Talk:Opinion polling for the April 2019 Spanish general election

Graphical summary

La scadenza della legislatura eletta tramite il voto del 26 giugno 2016 scade il 26 luglio 2020, mentre il grafico attualmente qui presente arriva solamente al gennaio 2020; io vi consiglio di correggere il grafico per i motivi appena descritti: lo farei io stesso, ma io non so come si fa; scusate il disturbo.--151.67.39.212 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Turnout evolution

Just as a suggestion, would it be possible that the turnout indicated in the polls and in the article table appeared in the graph to see its evolution? --Togiad (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, because it wouldn't be really comparable to party polling trend lines. Not all polls show turnout (but all of them show party polling) so showing it in the chart could mislead readers rather than actually helping them. Impru20 (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Redondo & Asociados

I think Iván Redondo has just published an estimation in this opinion article: Esta semana el PP se sitúa en un 29%, el PSOE cerca del 23%, Unidos Podemos en casi un 22% y Ciudadanos en más de un 16% (...). However, it is not a poll, so I don't know if it should be included. I wouldn't do it, but I wanted to open this discussion. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As the estimations of JM & Asociados and the Invymark polls (which have no information about the sample size) are included in this article, I have changed of opinion. I am going to add the Redondo & Asociados estimation, but if anyone thinks it shouldn't be there, I will understand it and support the removal of the estimation. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

1977 parties

It seems a bit ludicrous that this poll is even included on this page... sure, it's interesting, a poll of voting intentions, and conducted prior to the next general election, but I don't think it can be described as polling for the "next Spanish general election" (unless I'm missing something, the 1977 parties aren't going to be returning in time for the next general election). Mélencron 23:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's why it's included in the "hypothetical scenarios" section. Surely, most or none of these will be happening, yet those are polls are as such were conducted. In the case of the 1977 parties, it's a bit absurd but it was seemingly done and it was used to compare it to current voting intentions, so it may be of interest. Impru20 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 NC Report poll problems

Hello, I only wanted to say that there are several problems with the June 2017 NC Report poll when we try to find the fieldwork date and the sample size. If I'm not wrong, we usually use the documents published by La Razón to find this information (May 2017 example). However, this time there is a big problem: June 2017 document show a wrong fieldwork date (5-11 April 2017) and its title isn't right either (Encuesta NC Report Mayo 2017), although the seats and porcentages of each parties are the ones of the June 2017 poll. What should we do with that? Finally, sorry for my poor English. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion

Impru20, what's wrong here? The parties I removed from the table were all polling consistently very low. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: You are again removing parties on the basis of subjective criteria of what is considered as "very low". I understand that there could be a need to remove parties at Opinion polling for the 2015 Spanish general election because the table was too wide and had too many parties, but what is the issue here? There are just 11 parties here and the table causes no width issues. Impru20^talk 21:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It's unnecessary detail which clutters the table. 11 parties is still a lot of parties, especially when some of them are very insignificant. Width is not only an issue when it extends off the screen on a desktop monitor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh, no. Again, this is your perception of what "unnecessary detail" is, which may cause some WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRYPICK issues as, basically, you are intent on applying your own point of view over what sources report. Width is not an issue here as the table's width is rather small, so I don't think there is any necessity justifying the removal of any data here. Impru20^talk 21:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Then it's just as subjective to say that they aren't polling too low. Most sources do not report every party's result, they mostly stick to the results for the main four parties. A column here for the Canarian Coalition can clearly be seen as WP:UNDUEWEIGHT as reliable sources aren't talking about their results as much as they are about PSOE's results. In the end it's an editorial decision how we choose to present the information. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The different issue is than, rather that choosing myself whether they poll "too low", which would be a subjective decision, I make my decision based in objective data: i.e. what the sources report. If sources report them, we list them, because that will always be less subjective that cherry-picking data ourselves. Under your own criteria, Vox wouldn't have been included in the table until well into 2018. We do not predict the future, and we won't know whether these parties will be determinant or not until the election does actually take place, something you seem to always ignore.

