Jump to content

Talk:2024 Irish general election

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

Refs

[edit]


References

Including notable events in the poll

[edit]

If we look at other similar articles such as 2022 Northern Ireland Assembly election#Opinion polls, Opinion polling for the 2021 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#2022, we see that it seems to be pretty commonplace that notable political events such as the change of leadership in a party and by-elections are noted in the table. Back in July 2021 I tried adding the 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election to the table but it was revert on the basis that it had been already agreed notable events wouldn't be included. Firstly, can I ask on what page was that agreement made, and secondly, are we still committed to that idea? If the government goes all the way to 2025, the polling table is going to be quite large; I feel that the inclusion of events helps make the table more readable giving them a natural break and avoids them being a "wall of numbers". Secondly, I imagine just as with those other articles, the polling section will ultimately have to be split off to it's own page due to its size. Thoughts? CeltBrowne (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Adding notable events will lead to clutter. Keep it clean and simple as table of opinion polls. Spleodrach (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note the current consensus is not to include them. I hadn't seen this discussion before adding them. I'd agree with CeltBrowne that adding a few select events adds context to the poll numbers. I don't think it negatively affects any of the tables on the linked pages, for example. We could agree on the very select events to be included, though I'm happy to push back any further discussion until closer to the date of the election. On the split, Opinion polling for the next Irish general election exists as a redirect with possibilities, I'd recommend holding off until the dissolution of this Dáil, at which point this page will shift to the campaign, and thereafter the result. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep it as a simple table of opinion polls. We are inviting synthesis by adding in events we deem to be significant; and entering such lines breaks the ability to sort meaningfully by anything but date. As a compromise, how about shading the relevant date and adding a footnote along the lines of "First poll after Bloggs became leader of Birthday Party"? Agree on not using the redirect until at least until an election is called. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bastun, as I'd said before it's best to keep as a simple table of polls. Adding events would invariably lead to bloat. Fine with the suggestion about footnotes. Spleodrach (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there just as much synthesis in determining significance of events in a footnote as in a row of a table? I'd be reluctant to add footnotes, I think they can get even bloatier, and actually run the risk of drawing undue significance to a particular poll, particularly given polling companies use different methodologies.
I doubt using separate rows would get too bloated, if anything it breaks up in a way that's easier to read, I do find it helpful for analysis myself, and I certainly find it helpful when reading polling tables from other countries. But I won't press the case for now unless there's more interest in them. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If in doubt then leave it out. No compelling argument has been made for the inclusion of events. Spleodrach (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are inviting synthesis by adding in events we deem to be significant
We can keep it strictly to only the following:
  • Changes in party Leadership
  • Other elections (By-elections, Locals, Europeans)
  • Debates
Which is more or less the format Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and Opinion polling for the 2021 Canadian federal election keep to.
At bare minimum, I think the inclusion of other elections should be done. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had added the two appointments of Taoiseach (June 2020 and December 2022), I'd suggest they are as significant as changes in leadership. As to no compelling argument, those in favour have made two arguments: that they add context to numbers, including changes in numbers; and that it breaks up the wall of numbers in a way that makes it easier to read and find dates. For these reasons, I find it helpful when reading these for other countries. But it looks like we need to find more support for this one! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK polling articles allow change of leader, other elections (by-elections, local elections) and debates only. Most polling articles don’t allow anything. Look at Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election, for example. The inclusion of broader events is editorialising. It violates WP:OR by implying these events make a difference to the polling. Bondegezou (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, once one event is included, it's a slippery slope to lots more. Again the only arguements that I hear in favour is "I like it!". Just because the British article has events, doesn't mean we have to follow them. As Bondegezou pointed out, the majority don't allow it, so lets follow that (and the Spanish) example instead. Spleodrach (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...it breaks up the wall of numbers in a way that makes it easier to read and find dates. For some. I don't see too much value myself in a table that's only date-ordered, because the different methodologies used by the various polling companies often results in a positive or negative bias to particular parties. There is therefore no real benefit in looking at, say, the polls for the last quarter, where a party might get results of 4, 5, 2, 5, 6, 3, 5, 7, 4 (because the 9 polls were done by 3 companies, whose differing methods are always 'average', 'high', and 'low' for a particular party.) Instead, I would usually sort results by polling company, where I can see a consistent trend over time - company A:4, 5, 5; company B: 5, 6, 7; company C: 2, 3, 4, using the same results as before. If we break the table to include commentary/events, that ability is removed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Including results of other elections in the Opinion polls subsection

[edit]

The above discussion shows (at least in my view) a small bit of favouring to not include events such as leadership changes, however, I'm not sure I see a consensus that favours excluding major events like the Local and European elections from the polling subsection. Excluding local and European elections seems to go entirely against the grain/format of opinion polling subsections on Wikipedia. For example, all of the following

include the results of the last European election in their polling subsections.

Furthermore, major non-EU countries such as Australia (Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election) and Canada (Opinion polling for the 45th Canadian federal election) include by-elections in their formats.

Considering that all polling is highly speculative, election results are just as informative towards future elections as polling is, and I don't see a good reason to favour one over the other in the data.

I think the by-elections, local and European election results should be included in the table. In case anyone points to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please also keep in mind WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including by-elections in a list of national opinion polls can in no way be justified. They're entirely different beasts. Not every party may run a candidate in every by-election; there is often a known bias against the sitting government; particular local issues may have an undue influence (hello "Coolock says no" in DBN!); and, in feudal Ireland, where a by-election is caused by the death of a TD, there is also often a 'sympathy' vote for the candidate belonging to the late TD's party - moreso, where the candidate is a relative of the deceased. I would oppose including local and EU elections for similar reasons. There were mica redress candidates elected in Donegal, for example, but it's extremely unlikely they'd return a TD. Just because some editors on some other countries' equivalent articles favour doing something is not a reason for us to follow suit. The list of opinion polls is a list of just that - opinion polls. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that changes in leadership and even stating that a by election took place with a link to the by-election is something that should be done, these event often suggest why there has been a swing to or from one party. My other question would be why are the opinion polls here and also on a separate page? IrishTV (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include Independent Ireland in Polls

[edit]

