Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election/Archives/2012/June

New format

As of recently, I've modified a bit the tables in order to make them more visually attractive. The party colours are now the party ones, not just 'blue', 'red' or 'yellow'. Since the table and font sizes have been reduced, new space for a % lead column was available. Impru20 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather have it as it was (but with colour changes, obviously) and I would quite like consistency on this article with the polling article for 2005-2010, preferably in this format. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As it was, but how exactly? Keep the lead column (to keep consistency with 2005-2010) and resize it back to its original size? Remove all of it altogether? Impru20 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got a idea for it. Resizing it back to its former size, while applying the colour changes to the 2005-2010 article. Impru20 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Forget the appearance, that's the least of this article's worries. UKIP now has to have it's own table before Wikipedia is labeled Anti-UKIP.(97daviee (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC))

You know, this is not an anti-UKIP wikipedia, but it isn't 97daviee's wikipedia either. Thus, stop giving orders and to keep editing UKIP in, because first of all, a consensus must be reached. Then, enough data must be gathered for it to be a viable option. So please, patience. Impru20 (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making myself clear. I would quite like no lead column. Sorry for making you confused!! Spa-Franks (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But why should it be removed? Other countries' election opinion polls have it, so does the 2005-2010 UK opinion polling article, and in my opinion it's a more visually and quick way to see the advantage of the first party over the second. Of course, you could argue that a reader could just do the math by himself, but if there are too many dates and too many percentages this could get confusing. Impru20 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided to be done, please reduce the size of the lead section drastically. At the moment, it's way too big, and looks a bit ugly (in my opinion). I think the size that you have in the above example is just perfect. – Richard BB 23:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I applied the same formula I used for the Spanish election article. The box and the font are reduced in size, thus making them more visually appealing. It also has the advantage of the table occupying less space in the article, and thus being quicker to read. For the moment I'll leave it like that until I see your opinions. Impru20 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You have decided to change the lead table, just for appearence reasons, but knowing full well that adding a UKIP table is more important.(97daviee (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Is it just my browser, or is the "lead" section being stretched out (width-wise) to the end of the page? It seems to be different to the above example, which has a "lead" section only as big as the number within it. Oh, and Daviee, not everyone agrees that it is more important. – Richard BB 13:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This was happening on my browser too (Firefox). I've added a width parameter into the cell which should have fixed the problem. It has with my browser, so hopefully that's fixed it universally, and tidied the table up. On a similar note, does anyone else think the 'Polling organisation/client' column could also be reduced slightly - it takes up a lot of the table, but most of it seems to be white space.Spiritofsussex (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming outrageous. You are talking about the appearance, but you aren't actually addressing the real issue of adding a UK Independence Party table.(97daviee (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

I believe the widening of the "lead" section is also due to someone replacing the 0% lead for the word "Tied". That said, the word takes more width to fit into the table. Before the change, it looked like this: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=492671439. And Daviee, the issue has been already assessed. Once the UKIP wins a seat in the Commons, its inclusion into the table will be discussed. Again, they have no relevance as of now, no matter what the opinion polls say. They are opinion polls after all, not the actual election results. By the same reason, someone could also argue why the Green Party is not there, or why the BNP or the SNP aren't neither. We can't have all of them in, so there must be some requirements for a party to be added. Impru20 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No wonder you haven't added a UKIP table, you don't even know how opinion polls work, they don't use seats as a measurement, they use percentages, and UKIP is ahead of the Lib Dems.(97daviee (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

I have perfect knowledge about how opinion polls work. That's why I know they may fail, and in fact they are not an accurate representation of what the society actually thinks. There are just too many factors out there: which polling institute did the survey (the question here would be more tied to "which ideology it has"), how large the sample size is, the kind of % they use as reference, etc. Percentages which aren't converted into seats mean little. By the way, your statement about opinion polls not using seats as a measurement is false. Just check the 2015 Spanish general election article to see some opinion polls which also include seat projections. Impru20 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you obvisouly don't know how opinion polls work. If you really believe opinion polls are that unaccurate, there would be no point of having this article, so you just have to put down the results of the opinion polls, and to be correct you have to add a UKIP table as UKIP is ahead of the Lib Dems.(Politico100 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC))

It is you who don't seem to know how opinion polls work. They aren't meant to predict the future, but rather to measure the present (that's why most opinion poll-based news tend to state if general elections were held today, these would (in contrast to will) be the results. Opinion polls say what could happen, not what will happen. If you have the certainty (that is, 100% sure) that UKIP will replace Lib Dem from now on as the third political force in the UK up until the next general election, then give me a consistent source and proof for it and I will consider adding them to the table. As WP:CRYSTAL states, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; neither are opinion polls. Impru20 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Politico100, you seem to talk and behave exactly as 97daviee, and both of your user pages have a similar description. I don't know what to think about it. Impru20 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that does seem to be an interesting coincidence... I will keep my eye on it. Bkissin (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• See conclusion of previous sub-head section. Politico100 and 97daviee are indeed one and the same person. As are some others. Eyes open and stay alert for sockpuppets on this and other UKIP related articles/talk pages. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)