Further, you don't seem to have a profound knowledge of Spanish politics; Canarian Coalition's single seat was determinant in the election and survival of the Rajoy government up until its downfall, when the PNV switched sides. And, as some polls suggest and explicitly hint, they may be determinant for a right-of-centre government if the combined PP-Cs-Vox support does not reach a majority of seats. Who're you to cherry pick whether CC and other parties are not "determinant"? You still have failed to provide a non-subjective reason, outside of your own choosing, so as to why they would require to be removed. Impru20^talk 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all please don't insult my knowledge, I do happen to have a profound knowledge of Spanish politics and political history, that is why I am here. Yes, Vox should not have been reported in the table until they became notable. This is not my own analysis, it's simply that the polling results for these very small parties aren't reported in the media with nearly as much attention as the major parties are. There has to be a sensible cut-off here and you seem to be relying on the raw information from the polling data, but we determine what is notable based on reliable secondary sources. If the role of the Canarian Coalition is notable regarding the minority government (and I agree it is) then that belongs there, it doesn't make it notable in other areas where it isn't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a presidential system, but a parliamentary one. Parliamentary relevance is what counts here. You said that CC was "insignificant" and I said how they weren't. Secondly, what you say about Vox is relevant: in the discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 Spanish general election, you put the cut-off in parties securing 2% (well, one of them, before you kept changing your own cut-off criteria as the discussion developed). Vox did secure 2% in several polls before the Andalusian regional election, yet you are now defending that they shouldn't have been included. Concurrently, you did remove PACMA from the table, despite them also polling above 2% in a number of polls. So, what's the cut-off? Whatever you say depending on the article and the moment? And thirdly: There has to be a sensible cut-off here Seriously? What guideline or rule says that? Or is it you alone? So, to make a basic comparison, when coming to including election results at the proper election articles, should we also discriminate between parties depending on their result according to specific, subjective criteria? And an additional point on what you say about secondary sources: most of the sources showing results for CC (or others, btw) are secondary sources, so this argument has little to offer.

Sorry, but what you are doing here, as you already did in the other article, is an exercise of WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRYPICK, with the additional situation that there is no issue here requiring a removal of parties to fix it. Impru20^talk 21:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said the cutoff would have been 2%, I only observed that the parties I was removing had only polled below 2%, except for possibly some minor exceptions like you did describe. I don't think 2% is a cutoff at all and I never have, because that would be a very low cutoff. I'm sorry that you were mislead to believe I was saying that was a form of cutoff. The two basic principles that are relevant here are to follow reliable sources and to give proper weight. It's simply not true that reliable sources report on all the polling results of each party that is polled, you'll only find all the information where it's directly published by a polling organisation. Combining these principles we should strike a balance between presenting relevant information and being concise, particularly for mobile devices. CC being relevant to the minority government doesn't make it relevant in national polling, it's just relevant to the events that made it notable. It's far better for it to be detailed in regional polling. WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRYPICK are ridiculous accusations, there is no political bias in excluding the smallest political parties, and retaining the largest political parties is the exact opposite of cherrypicking. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed parties and groups who only ever polled under 2%, hadn't won any seats in 2011 or 2015, and most of the time were completely omitted by polling organisations, many of whom were regional parties This was the set of criteria you laid out at first for removing some of these parties; as the discussion progressed you had to change or bring new criteria is it became obvious you were contradicting yourself in some cases. That's another discussion obviously, but it perfectly shows how subjective this is. Now, here you are aiming to remove: 1) some national parties that are polling above 2%; 2) parties that did won seats in the previous election; 3) parties that are reported by most polling organisations. Basically the contrary to what you proposed back then, thus adding new criteria dependant on your own point of view. Indeed, what you say now is not what you said back then.

you'll only find all the information where it's directly published by a polling organisation This is false and is easily verifiable, because whenever a poll is commissioned by a media outlet, the secondary source is always provided here. You only need to check the media outlets sourced in the article to see that they report on all the results offered in the opinion poll. In fact, it's quite rare for a polling organisation to directly publish their polling data for vote estimations; only the CIS, GAD3 and SocioMétrica currently do this, and the latter two do not always do so. Celeste-Tel used to do it, but does not do so as of currently.

there is no political bias in excluding the smallest political parties There is a bias in cherry-picking which data from an opinion poll we show and which we don't. I have not said it is a political one, though.

I don't think at all that this table is the most troubling one in Wikipedia for mobile devices, and I'm not seeing you (randomly) shrinking thousands of tables throughout Wikipedia under that reasoning, so let me doubt about this argument as well. Further, since when are we required to sacrifice WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY for the sake of (a rather subjective view of) conciseness? Impru20^talk 22:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me absolutely clear, I was describing the parties that I had removed from the table and judged that to be polling about below 2% consistently. I think you are saying subjective when you mean to say arbitrary, because it's not subjective. Again, it's not about who the polling organisations report, it's about how the reliable media sources take that polling information and report it, that's our guide to determine who should be there. When I detailed what I had removed, that was not me detailing the criteria for removing them at all, that was simply me describing what I had removed. There is no bias, political or otherwise, regarding removing the lowest polling entries, that is simply absurd. Then there's that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which I'm sure it does, but that doesn't mean we can't improve this article, especially with an upcoming election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You removed some parties on the basis of some arguments, which you then modified or changed throughout that discussion. As said, I just mentioned this to highlight how subjective this is, that the same and different arguments are used here and there, depending on circumstances. I mean subjective because it is influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than on facts. That most sources, be them primary or (mostly) secondary do report opinion polling results for all these parties is a fact, but selectively choosing what data to show is an opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but noting on that, though, you'd maybe also know that consistency is important in Wikipedia. And applying different criteria for party inclusion, based on personal views and depending on the specific article does not help Wikipedia improvement.