Given the rise in popularity of Independent Ireland in the last European Union Elections, they should be shown in the polls and not lumped into Independents/Others. 144.62.245.225 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, unless I've missed something, there are pretty much zero polls out there that show Independent Ireland's polling figures. It's not a case of us not showing them, it's a case of the polls not showing them. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The newest RedC poll has separate numbers for Independent Ireland on 5 percent - do we include them or lump them in with ind/other and include a little note? Lough Swilly (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? The "newest" poll (which I've just commented out) just has the headline, and no figures at all? I'm presuming there was an earlier version which as been taken down, or something? I've commented out the newest entry until there are actual figures published.
Regarding the question asked by the IP, what we've done in previous election articles is to not include a new party formed after the prior general election (2020, with Aontú not included); or, we have broken the table in two, including the new parties in an election year table, and leaving them out of prior-year tables (Renua and SocDems, in the 2016 election). This would seem more useful than including a column with over 100 "Party did not exist" notes. I would be tempted to revert the addition of the new column added by New guy editor. Thoughts? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it best to include them, as they are a distinctive portion of the electorate at 5%, while unfortunate they were not more apparent in prior polls, it has form from the 2016 polling regarding pbp and 2020 polling for Renua which both had a large amount of empty boxes. For the purposes of displaying information I believe it is most effective to keep them seperate, especially if they are outpolling other present parties. If they remain absent from future polls it might make an argument to remove them, but surely for now it is best to leave them in? New guy editor (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Will be on 25 March 2025"?

[edit]

The opening sentence of the article confidently declares that the next generation will be on 25 March 2025. Definitive future tense. No qualification or conditionality. Etched in stone. Definitely will happen. 25 March 2025. And this despite the fact that such a date (in the body) is given as a possible "latest" date (not actual/definitive date). And as recently as earlier this month it was speculated that there could have been an election called during 2024. (With similar "snap" elections called in the UK and France.) And where the same source suggests that, if the current govt runs its full term, the next election could be in "early 2025". While 25 March 2025 might fall within the range of "early 2025", I can find no news or other sources which give this precise date. On what basis (reliable/verifiable refs) are we confidently declaring a definitive date? (Not a range. Or an outlying "latest date". But an immovable/concrete/specific date?) Guliolopez (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence of the article appears to declare that it'll be held by 25 March 2025, rather than that it will be held on that specific date. This appears to be based on the date of the Dáil meeting, how long the gov's term can run for and when they need to call an election as a result under the Electoral Act. I don't think this is an OR case at all, just a routine calculation. But even from this angle, there's that Irish Times article saying it. And one from BreakingNews.ie. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's explained pretty well in the Next_Irish_general_election#Date_of_election section, and I'm unclear why all of the 'cn' and 'OR?' tags have been added. How is it OR to state what an act of the Oireachtas states? There are no unsourced predictions - the next general election must happen by (not "on") 22 March. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the opening wording to must be held no later than rather than will be held by. I hope this is clearer. Note: it never said on. I also removed the tag on current relating to Taoiseach Simon Harris. Not sure why it was there, Harris is the incumbent and I have re-worded the sentence. Spleodrach (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. RE:
  • "opening sentence [..] appears to declare that it'll be held by 25 March 2025, rather than that it will be held on that specific date". Mea culpa. With apologies. I clearly (and stupidly) misread that sentence. I don't know how I did that. But have seemingly created more than a little unnecessary noise here.
  • "changed the opening wording to must be held no later than rather than will be held by". Thanks. It possibly wasn't needed. Except perhaps for visually impaired/unobservant readers like me. But that is clearer.
  • "there's that Irish Times article saying it. And one from BreakingNews.ie". Thanks. I've added the breakingnews.ie one also.
  • "I'm unclear why all of the 'cn' and 'OR?' tags have been added. Because, apparently, I didn't read it properly. Before getting on my high horse. Apologies again.
(Slinks away sheepishly...) Guliolopez (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, no worries, we've all been there! :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including a Government Support Column in the Opinion Polls Table?

[edit]

Would people be supportive of including a column on the opinion poll table for overall government support? (FF+FG+Green support) as is the case in several other european election pages New guy editor (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it would be WP:OR. In most polls, people are asked "If there was a general election tomorrow, what party would you give your first preference to?", or words to that effect. Interpreting that to mean "X, Y and Z people expressed support for these three parties so therefore 52% support the government" is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. I know Ireland Thinks specifically asks "What would be your preferred coalition out of these options?" and lists several, but not every company does that and we have never reported on the results of such a question. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring Incumbents

[edit]

Technically Joe Carey is not a retiring incumbent, as he resigned as a TD on 26 August 2024. The 4 TDs who were elected to the European Parliament in June, are not in the retiring incumbents table. Should we have a separate table for the vacancies, or incorporate them into the current table with a note? Spleodrach (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I think a separate table for vacancies is the way to go, but I'm happy to wait for consensus. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either works, but a separate table would allow us to capture the MEPs; it's probably the better option? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a "vacant seats at time of election" or "outgoing vacancies" table? We'd probably have to wait for the election to be called though, as by-elections are still a possibility. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fianna Fáil ideology

[edit]

I have started a discussion at Talk:Fianna_Fáil#Ideology_summary over whether "conservative" is an accurate way to describe Fianna Fail's ideology (TL;DR most contemporary sources I found describe it as centrist or centre-right, and sources in the article calling it 'conservative' are from 2010 or older). Flagging on this article as well regarding "conservatism" as a one-word summary. JSwift49 20:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting parties

[edit]

