Beef. But these have no place in the article save in hindsight, if ever. For now we need the polls as we are nowcasting.....and there are not so many of them anyway compared to France or Germany.
I also pinged a senior contributor to Irish Political content in the wiki to see if they maybe have 2c to offer us all here. I would like the polls to remain in the article for the duration of the campaign though. Wikimucker (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's normal practice to split the full opinion polling table to a separate article once it gets beyond a certain size. Aréat is the third editor to attempt to apply this practice to this article. Number 57 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article is over 90kB long. It wouldn't be an issue if it was just the tables, but it is not (the main scope of the article being the general election, not the opinion polls), and currently, the opinion polling in the article only makes it unnecessarily long to read. Because of this, customary practice both elsewhere and in previous Irish elections has been to split the opinion polls into a separate article, because even if there is not as many as in the UK or Germany there are still a lot of them. I concur with all others in not seeing any reason for this article to be an exception. Impru20talk 13:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It is normal practice in larger countries with many polls published daily, yes. The Spanish Parliamentary election 2019 page (with no polls) is 107k in size The French Parliamentary election 2017 page (with no polls) is 250k in size Like you say Impru20 this page is 90k in size but it is smaller (with polls) than those 2 are. Your comparison is not really that relevant and the opinion polls can be removed after the event. Wikimucker (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It is normal practice in larger countries with many polls published daily, yes.
Sweden, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Norway, Portugal, Finland, etc. All of these do not have opinion polls "published daily" yet they all have their opinion poll sub-pages split from the main articles. So what you say is simply not true, as you have been already told by others.- As for Spanish general election articles, all of them since 1982 have their opinion polling separated from their main pages. Nonetheless, I should note you that the opinion polling article for the November 2019 election has existed since April 2019; this is, the very time the first opinion poll after the April election was published. It is also done as such as of currently at Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, and it was also done so for the 2015, 2016 and April 2019 general elections. Plus, this is customary practice elsewhere as well. Opinion polls are not split into new articles after the elections, but the other way around: they already exist even long before the date for the next election has been set.
- I'm not seeing any good reason being forward by you other than "the article is not complete enough" (not a valid reason, as per WP:NOTFINISHED; that something is not finished enough does not preclude the fact that it will someday, and under that anticipation we already know right now that opinion polls in this page are unsuited for the main article) or "the separate opinion polling article is not updated" (well, if you hide the link from the view of readers, it will be difficult for them to spot the article's existence and update it, indeed). We know already that there are a lot of opinion polls, and even you acknowledge that you accept those being split after the election. There is thus simply no reason to wait until that. Impru20talk 14:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Uk General election 2019 article, 200k+ in size.
The size argument really does not wash when this article is 90k in size and by no means an outlier in comparative terms or in bandwidth terms. Were there substantially more polls then I would concur but there has been 1 since the campaign started and we are 1/3 of the way through. I expect c.1k more in data terms, that is all. Wikimucker (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC
- You have not replied to any of the counter-arguments that I presented to you. On the size of other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. The comparison is not even correct because those articles you mention do not even include the opinion polls within it (which would make them incredibly larger). So far, over 2/3 of this article's size comprises opinion polls alone, which is not acceptable and enough of a reason to justify its split. Impru20talk 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with moving the polls to a separate page. I hadn't commented as I was the one to do so initially, but as it's now up for discussion, I'll add my vote to the separation, on the basis that it makes the page unwieldy, and particularly as in any case, only the very first few here relate to the election period itself. It's also standard practice on Wikipedia for many other countries' election. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- You did so improperly, it appears... page should probably be deleted, and recreated after the election. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(Copied from below): Someone who doesnt' want to scroll doesn't have to, because there's literally nothing after the opinion poll section except footnotes and references. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor. There may be editors who love nothing more than making every election page uniform, but certainly this reader, and plenty of others would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days.
(Adding): We're 17 days out from the election. The opinion polls are here for 4 years. It makes complete sense to be able to see the opinion polls on the 2020 election page, and makes no sense to not have to click off to another page to do so, right before an election. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply. and walls of text from people who [[W{:OWN|love editing multiple election pages]] aside, we will likely see one, maybe two more polls added, from B&A and Red C. That's all. 17 days. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- [Copied from below):
Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor.