I have removed this section. It relied on a single source (Adrian Kavanagh's blog), which, while a reliable source, did not back up the inclusion of several parties in the table. Further, there were no references at all for the ideology column, which had already broken out into an edit war. We have never had one before. It does not take independents, or non-party alliances into account. What does "extra-parliamentary" mean? Unelected? There is no need for this table. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's leave it out. We've never had one before and it's not needed. Spleodrach (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a normal table to add for national elections on Wikipedia. See, for example:
I think giving readers an overview of who the parties/leaders are adds value to the article. The ideologies in these tables are sourced to each party's Wikipedia page, and any disputes over ideology have to do with those pages. Also, 'extra-parliamentary' just means 'not in parliament' (can be changed if unclear), and which parties' inclusion was unsupported? JSwift49 14:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 2) There is already an infobox listing the parties that have seats in the current Dáil, that gives an overview of the parties/leaders. There is also a more detailed infobox, currently commented out, that can and most likely will be added back in, once an election is called. In addition, I question the value of including a list of every party that has declared a candidate - will they actually run? WP:CRYSTAL. Do they stand any realistic chance of being elected? WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 3) Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. 4) Disputes over ideology were occurring here, in addition to any that may be occurring on those pages. E.g., you adding 'dubious' after 'conservative' in the Fianna Fáil entry. 5) WP:POV, WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE - over 10% of the membership of Dáil Éireann is an independent - why do they get lumped together, but three parties with one elected representative between them, at local level only, get split out from an electoral alliance? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listing articles which have this kind of table is pointless. Look, here is one that doesn't - 2024 United Kingdom general election. Spleodrach (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I didn't mean for that to be my entire argument, I do think many other articles having such tables illustrates how it adds value to readers. Someone researching the election now or years later will want to know in simple terms who all the parties were and where they stood, and this format I think does a good job of that. I would be good with waiting until after the official list of candidates have been released to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. Update: Looking into it more, if a party announces a candidate and it's reported on a reliable source that's different from speculation and doesn't seem to fall under that policy.
Re. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I'm not seeing how it applies since almost all parties are notable enough to have their own article? The UK election has an incomplete list of parties here and a complete one here, but it makes sense there to not go into detail on each party as there are so many tiny one-off non-notable ones. Re. ideology disputes happy to keep those on the individual party pages in future, apologies.
Re. independents, how about writing a paragraph about the different independent groups/organized alliances below the table of parties? Lumping them together in the table doesn't seem all that different from e.g., pollsters (who lump independents together), or leaders' debates (who only invite reps of registered parties). JSwift49 16:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any doubt about some parties participating in the election? Having a table to inform the reader about the parties basic info is a basic need for an election page. Having some of the info in the infobox isn't a reason to delete the entire table (!). The infobox is a summary of the article's content itself. I don't see the need to delete a concise table which is greatly informative about the election. --Aréat (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. 1) Mea culpa, Adrian Kavanagh's blog does indeed include entries for the minor parties currently without representation. I missed the entries because he just literally mentions the candidate name and party, whereas with the bigger parties, he usually mentions his sources, be they radio interview, news report of a selection convention, or whatever. 2) Either something is worth including, or it isn't. "There are too many tiny parties in England to include them all but there are fewer in Ireland, so we should," isn't really a good argument for inclusion, imho. 3) There might be an argument for inclusion of the table, when an election is called and candidates have filed their nomination papers, but until then - WP:CRYSTAL. One of the listed parties didn't bother running last time, even though they existed. One has an ongoing leadership dispute, with one of the claimants having already formed another organisation. The other claimant has said he'd never run again for the party he wants to be a leader of. Seriously - WP:CRYSTAL. 4) Aréat, you haven't answered my points about WP:DUE or WP:BALANCE. The whole point of a political party is to run for office - why exist, otherwise? Why would we bother including parties that have never run before, never won a seat at any level, and will - in the absence of any evidence to the contrary - do the same as other similar parties in previous elections, and lose their deposits, never mind not get anyone elected. WP:DUE is a thing. "Having a table to inform the reader about the parties basic info is a basic need for an election page. It isn't. One of the parties (100% Redress) is running one candidate in one constituency. The proper place to discuss that party - and other similar ones - is on that constituency's page. 5) Lastly, WP:BRD, and WP:ONUS. The table was edited in, it was removed. That's the B and R of WP:BRD. The next part, per WP:ONUS is discussion to establish WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion, not to edit-war it back in. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should exclude parties based on whether we think they have a chance, or their number of candidates. 100% Redress, for example, may only run in a couple of constituencies, but they won 4 out of the 6 seats they contested in locals; that should give them a decent chance of getting a Dail seat. My point with the UK election is that the large number of parties (100!) made a table like this impractical. Ireland not only has way fewer parties, but every party in the table except two (both of which are part of an alliance with a larger party) is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.
Now, I agree that discussing every party's campaign in the article beyond a simple listing would be WP:UNDUE. So if we list all parties while only further discussing electorally significant ones, I think that strikes a balance between fully informing the reader and not giving minor parties undue weight. JSwift49 22:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I've seen here is argument in favor of not including small parties. How is it a justification for deleting the entire table? Please restore it and delete only what you're discussing. It make no sense to delete parties which are either 1) parties which won seats in the previous election or 2) parties which are polling high enough to be shown individually in polls. Please don't deprieve users of important informations just because you're disagreeing with 10% of it. Plus, if the table is deleted, then so should the infobox. --Aréat (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about political parties, per se, it is about the election. Summarising the current Dáil makeup in an infobox is therefore entirely logical, and WP:DUE. Expunging the infobox because we don't include all contesting parties in the infobox or in a table is just reductio ad absurdum and WP:POINTY. We do not need a table taking up a good chunk of space that a) repeats information already in the infobox (current or the one that can be commented back in at any point), b) that is completely unsourced (because WP is not a RS, and nobody has addressed this); c) that's just yet another place that someone needs to remember to keep updated when someone resigns or similar.
And if someone just wants a list of all the political parties in Ireland? Well, I've added the List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland, and also included the template Political parties in the Republic of Ireland. I'd really hope people won't be basing their voting choices off a Wikipedia article, so that's more than enough. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favor of deleting the infobox, but I agree with @Aréat that the infobox is a summary of the article's content. The table further adds to the information in the infobox in several ways:
1) Summarizes parties' ideologies/political positions.
2) Lists parties that don't fit in the infobox, alliances and numbers for Independents.
3) Lists whether parties were in government or opposition.
4) Lists the difference between 2020 election results and standings before this election.
I'm also not understanding why if an article on a party says it's centre-left, and that is well-sourced, we can't repeat that sourced content in a table here. It's not like we're using content solely sourced to Wikipedia. And readers shouldn't have to go to another article to find out, e.g., how many centre-left parties contested this election. JSwift49 14:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're not answering any of my points, or acknowledging the addition of the link to the List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland article or the inclusion of the Political parties in the Republic of Ireland template - but in your answer to your points: 1) This is not the place to summarise parties' ideologies/political positions. That place is a) the parties' own articles; and b) the 'List of political parties...' article. 2) Parties that "don't fit" in the infobox are ones that failed to return anyone in the last election, or didn't run, and so are extremely unlikely to figure in any major way in the makeup of the next Dail. If they do return anyone, they will be added to the next iteration of this article, post election. 3) Read the article text for this. We don't need a table for it. Especially an inaccurate one - you know there are independents who always vote with the government? They can't seriously be described as "opposition" by anyone who knows anything about Irish politics. 4) This is already in the commented-out full infobox - which, in fact, has more information than the table! 6) Not using Wikipedia as a source is literally policy. In summary - we don't need a table to repeat what's already in the infobox, or is better dealt with elsewhere, or - as a compromise - could be included in a few lines of prose. Anyway - you and I have had our say. Let's hear from others. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just since you asked (and I have answered your main points): I don't think people should have to go to another article to see basic info about who the parties in the election are. So adding the political parties link/template doesn't solve that issue. And the table is both easy to update and has an 'as of' date.
Independents are also categorized as opposition on Dáil Éireann, so if you have concerns, that Talk page would be a good place to raise them. JSwift49 16:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would only be in favour of a simple table like the one in 2024 United Kingdom general election#Candidates. Just the parties and the number of candidates. For Ireland, the threshold for inclusion can be lower. If our nearest neighbour can get by without an overly complicated table, then so can we! Spleodrach (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't favour inclusion, but I wouldn't object to a table with just the parties and number of candidates. Though that could be achieved just as easily in prose. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on date of election

[edit]

There has been widespread discussion as to when the date of the general election will be, with it now being believed the election will be held in November or December, instead of the government going its full term.

The information I added about this topic, which included comment from a government party leader and was sourced by the Irish Times, was removed for being speculative and not actual news. However, I will revert the deletion, because as of today all three government party leaders are suggesting the election will take place in 2024, which is generating significant news. Wburn (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would like to ask for your thoughts on renaming the article to reflect the year. Borgenland (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will do that when the election is called. WP:V is a core policy. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted. Aside from being an ungrammatical addition, it is still speculation and WP:UNDUE for inclusion - nobody will care in 10 years about who said what about the election being on a particular weekend in November or December 2024, Toy Show clash or not. "The government said it'd run full term, there was speculation it would be late 2024, the election was ultimately called on X date, to be held on Y date" is all we need to say. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the article should be relevant for readers now, and is missing key information all sourced in national newspapers, that indicates the election will be held on 29 November or 6 December. I therefore disagree with the reversion just made by Bastun to my edits to include that information. I also think that the likely date of the meeting of the next Dáil is also pretty significant as that is the earliest date upon which a Taoiseach and government can be appointed. These things are relevant for readers now even if they will be edited on out dissolution day +1.137.191.238.49 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, which is it? November 29, or December 6? Rather than speculate, we can follow WP:V when the election is actually called. Again - WP:V is a core policy. The first meeting of the 34th Dáil is a matter for that article, not the one about the election. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in WP:V that would militate against the listing of 2 potential election dates from properly sourced information, and if I did see something that technically did, I would argue that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a written compendium of knowledge (WP:5P1), and has no firm rules in any event (WP:5P5)). It is not wild speculation, or unhelpful, or damaging in anyway to the credibility or utility of the article to say "the Taoiseach has indicated X" and "Y is widely expected" and therefore the likely election dates are 29 November and 6 December. It is an accurate account of the present consensus on the matter. There are currently 2 dates there is almost 100% certainty a general election will be held on one of them. I don't see that the spirit of Wikipedia's pillars, policies or guidelines could be reasonably argued to come together to exclude presently useful information backed up by, referenced, and by doing so properly qualified, and thereby leave the page containing less useful information than if it were included.137.191.238.49 (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:CRYSTAL? "The election might happen on this date, or alternatively, it might happen on this other date" is manifestly less useful information than "On X date, the election was called by the Taoiseach and it will take place on Y date." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very peculiar interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL that would exclude what I proposed to insert. I'm not sure how you can seriously compare information that's presently available to information that isn't, much less conclude that one of manifestly more useful than the other - the election hasn't been called yet, as soon as it is it would be proper to edit this section to reflect that - but the position that potential dates cannot be identified now is utterly absurd, and inconsistent with comparable articles in comparable jurisdictions. 2A02:8084:2143:EA80:91:CFC9:A063:132F (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough speculation in the article already, stating the election will probably be held in November or December 2024. That is quite enough speculation for me. Why do we need to speculate further on possible specific dates, which may or may not turn out to be true? Per WP:CRYSTAL - Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. - Hello, COVID-19 anyone? So, lets all calm down and wait until the actual election is called. Spleodrach (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of opinion poll numbers?

[edit]

Because of my prevailing scepticism of the utility of ephemeral, snapshot opinion polls which swivel dynamically with the direction of the momentary breeze, and my understanding that the only poll that truly matters is an actual election, I have only paid attention to the Opinion polls section of this article for the first time, today.

The table is confusing. For example, seeing data listed for the Last date of polling for 23 October 2024, I run my eye horizontally and see figures listed for each party, as follows:

SF FF FG GP Lab Etc.
17 21 22 3 4 Etc.

But what are those numbers? Are they projections of the numbers of Dáil seats per party at the next election? Are they percentages of first preference votes per party? Or something else? Sinn Féin get 17 of what? Fianna Fáil get 21 of what?

The figures by party are not glossed to explain to the reader what values or meanings they represent.