This is precisely the point I am trying to make. You have been editing the article for 4 years. It's now, when the election gets close, when the most readers come to visit it. And precisely when this happens, when the page stops being relatively isolated in a bubble to get much more attention, is when people start complaining that it's difficult to navigate. You are making assumptions of something which has not happened, i.e. that "many readers" "would like" to see things your way. Well, where are those readers? Because the more new readers that come to this page and post their opinions, the more support there is for the split of opinion polls into a different article. You are acting like if the few people editing this page for the last four years and other Irish people have any superior right or claim over this article, when that's not true. - (Adding):
and walls of text from people who [[W{:OWN|love editing multiple election pages]] aside
I'm seeing no one writing a wall of text here, though I acknowledge this is an argument you like to bring when you are not on the "winning side" of a discussion. Please comment on content and not on contributors, shall you? P.S. "Editing multiple election pages" does not constitue WP:OWN. Hinting that none of us should touch the opinion polling section and that we should do as you command until after the election is held because you have been editing this for 4 years, does. Impru20talk 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)'I'm seeing no one writing a wall of text here
Right you be Ted! You don't do you?? Wikimucker (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)- Looks like it indeed goes down to personal considerations when there are no arguments left. I will not be entering this.
- So far, Aréat, Number 57, Iveagh Gardens, Bondegezou and myself have voiced support for splitting opinion polls from the main article. Bastun and Wikimucker are against it now, but do not mind it happening after the election is held. All in all, there seems to be a general agreement for splitting, the main issue being on the "when", for which there is a strong consensus in favour of doing it right now (in fact, it is already done because the split article already exists, the only issue being the information still being shown in this article). So, what should the next steps be? Impru20talk 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It already was, and was reverted. So if you do it, it'll be reverted as WP:TE. There's a process that needs to be followed. And seriously - it's the last section on this page, so is not in anyone's way. Leave it for 17 days. (The irony of having to talk about splits today is not lost on me... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- So just to be clear, Impru says raising WP:OWN is a personal attack if someone says it about them, but it's ok for them to do it about someone else (can't find the actual diff, but it's timestamped in the later section at 15:15/ Also note the existence of the other page is irrelevant, as it was created absent the People's Front of Judea process, losing the history, and should therefore probably be deleted. Size? Someone has added over 9.5kb to this talk page, just in one day... could have been better spent elsewhere. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove Renua
This is a very dead duck, a party with no leader and no representatives bar a few councillors.
I propose to remove them from this article on the grounds of irrelevance. Wikimucker (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- They did achieve 2% of the vote nationally in the last election, though, and therefore have full party funding until the next election. That might keep them around until that funding dries up (assuming they achieve less than 2% in the next election). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Might have to indulge the zombie then, lets see if any opinion pollers drop them on include them in others over the next year or so. Wikimucker (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Jeez. we might be losing the SDs as well as Renua after that last poll. Wikimucker (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Might have to indulge the zombie then, lets see if any opinion pollers drop them on include them in others over the next year or so. Wikimucker (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- 120 weeks later, not too many signs of life. Plus we now have Aontú blipping onto 1% Wikimucker (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- They have an active Twitter account, at any rate... I'd not be removing them just yet. Let's see what the locals bring... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Bastun. Spleodrach (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- They have an active Twitter account, at any rate... I'd not be removing them just yet. Let's see what the locals bring... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Include Independent Alliance in Infobox?
Should we not include Independent Alliance in the Infobox, if necessary with a footnote explaining their precise status? Admittedly, they are not technically a party, but they are treated as one by the opinion pollsters, and are the 4th largest such party in the latest poll and in many other polls. At the last election with 6 seats and 4.2% of the vote they were the 5th largest party by votes and joint 5th by seats. They are a non-negligable part of the minority Government's parliamentary support, and as such currently have 2 Cabinet Ministers and 3 attendees at Cabinet. So it seems both odd and somewhat misleading to our readers to leave them out of the infobox because of a seemingly largely irrelevant technicality which can be clarified in a footnote. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea - I don't see any reason why they should be excluded, and as you say a footnote can explain their status. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal. Spleodrach (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks like we can go ahead and do it. I may try to do so myself later, but I'm a bit busy so I'm not sure precisely when I'll be able to get around to it, so if anybody wants to go ahead and do it before I get around to it, please feel free to do so. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've now added it, in 5th place (as they had same seats but more votes than Solidarity-PBP at the last election). I was mistaken above - they only have 1 Cabinet Minister and 2 attendees instead of the 2 and 3 I mistakenly mentioned above. I've had a difficulty with their party colour, which is currently showing as a darker shade of grey (C0C0C0) than we have in our opinion polls section (which is perhaps roughly E0E0E0, which is then not very clearly visible), but seems perhaps about the same as the 'hex=gray' which is used in the Composition Bar in the infobox of our article on them. Maybe somebody who knows more about how Wikipedia assigns party colours might fix this.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal. Spleodrach (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose we should have Feargal Quinn as 'leader' given he's the closest thing they have to any leadership (chairman). Irishpolitical (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, they don't have a leader. Anyway Quinn is retired from politics. Spleodrach (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
We should probably get ready to remove the Independent Alliance from the Infobox. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aaaaand replace them with what exactly??? Independents for Change are a more obvious deletion seeing as they nearly all buggered off to Europe last year but I cannot decide who could replace them. The Healy Raes have more elected members than I4C.