Hah? Spideog (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are the percentage of people polled who will give a number one preference to that listed party. Clicking in to the reference for each poll, you'll be brought to a newspaper or other media outlet's report on that poll, where they may go into more depth, e.g., "down 2% since the last poll". The columns are sortable, so you can group all of the polls by a particular commissioning organisation together. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls section

[edit]

It looks like the Opinion Polls section got deleted and all the polls are currently listed under Candidates. I tried to change that back but it doesn't seem to have changed anything, I'm decently new to editing so I'm just gonna leave it alone but I assume the polling section was deleted by mistake. J22M (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kinda, it got moved to a new article, I added the section back here, because it's absolutely relevant to this article, and between the jigs and the reels, the background to the polls and the diagram charting them got commented out. I've fixed it now, I think, seems all good. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for polling

[edit]

Do details of opinion polls need to be included now that there's a separate article? ItsNotGoingToHappen (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't know why there's a rush to split the opinion polls section off to a separate article. The information is directly relevant to the subject of this article. It is literally the last part of the article on the page (so if people don't want to see it, they can stop reading it or just collapse it), and readers shouldn't have to click through to other articles to find information directly relevant to this article's subject. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "rush" because it's standard. We do this for elections in other countries. ItsNotGoingToHappen (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't get it. It's fine to be on this article for several years, but as soon as an election is called, it immediately needs to be split off so people have to go look at a different article, making things more awkward for readers, for some reason? Makes no sense to me. Other than the "kudos" of having created the "new" article? My c2. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This is the only general election article I've ever seen where the opinion polling page wasn't created until this close to the election. Look at Germany, Canada, UK, Scotland, Australia polling pages: all created long before the election. ItsNotGoingToHappen (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Issues

[edit]

At some point I feel strongly the article needs to include what the actual issues in the campaign are. 1997 Irish general election#Campaign topics and 1990 Irish presidential election#Campaign and issues are Irish election articles which I feel give the reader much more insight into the politics of the time than articles which don't mention the issues at all. Looking at 2020 Irish general election, one of the glaring issues with it is that it really gives the reader no indication why Sinn Féin did so well in the final results.

Obviously much of this campaign has yet to play out, but it will be a short campaign. Whether it's during or just after the campaign, I feel regular Irish politics editors should endeavour to include what the actual campaign issues are/were. I know their "format" is completely different, but look how starkly different 2024 United States presidential election#Campaign issues is compared to Irish general election articles. But let's also look at a political system closer to Ireland's: 2021 German federal election#Campaign. It's not a massive subsection but it does give us a sense of what sort of issues are being contested in the election at the time. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... yes, it would be nice. But what would you include? The "campaign", such as it is, has been insipid so far. Manifestos released. FG/FF/GP essentially promising more of the same (with the parties responsible for the homelessness numbers rising from circa 4,000 to over 12,000, on their watch, saying "but now we know how to solve the housing crisis, honest!"). The opposition parties saying "We'd do things somewhat differently (and we'd solve the housing crisis with this money tree!)" Though there is now, at least, an actual money tree! The far-right formed an electoral alliance to prevent splitting their vote, but forgot to tell other far-right candidates not to run. The only other controversial thing has been FG leaders canvassing for John McGahon - but just including that would be WP:UNDUE. My 2c, anyway. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be some coverage of campaign issues, both in the intro and elsewhere. But we should probably use some domestic sources. The references in the intro are to Sky, BBC and The Guardian. Aside from the possible advantage of greater objectivity from an international perspective, we should probably use more sources from the domestic media market. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[a] Refrence

[edit]

Shouldn't the note referring to the automatic return being not it those retiring but in the info box where it is called for Jonathan Teagan (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand those individual words, but not when you put them in that order. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PBP-S logo in infobox

[edit]

Would the non-free logo on People Before Profit-Solidarity have a rationale to be used here? I am not sure what the fair use situation is with the 2024 French legilsative election is, but the NFP has the alliance logo instead of the letters "NFP" Lough Swilly (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Nouveau Front Populaire 2024.svg is in the public domain as it is text and simply shapes only. Files in the Public domain can be used in as many articles as we like. File:Logo of the People Before Profit–Solidarity.svg is a non-free logo and can only be used in one single article. It's a non-runner I'm afraid.
I've argued on the Commons that Solidarity's logo should be considered PD-textlogo too, but other users don't agree. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't File:Logo of the People Before Profit–Solidarity.svg a collection of text and shapes too? People Before Profit certainly is. Maybe Solidarity's logo with its more detailed star isnt? Lough Swilly (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users on Wikimedia Commons have argued that the human figures in the Solidarity logo bring it over the threshold of originality CeltBrowne (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the publication of a new logo for PBP–S on the Electoral Commission website bring it into the public domain? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not CeltBrowne (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seats won updates

[edit]

I am away for the weekend - great timing! - and won't be editing until I'm home, but can I suggest that the number of seats won figures in the infobox aren't updated after every single announcement? There will inevitably be double-counting and missed additions. Leave them all until the final numbers are in? If retaining them, at least add a note in the box to say they're incomplete figures. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not make sense to just keep updating them? There's lots of editors keeping track. Camillz (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will inevitably be double-counting and missed additions.
It shouldn't as we're using RTÉ's live seat counter to keep it perfectly accurate CeltBrowne (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TDs who lost their seats

[edit]

@Lucky102: Violet-Anne Wynne has also lost her seat, speculatively so in fact (Her result went down by 96% from 2020). CeltBrowne (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, there should be some others there that need to be added also. --Lucky102 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you plan on doing a similar subsection for people who have become a TD for the first time? I'd like that, and it's been (If I recall correctly) done for other Irish election articles. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greens and SF are the biggest losers of this election

[edit]

Should be mentioned within the article. 2003:DA:C747:7F00:9A8:654:2EEE:AF7A (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party change in infobox

[edit]

How should party change in the infobox be indicated? In my view, it should be with the number of seats the party won at the last election, a simply comparison with 2020. This is the last time the voters got a say on the Dáil as a whole, not taking into account various movements within allegiances in that time, or vacancies created. Independent Ireland won 0 seats in 2020, as it did not exist, to 4 seats this time; the same was true of the Social Democrats in 2016 and Aontú in 2020. Adding New party in the infobox indicates that something is there to be checked, this isn't simply a case of a slow burner party. Comparisons with figures parties held at the dissolution are fraught with complications: what do you do about defections, vacancies, by-elections, etc. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the view that seat change should reflect the amount of TDs a party had at the dissolution of the Dáil rather than at the last election. Going back the entire 5 years can give readers the impression of a more dramatic swing than was actually the case. My gut feeling is that a casual reader flicking between Irish election using the "last election" tabs at the top might come away thinking a party like II had 0 TDs and gained 4 via the campaign, rather than the more accurate (in my view) depiction that the party formed with 3 TDs in hand, and have gained 1 new seat in this campaign.
If we come to a consensus here on this topic, one way or another, I'll make sure the same standard is applied to previous Irish election articles.
Please note that this is not something I'm a hardliner on, I'm entirely open to seeing the other side of the coin on this. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A counterpoint is that it underestimates a true swing from one election to another. If the seat change for Fianna Fáil in 2011 is based on seats at dissolution, it's a change based on a lower figure, given that they'd lost seats in by-elections (Brennan and Gallagher), had suffered defections (McGrath), and with some vacancies due to resignations from the Dáil (McDaid and Ardagh). Change from election to election indicates the full true swing. Is James Geoghegan's win truly a gain, or is it better to compare to 2020, given the unusual features of by-elections? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change Format of Election Article

[edit]