- For aesthetic reasons there should be 6 or 9 parties, 3 per row, in the Infobox. 12 is too much altogether.
- We either go with 6 or 9 in the Infobox then and I am more inclined to prune it down to 6 and leave the selection at FF FG SF GR SD and finally 'Solidarity/PBP. Wikimucker (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Likely to see 7 parties in the next Dáil - don't forget Labour - so that number seems a good compromise. Culloty82 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with 6, but it should be the current largest 6, i.e. FG, FF, SF, Lab, S-PGP and Green. No room for SocDems, I'm afraid. Spleodrach (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies Spleodrach for the premature switch, cache hadn't refreshed on this. I'd be inclined towards 6 as well. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for forgetting Labour, are we moving to 6 in the Infobox and FG, FF, SF, Lab, S-PGP and Green. I am agreed with those 6.
- Articles Elections 2007 (infobox 6) 2011 (infobox 9) and 2016 (infobox 9) in the interests of balance here but 2016 includes Renua who promptly imploded afterwards. Wikimucker (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:Bold, I've gonae ahead and changed it to those 6. Spleodrach (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- And per WP:BOLD and WP:NOTPAPER, I've reverted. Why would we exclude parties that won seats last time out?! Especially when over the last two elections, we've gone with 9?! "Aesthetic reasons" doesn't cut it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Consensus was 6, Spain only has 6 for example, the 6 largest, as does Poland. I will revert to 6 presently unless a case is made for 9 in the interim. Wikimucker (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile I suggest people look at the richer data presented for those 6 parties in the Polish Infobox ....for inspiration. Wikimucker (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument. Arbitrarily removing relevant material that's been here for literally over 4 years, just 3 weeks out from the next election - and directly concerns the topic of the article - smacks of censorship, to be honest. Honestly - what is the problem with including all of the parties/groupings that have been on the page since 2011, and have Dáil representation?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not arbitrary, both the IA and I4C have essentially collapsed and IA were never a party anyway while I4C is formally registered, a large infobox....in that context....strikes me as inchoate.
I'll raise ya a 404 for your 'arbitrary'. > https://independentalliance.ie/, how is that???
Wikimucker (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Again, it's not arbitrary, the Ind. Alliance and I4C both don't exist anymore, and are not contesting this election. I will be removing them again, unless someone can justify that they remain. Spleodrach (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- As you said above, we include parties/groupings who have "imploded" after (though both the IA and I4C haven't quite "imploded" just yet, managing a couple of MEPs!) and they've lasted 4+ years. In 2007, we listed every party who had Dáil representation (6); same in 2011 and 2016 (9 each). 2011 even includes a one-man party and one with no seats at all... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's foolish and misleading to list groups/parties that are not contesting this election. Spleodrach (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've no objection to removing groups/parties that aren't contesting this election, but those who are should remain - regardless of "aesthetics." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest possible date
Taken from version of 17 February 2017:
The next general election cannot be held later than Monday 12 April 2021. This date is determined as follows:
Law | Requirement | Comments |
---|---|---|
Constitution: Section 16.5 [1] | The same Dáil Éireann shall not continue for a longer period than seven years from the date of its first meeting: a shorter period may be fixed by law. | A shorter period is fixed by law through the Electoral Act, 1992. |
Electoral Act, 1992: Section 33 [2] | The same Dáil shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting. | The Dáil resulting from the 2016 election first met on 10 March 2016. Five years after 10 March 2016 is 10 March 2021. |
Electoral Act, 1992: Section 96 [3] | (1) A poll at a Dáil election— (a) shall be taken on such day as shall be appointed by the Minister by order, being a day which (disregarding any excluded day) is not earlier than the seventeenth day or later than the twenty-fifth day next following the day on which the writ or writs for the election is or are issued. | 25 days after 10 March 2021, disregarding excluded days, is 12 April 2021. Excluded days are:
|
Electoral Act, 1992: Section 2 [4] | (1) In this Act— "excluded day" means a day which is a Sunday, Good Friday or a day which is declared to be a public holiday by the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 , or a day which by virtue of a statute or proclamation is a public holiday; |
Is this satisfactory? Spleodrach (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would be better to source the date to a reliable, secondary source. We're in danger of slipping into WP:SYNTH territory. Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- From RTE - [5] - It says 10 April 2021. It also says the Dáil would need to be dissolved before 9 March 2021, the above calcs assume 10 March which appears to be incorrect. Using 9 March 2021 as dissolution date and applying the above rules gives Saturday 10 April 2021, same as RTE source. Spleodrach (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd agree with RTÉ - "shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting [on 10 March 2016]" implies the 5 years are up on 9th March 2021, not the 10th. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Opinion polls and EU/local election results
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, is there a good reason for including the election results (which were for European and local elections, not general) in with the opinion polls? All of the opinion polls ask the question "Who would you vote for in the next general election?" The "results" are skewed if you include the elections - someone in, say, Waterford, might well say "Renua" in answer to a pollster's question; but if Renua don't run a local or European election candidate in Waterford, that voter's preference can't be reflected in the election results. Similarly, there's a >10-point difference in FF's vote between the local and Euro elections. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't seen them being included like this on any other polling table. Take 'em out. Bondegezou (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- (Although PhDoctor says they are in Spanish and Italian articles. Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear, Bondegezou and BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!. For god's sake, are you two blinded or something? Read Opinion polling for the next Italian general election and Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election. They have 2019 EP Election Results included. Also, they aren't added by me. User:PhDoctor 10:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Until you pointed out the Spanish and Italian articles, I had not seen this done before. It's not done this way on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the next German federal election, Next_Romanian_legislative_election#Opinion_polls, Opinion polling for the next Dutch general election, or Opinion polling for the 2019 Belgian federal election. But it is on Opinion polling for the 2019 Polish parliamentary election and Opinion polling for the 2019 Greek legislative election. I will raise a discussion at the relevant WikiProject. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#European_Parliament_election_results_in_opinion_polling_tables. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Dear, Bondegezou and BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!. For god's sake, are you two blinded or something? Read Opinion polling for the next Italian general election and Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election. They have 2019 EP Election Results included. Also, they aren't added by me. User:PhDoctor 10:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- (Although PhDoctor says they are in Spanish and Italian articles. Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I refer you again to the very first word in this section. I asked is there any reason for including election results other than that. You've come back to say "Otherstuffexists!" and offered no rebuttal or argument at all. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Irish_general_election shows that in our article on Opinion polls prior to the last general election, we showed the results of both the local and European elections in 2014, and that has seemingly been left in place for about 5 years now, suggesting that this is now the long established WP:CONSENSUS on how we should deal with the matter (at least in Ireland - other countries may or may not have different consensusses, for any number of reasons). Since reasons have been asked for, I suppose I might add that presumably that consensus exists because many editors think that many WP:READERS may be thought to find it useful to be able to compare and contrast Opinion polls against actual votes, perhaps as some kind of reality check, even if these votes are not exactly the same as general elections (and if that is in fact what they think, I'm strongly inclined to agree with such editors). But regardless of what the actual reasons for the consensus may be, it would seem that it should be up to those seeking to change that consensus to offer reasons why that change should happen, instead of demanding that others supply reasons why the change should not happen. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Incidentally, regarding which consensus to use, we seem to be stuck with our Irish consensus, if only because there seems to be no clear international consensus, with different countries dealing with it in different ways (some details in footnote below, if desired). I certainly see no reason why we should inconvenience our readers by changing our existing long-established consensus and depriving them of convenient and useful info while somebody goes and spends perhaps months or years trying to establish some different one-size-fits-all international consensus at some obscure discussion at some Wikiproject which most affected editors and readers won't even know about, let alone have the time to waste on a pointless argument there. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Footnote: Some details re lack of international consensus, in case anybody thinks otherwise: Note that looking at what has been done for these 2019 elections, as Bondegezou does above, is misleading because Wikipedia is a work in progress and the end-of-May 2019 elections are very recent. For instance, the first above example I checked (after Ireland, of course) was Holland, and they had nothing (yet) for 2019, but they put a link to the 2014 Euro elections in the relevant Opinion poll table (which was for their previous general election). The Belgians had nothing, perhaps because their general election occurred at about the same time (May 2014) so they presumably sensibly included that instead. The Germans and Greeks ignored May 2014, tho the Greeks currently include 2019, and the relevant Romanian article has no opinion polls of any kind before July 2014 (2 months after the Euro elections of May 2014). The Spanish and Italians have already included May 2019 results (even though it was just a month after Spain's last general election), and they previously included May 2014 results in the relevant Opinion poll articles. We in Ireland have included May 2014 (as already mentioned above, and despite the claims that we should remove 2019 because nothing like that had supposedly ever been seen before). The relevant previous Opinion polls for the 2015 Polish elections includes results for both European elections in May 2014 and local elections in November 2014. Bondegezou is right that this is not how it's done in the UK (anomalous anyway due Brexit), but neither is how we currently have it the same as how the UK does it, since we are showing nothing but their relevant opinion poll tables link to the Euro elections in both 2019 and 2014 (as the Dutch have done for 2014, as already mentioned). That's seemingly all the countries mentioned above, but there are over 20 other countries one could check, but there doesn't seem any real point in doing so, because our own past consensus is clear enough, as already mentioned above. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- So again: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There may be a consensus on the Opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Irish_general_election - but we're not talking about that article, we're talking about this one. You have, at least, provided a reason for inclusion in your first paragraph above, and it's a fair point. But since nobody has actually proposed a wiki-wide RfC, your second paragraph is irrelevant. Paragraph three is again all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once again - this article is about the next Irish general election. Opinion polling, asking about people's voting intentions in the next Irish general election is relevant, as is how people voted in the last Irish general election. Including results for two entirely different elections - held on the same day, but with quite different results - is a) irrelevant, and b) misleading, because parties attach different importance and strategies to different types of election, run different campaigns, and may or may not put candidates forward for other elections based on many factors, including but not limited to candidates available, funding, constituency size and population, and so on. If a reader wants to know about Irish local elections or Irish European elections, we have articles on those too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- The reason to not include the figures is that they are very different figures to the opinion polls above and below them. They are not directly comparable.
- If they are to be included, we should use shading or something to mark out the figures as being different, as done on some of the other articles linked to above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- So again: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There may be a consensus on the Opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Irish_general_election - but we're not talking about that article, we're talking about this one. You have, at least, provided a reason for inclusion in your first paragraph above, and it's a fair point. But since nobody has actually proposed a wiki-wide RfC, your second paragraph is irrelevant. Paragraph three is again all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once again - this article is about the next Irish general election. Opinion polling, asking about people's voting intentions in the next Irish general election is relevant, as is how people voted in the last Irish general election. Including results for two entirely different elections - held on the same day, but with quite different results - is a) irrelevant, and b) misleading, because parties attach different importance and strategies to different types of election, run different campaigns, and may or may not put candidates forward for other elections based on many factors, including but not limited to candidates available, funding, constituency size and population, and so on. If a reader wants to know about Irish local elections or Irish European elections, we have articles on those too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not the job of Wikipedia to innovate. We are very clearly warned against interpreting primary sources. If reliable secondary sources interleave opinion polls with European and local results, then we can do the same. If they do not, then it is WP:OR for us to decide it is a useful juxtaposition. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Renua
Now that the party doesn't have an elected representative any more, will polling companies continue to list them as a separate option, and should we still give them their own column? Culloty82 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'd leave them until the next election now. Aontu seem the logical replacement but they are less than a year old. We had a lucky miss with I4C now that half their members have decamped to Europe Wikimucker (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
adriankavanaghelections.org
Can we consider adriankavanaghelections.org to be a reliable source? Yes, it's a blog - but it's specialised, balanced and more fact than opinion based. Thoughts? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely so, yes, he has many sources and has been at this quite a while. Note he mainly lists 'declarations'until formal nominations close (next friday I think) and he is most useful for fast moving news but will need a revisit to double check actual nominations are = declarations afterwards. Wikimucker (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Poll at 10pm tonight Bastun,Spleodrach,CaneFruitMan,Iveagh Gardens , I'll be out.
- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-irish-times-ipsos-mrbi-poll-to-be-released-tonight-1.4145162 Wikimucker (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Retiring Incumbents
It might be pushing it to say that Maria Bailey "announced" her retirement and Seán Barrett quietly went away with no annoucement at all.
As nominations close today I propose to prune the retirements subsection to:
a) remove announcement dates. b) change description to "Retiring Incumbents"
after I check they are all really gone and that nobody else joins them by end of business today. Wikimucker (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Polls table
@Wikimucker: Polls tables take a huge amount of place, forcing users to scroll endlessly. That's why in every election page, as well as all the previous irish election pages, we place them in their own different pages, and leave the informative graphical summing them up on the election one. It's doing as usual.--Aréat (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's "a huge amount of scrolling" of the content people are coming here to see. Certainly, I find it the most interesting thing on the page - along with the list of retirees. It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks, until the next election is over, if it's all the same to you... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks, until the next election is over, if it's all the same to you...
- I do not wish to sound rude, but this sounds like an awkward WP:OWN. Just because some reduced group of people has been doing one thing for four years does not mean it grants any right for that thing to be maintained that way at these people's leisure and until they wish to allow for changes to proceed. Precisely, it has been when the most people has been coming to this page (this is, upon the election being called) when this issue has emerged; maybe because these people outside the reduced four-year group are finding problems when navigating the page. I don't find it particularly surprising at all: the article should be befitting and workable to all Wikipedia users, not just a few. Impru20talk 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- With other election articles, we generally include polling on the main election article until that section gets so big that a separate article is created. I would say we are at about that point with the polling for this election. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It depends; in many cases articles for opinion polling are created even before that point is reached, specifically for countries where it is anticipated that such opinion polling will get big (Italy, Spain, UK, Germany, etc). Ireland can be a specific case where opinion polling may be so unfrequent as for it to start out in the main article, but when it gets about 2/3 of the article's size it seems like a good time to split it. Impru20talk 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- With other election articles, we generally include polling on the main election article until that section gets so big that a separate article is created. I would say we are at about that point with the polling for this election. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Someone who doesnt' want to scroll doesn't have to, because there's literally nothing after the opinion poll section except footnotes and references. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor. There may be editors who love nothing more than making every election page uniform, but certainly this reader, and plenty of others would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor.
This is precisely the point I am trying to make. You have been editing the article for 4 years. It's now, when the election gets close, when the most readers come to visit it. And precisely when this happens, when the page stops being relatively isolated in a bubble to get much more attention, is when people start complaining that it's difficult to navigate. You are making assumptions of something which has not happened, i.e. that "many readers" "would like" to see things your way. Well, where are those readers? Because the more new readers that come to this page and post their opinions, the more support there is for the split of opinion polls into a different article. You are acting like if the few people editing this page for the last four years and other Irish people have any superior right or claim over this article, when that's not true. Impru20talk 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)- Bastun I had already created a section up top for your 2c if'n you could copy and paste up there. Wikimucker (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't notice that - normal practice is to start new sections at the bottom. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bastun I had already created a section up top for your 2c if'n you could copy and paste up there. Wikimucker (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Someone who doesnt' want to scroll doesn't have to, because there's literally nothing after the opinion poll section except footnotes and references. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Wikipedia exists for the reader, not the editor. There may be editors who love nothing more than making every election page uniform, but certainly this reader, and plenty of others would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
TV debates
Are Renua actually standing any candidates, Wikimucker? If they are, grand. If not, their column should be removed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Bastun We don't know for sure until later today but for now....allegedly, yes. They have no leader I believe but I never implied they did. > http://www.renuaireland.com/candidates-2020 Wikimucker (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- "They haven't gone away, you know..." Jaysus! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'll raise that to a Jaysus^2 for you Bastun > https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1219941008437325824 but they are not a registered party AFAIK Wikimucker (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- :blink: :blink: ... No, they're not. But we're limiting this table, and the slogans/manifestos one to "parties that managed to have someone elected to the last Dáil", I presume... anything else would be a bit mad. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)