I am raising this issue as new. I think format should be changed to [1], following the entrance of a 10th party (100% Redress) in the Dáil. Greens won one seat, as did 100% Redress. They should have same treatment and it’s not too fair to ignore that. It is used in other articles and it doesn’t matter whether the format has pictures or not. Please voice your opinion. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - They ran 1 single candidate, they got significantly less votes that every other elected party, and they're a single issue party which is highly unlikely to exist long term. Excluding their singular TD from the infobox is not problematic. You compare them to the Green party, but the Greens previously had 12 TDs, ran 43 candidates and got many multiple times higher a vote, both in pure numbers and percentage. It's fine to compare them, it's not fair to equate them, to the Greens or any other of the parties in the Dáil. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean anything. Other election articles don’t account for what you are claiming. It’s very and just for you to exclude them just because of how many candidates they are running. Independents it would make sense because they don’t have a clear leading candidate, but this is a legitimate party. It is very fair to equate them to the Greens, as both parties got one seat. It’s not about how many candidates each party runs. I4C ran 4 candidates in 2020 and only 1 got elected and they got 0.4%. Why should this be any different? Your argument doesn’t go with how it was done before. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57, please weigh in on this discussion, as two reverts have already been made by @CeltBrowne and you actively give input on these kinds of issues. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is called canvassing and isn't allowed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument doesn’t go with how it was done before.
Neither 2002 Irish general election nor 2007 Irish general election includes the Socialist party, which only had 1 TD, so yes, there are in fact examples supporting my position from before.
Your haste to call in other users not previously involved in editing this article before local editors have even had a chance to offer their view suggests to me that you only care about rushing through Infobox legislative election, rather than what would serve the article the best. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes it does. It seems to me that you haven’t looked at 2002 or 2007 or the elections before this one. They are accounted for. Look at Workers and Unemployed Action in 2011 for example at 1 TD with 0.4%. That actually goes in my favor of the the discussion, not yours. Your arguing to try something new from what it was before. Also I didn’t realize that you were so against multiple opinions from different users. I didn’t realize that you wished to proclaimed as the King of this article and that only your decision mattered and no one else. Also, your argument that I’m trying to rush this, is a bit flawed as there are no new reverts. User:Number 57 has been around Wikipedia for a while and he has participated in discussions on election articles about this very issue, so it shouldn’t be a problem for you for him to weigh in as well. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've being extremely combative over a small issue which should easily be discussed. When you were reverted, you immediately made a threat to call in an administrator. You're now engaging in personal attacks ("I didn’t realize that you wished to proclaimed as the King of this article and that only your decision mattered and no one else"). Thus, this will be my last comment engaging directly with you unless necessary. I will simply note
It seems to me that you haven’t looked at 2002 or 2007 or the elections before this one.
I'm all over the revision history of both pages, so that's demonstratively false.
I'm not against any user weighting in, I'm against you trying to rush past local consensus. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith of other editors, consider Wikipedia:Etiquette, and in general don't become this hostile because you didn't get what you wanted immediately. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not being extremely combative. You were the one that started the hostility with how you worded your side of the discussion. You started to criticize me when I did canvassing to get other users involved, which was not appropriate. It doesn’t matter if this is your last comment that’s up to you, but the way you were saying, you made it look like no one else matters by yourself. Also you should probably get a dictionary about what personal attacks means. Personal attacks means when you attack someone’s character and start name calling someone in a derogatory way. That’s absolutely nowhere close to what I did. I really don’t appreciate these false allegations you’re trying to pull. Also there is no rush going on as no reverts have been made, but pulling in someone who is known to have conversations on this in different articles is appropriate. - FellowMellow (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, FellowMellow, but you are clearly in the wrong here. pulling in someone who is known to have conversations on this in different articles is appropriate - no. It isn't. Please actually read WP:CANVAS - it's already been pointed out to you. General announcements are fine, pre-selecting who you canvas is not ok. That's three of us telling you this, now. And as also pointed out, you did previously revert. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, there is no 3. It’s only you and @CeltBrowne. I reverted after all the edit were made. And you just made A REVERT YOURSELF JUST NOW!! It’s actually 2:2. Not 2:3. Read it carefully please.
@Boardwalk.Koi please weigh in also. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have "weighed in" already. To be clear I am against including 100%R in the infobox. I also think you are bickering unnecessarily over a minor issue that other editors are discussing civilly. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- 100% redress is a single issue party that ran a single candidate in one constituency. From a national perspective Charles Ward might as well be an independent TD. The primary function of the infobox is to provide an overview of the national result, including 100%R won't add any clarity to the infobox, it'll do the opposite. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very very unfortunate to leave them out. - FellowMellow (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have a preference for smaller infoboxes as being more useful to the reader. To quote MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". To take an example with this infobox, I'm not sure what benefit the leaders' seats give here. But even beyond that, a simple talbe showing seat totals and changes easily show the reader what happened in the election, as opposed to the noise of the current format. Larger election infoboxes for elections also don't display that well on mobile devices, with the 3 × 3 table requiring horizontal scrolling.
As to the inclusion of single-TD parties, good comparisons might be the inclusion of WUA in 2011 Irish general election, a party very much centred on Séamus Healy (elected as an independent this year), but with other councillors, or the inclusion of the DSP in 1987 Irish general election, which theoretically national, was very much a Jim Kemmy party.
As to process, I agree that calling out one editor with known views counts as canvassing. A notice somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums would not. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding 100% Redress, but to the current, larger, infobox, not the shorter one. While I take Iveagh Gardens point on concision (yes, the leaders' constituencies should be removed!), the photos and additional relevant information offered - the key facts - are useful to the reader. Again, re-iterating to FellowMellow, you need to get clear consensus for inclusion; a 3:2 "majority" isn't it. Stop edit warring, and actually let this discussion unfold? It's literally been less than 24 hours, and there is no rush. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very bold of you to accuse me of that when I am still participating in this discussion, while @CeltBrowne said he will no longer participate. Very hypocritical.
    I do however will make concessions wherever necessary. A different infobox than my proposal but with 100% Redress added. See… I guess I can can make compromises, that you thought I couldn’t make. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the "larger one" (Template:Infobox election) can only support up to 9 parties (it's a very annoying issue that has caused many an argument on many an election article), so adding 100% Redress is not possible.
    You may have to consider altering your vote as the only options are:
    • An infobox with images that displays 9 parties
    • An infobox with no iamges that displays 10 parties
    I continue to remain a part of the discussion, I'm just not interacting directly with a highly combative user. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, well you should know as you’ve been the only highly combative user here. I guess I can accuse you also of personal attacks as you just called me "highly combative"
    I am open to compromise, but a larger infobox won’t support it and @CeltBrowne isn’t open to compromises. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also @CeltBrowne if you didn’t come off as rude towards me, we could have kept it civil. If you refuse to discuss this or isolate anyone, I will report it to an administrator to intervene. You should do what @Iveagh Gardens and @Bastun is doing in finding compromises. I’m all in favor of compromises. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Either go ahead and report this discussion to an Administrator now or stop trying to intimidate users with the threat of doing so. This is the 4th or 5th time either here or or in the edit history you have threatened the intervention of an administrator. I don't believe an Administrator should tolerate your behaviour at all and I am perfectly happy for an Administrator to review this discussion.
    I've never been against compromise. What compromise are you proposing? As I've just stated, Template:Infobox election can only display 9 parties at a time, so what is the suggest compromise? CeltBrowne (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop lying. It’s very uncool for you to do so and stop the persistent bickering. I said that I would reported if you continue to make reverts without actively participating. You also said and I have it now that you were trying to isolate me from the discussion and making false allegations about me, which I can report. I didn’t say it to any other user because they were actively participating and trying to find compromise, unlike your actions. What I said was completely just after what you tried to do. It will probably seem erratic of me if I said I would report everybody, but that was only applied to you, but I’m very happy to hear about your opinion.
    You are against compromising. You keep reverting it and try to minimize how much you participate in this discussion. The compromise that I’ve offered that you didn’t read is the use of a different infobox than what I proposed for 100% Redress being acknowledged. You have so far not offered any kind of alternative of your own and still remain on what you said, in the very beginning. That’s not compromise. The more you keep reverting, the more you are against compromising. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been reverted by users other than me, do not frame events in that a way that suggests only I have done this.
    I did not "isolate" you; if anything I isolated myself. I stopped replying to you unless needed. I have the right to withdraw from any conversation I do not wish to participate in.
    Template:Infobox Election cannot support 10 parties, and myself and others have said we are not in favour of Template:Infobox legislative election, so what are you suggesting as a compromise? CeltBrowne (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now removing myself from this discussion as it seems pretty clear to me that neither @CeltBrowne nor @Bastun are willing to have a normal discussion and are both accusing me of hostility, when the same has been directed towards me from both users and now having a threatening message from @Bastun on my talk page. I am now removing myself from the situation. If you wish to have incorrect information, that’s fine. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have accused me of being a hypocrite and accused CeltBrowne of lying(!) - that's manifest hostility! You have also reverted, three times now. Consider this your 3RR warning. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right back at you as you are also in violation of 3RR. I wouldn’t have been as hostile as I was if it weren’t for you two for opening the discussion in a very rude manner! Also, I said you were hypocritical, because you didn’t acknowledge the hostility that was launched towards me, but you defended the other user. Highly inappropriate. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've admitted you've been hostile. That's a start. I literally reverted your addition once, so no, I am not in violation of 3RR. CeltBrowne reverted twice, after pointing out you needed to gain consensus for inclusion. You made your change, got reverted, you re-reverted - while claiming you haven't. But you know we can see the page history, yes? I've linked your revert. Anyway, best we leave it there. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Context matters. I think 100% Redress should be included separately as a party and not an independent, but it doesn't warrant a place in the infobox. Besides, we've already had 10 parties before this; The 2020 Irish general election infobox doesn't include Right to Change, but that's okay, because Joan Collins wasn't running a national organisation. The Greens are a national party. Aontú are a national party. The Socialist Party are a national party. 100% Redress isn't, so it doesn't need to be included. Lough Swilly (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I just realised why Joan Collins isn't included, she was elected as I4C before creating RTC. Lough Swilly (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify My support isn't because I think there should be parity between 100% Redress and the Green Party, as we can make rational distinctions between parties based on whether one of a national or local party. The current template doesn't imply that it includes all parties. My reason for preferring a change is that the infobox is too big. This is particularly true when viewing the page on a mobile. Using the iOS app, only the first two in each row are visible when I scroll down (Martin, McDonald; Cairns, Bacik; PBP-S, Tóibín). I also think that's a lot of information to scroll through for someone who casually want to check what the figures are. On the other hand, the inclusion of images adds a nice visual element to it, which otherwise the article would be bereft of. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support we need all elected parties not just only 9. Current infobox does not show the full results. Shadow4dark (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation of some map-making choices:

[edit]

Hi! I’m the creator of the election maps (going back a few cycles). I think it’s necessary to address some of the potential concerns.

I retained the old Solidarity–PBP maroon to maintain year-on-year consistency, following a practice common among mainstream outlets like RTÉ.

For Independent Ireland, I picked a darker, slightly yellowish shade of green to distinguish it from Fianna Fáil. Since II was the plurality FPV party in Roscommon-Galwa, doing this prevent II’s color ramp from overloading FF’s. I used a similar approach in past election maps to differentiate the Green Party, whose color was also hard to differentiate from FF.

The 100% Redness Party was not listed separately but included in the independent total, as its activity is mostly confined to Donegal, where it fielded just one candidate.

If you found any mistakes or have suggestions please leave it here or on my Commons’s talk page. 沁水湾 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, it's clear and informative. But clearly, we have too many parties with green as their predominant colour! :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that we need to reconsider the colours of Aontú, Independent Ireland, maybe even the Greens on Wikipedia. Lough Swilly (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giving the Greens a non green colour might be hard to justify... Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant perhaps on Wikipedia the Greens should be reverted to lime green instead of the current shade they have now (as much as I do like that particular shade). Would make it distinct from Fianna Fáil.
Independent Ireland should definitely be at least a different shade but probably needs to be an entirely different colour. Lough Swilly (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Workers and Unemployed Action only contested South Tipp in 2011 but it's included separately on that map. 100% Redress was a registered party and was on the ballot paper. Lough Swilly (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good work, the map looks great! I do think you should list 100% Redress separately as they are a registered political party, same as the rest.
There were no Labour or PBP candidates elected in Donegal, so colour clashes shouldn't be an issue there. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there's a small mistake in some of the maps. The Sinn Féin and Fine Gael maps have Limerick City in white when they each won a seat from there. Purpley24 (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout

[edit]

I notice that there is switching in the turnout figures between 59.7% and 60.1% in the main template box. 59.7% is the figure cited by RTÉ and other media sources, however, that figure excludes spoilt votes. With spoilt votes, the turnout figure is 60.1%. Which figure should be used for the template? I would be of the view that turnout should be marked as 60.1% given the fact that in order to spoil your ballot, you still need to turn up to vote. Lucky102 (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally accepted practice to use the total poll, rather than the total valid poll, as the figure for turnout purposes, so we should use the 60.1% figure, once properly sourced. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I’ve come to respond as the editor who re-instated the 59.7% figure and cited the RTÉ source before the edit was reverted again to 60.1%. I’ve had a look through to the previous Irish general election pages on here and seen that the voter turnout figure has always been the figure stated by the media, excluding the 2020 election page as the figure has recently been edited. The graph in the source I had cited [2] shows clearly the turnout percentage from previous years and the Wikipedia pages turnout figures has matched these published by RTÉ. Such as the 65.1% shown in the 2016 page, 69.9% in 2011, 67% in 2007 and so on. The turnout figures on Wikipedia has never included spoilt votes, nor has the media, and if so I’ve seen no sources, never mind reliable sources, to support these figures that include spoilt votes. I believe it is misleading and WP:NOR for using 60.1% for the 2024 turnout, as I’ve found no source to back this up. Albeit, the figure could be correct including the total poll, but there are no sources to support such figure. With that being said, the turnout in the 2020 page should also be re-instated to the 62.9% turnout as correctly published by RTÉ and other media sources. Or perhaps a footnote to say this figure includes spoilt votes should be included, but that would mean changing figures and adding footnotes to the previous election articles which will be tedious. I hope I’ve directed my point across. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Edl-irishboy: use the citable source, i.e., 59.7%, total valid poll, for the reasons stated. Satisfies WP:RS and WP:NOR. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an article at RTÉ.ie a few days after the election which said that it's easier to add people to the electoral register than to get them off it, and that there are about 500,000 excess people on the register. The article continued that this would affect the true turnout statistic, by raising it.
The article, Register could be off by 500,000 names, says:
The national turnout for Election 24 was down to 59.7%, marking the lowest turnout since 1923, the last time the number was below 60%.
The turnout percentage is calculated based on the registered number of potential voters and An Coimisún Toghcháin has warned that the accuracy of that register will soon be reassessed.
However, Art O'Leary - the chief executive of the commission - outlined that the register contains many duplicates, as well as the names of people who have died.
Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Mr O’Leary said the headline turnout figure "is a very blunt measure by which to judge the performance ... or the engagement of people generally with democracy". (My emphasis.)
"...our turnout was probably 10% more than we think it was." (My emphasis.)
Another article at RTÉ.ie, How electoral register flaws skew turnout data, says:
Psephologist Odran Flynn, who first started analysing Ireland’s electoral register two decades ago, believes an inaccurate electoral register is a leading factor in Ireland’s low election turnout figures.
Dr Kavanagh says the "messiness" of the electoral register is likely causing turnout figures being completely inaccurate in a lot of areas across the country. (My emphasis.)
After deaths in my family, I have e-mailed the registry with a link to the online death notices (said he, virtuously), and the dead were removed from the database quickly, but I believe few people think to do that following deaths.
After my addition of the voter turnout percentage in the Results section of this article, I considered modifying my note by adding the observation that while the official turnout figure was the lowest for a general election since the foundation of the state, that statistic is unreliable because of the misleading voter's register, and that one expert said that turnout was probably ten percent higher. But I cannot know what a turnout figure would actually look like if the register were corrected.
Here is a link to search results for even more recent articles at RTÉ.ie about dodgy voter turnout figures. Spideog (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this is good analysis and observation, I'm afraid we need a consensus. I propose the turnout figure to be 59.7% for my reasons I've highlighted. @Iveagh Gardens: @Lucky102: @Bastun: — Note, I’ve made the WP:BOLD move to reinstate this figure. Any objections please feel free to comment here. Edl-irishboy (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dáil seats out of candidates nominated table should be removed

[edit]

I would like to suggest that the "Dáil seats out of candidates nominated" table be removed.

It conveys no useful information and can be very misleading. The table was added for the 2020 election where it appears to show one party as very successful when in fact that party made a huge error and failed to nominate enough candidates.

To give another example, party A might nominate 1 candidate in a constituency in the hope of winning 1 seat. Party B might nominate 2 candidates with the same intention of winning 1 seat. If both parties win 1 seat then both party's election strategies have been equally successful even though party A had a 100% success rate and party B only 50%. Aistriuvotai (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is misleading at best. Removed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Irish_general_election&oldid=1264926235"