especially with an upcoming election Yes, and this worries me the most because we shouldn't be giving the impression of presenting cherry-picked information when we're on the eve of a general election taking place. Again, I'm not saying there is a political bias, but there is obviously a bias, even if out of "significantness", in the random exclusion of some parties from the table. For two and a half years the presence of CC, Bildu and PACMA has not caused any issues. I can't know how this has suddenly become one right after the election was announced, specially now that, for the next two months, opinion polls (many of them more detailed than those typically published in the inter-election period) are going to come out in a constant and increasing pace. Impru20^talk 23:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. You have not backed up your claims that I am being subjective or bias with any evidence. You've just said that I had certain criteria for another article than I do here. Obviously it's not an issue until someone brings it up as an issue, and now I am. The idea that this has become an issue only when the election was announced is a complete nonsense and you really should know better. I have not known you to make these desperate kind of arguments, you're acting as if removing these parties from the table is a personal attack against you. Please stay on topic, about whether these parties should be included in the table. Accusations of me being subjective or biased in any way whatsoever, while wrong, are completely irrelevant to whether these parties should be included. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The attempted removal of the columns and your own arguments here are the evidence of it. I already pointed it to you but I'll repeat it for you if you need further clarification. You say you are not subjective, but concurrently you have said The parties I removed from the table were all polling consistently very low. + 11 parties is still a lot of parties, especially when some of them are very insignificant. (These two claims, for instance, are wholly subjective) + Most sources do not report every party's result + you'll only find all the information where it's directly published by a polling organisation (these additional two are outrighly false claims, as most sources do report on every party's result and most provided sources are from media outlets, not directly published by the polling organisation. Again, this is easily verifiable checking the sources in the table itself). This, coupled with ad hominem fallacies with absolutely no backing such as There has to be a sensible cut-off here (you still have not responded where this... requirement? is justified). I can post more if you wish. In essence, reliable secondary sources report these results, so their exclusion is not based on what they say, but on what you opine. Thus, being subjective. This is wholly on-topic so don't try to bring this off-topic yourself. If being subjective results in the cherry-picking of data, that goes against Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK and, I'd even say, WP:SYNTH.

And just to reply to your initial WP:UNDUE claim in this discussion, UNDUE refers to "give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". This refers to subjects, views and positions when considered at large. In this case, each poll has its own source, opinion polling data is presented in each source equally for all parties (take as an example the latest GAD3 poll, with CC or Bildu figures being clearly included) and most sources do report on these, so there's no situation where merely reporting on these parties polling figures would be UNDUE.

I hope I've now provided all the information you sought, I'm still waiting for you to actually explain why "there has to be a cut-off" and what are the issues that these columns are causing requiring their removal, among other issues that have been raised throughout the discussion. I agree that this is getting quite tedious so please, keep it short already. Impru20^talk 00:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Well I can categorically assure you that I'm not being subjective. I want to use the website you have linked as an example, because it's important. This is the sort of thing that I'm talking about, the reliable media sources do not treat Canarian Coalition the same as they would treat PSOE, and this really should be obvious. The only place they mention Canarian Coalition is a sentence with other small parties briefly describing how a major party could reach a majority in parliament, not any discussion about the polling results of CC. The only place their polling results are detailed are in an accompanying graphic, and even there it is not treated as equal with the larger parties since they are very much graphically diminished on purpose in the half-pie chart and the column chart. I stress further that this is the citation that you chose, not me. The article talks about the polling results of PP, PSOE and Vox, but not Canarian Coalition or EH Bildu. I didn't think this would be a revelation to anybody, so I think judging my claims as false was really just not knowing what I was actually saying, rather than deliberate exaggeration or attack.

The reason "there has to be a cut-off" is for presentation purposes. Ultimately it's up to us to decide who is included and who isn't, and we should make that judgement based on what is most useful and most concise to the reader. It's unhelpful to the readers if only the two main parties are included, and it's unhelpful if there were dozens of parties included. If I'm biased or subjective then so are the reliable sources since those are who I am going from. You can put down the accusation of cherrypicking too, since not only is it not a violation of Wikipedia policy, it's not anything to do with the definition of cherrypicking. To suggest that very small parties should be included other than you simply believe they should is likewise WP:NPOV and very WP:UNDUE. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I can categorically assure you that I'm not being subjective This is not what you have shown yourself in this discussion so far (or in the other, btw). Your reasonings and explanations come from your own opinion and do not rely on what sources say. The La Vanguardia source I'm linking says:

De hecho, PP y Ciudadanos reunirían hoy solo 157 diputados (doce menos que en el 2016) y sus opciones quedarían totalmente a expensas del resultado de Vox, que obtendría 16 escaños. El problema para los socialistas es que una mayoría alternativa al centro y la derecha exigiría incluso el apoyo de Bildu para alcanzar la meta de los 176 diputados. Sin el concurso de los radicales vascos, y en el supuesto de lograr el respaldo de ERC, PDECat, PNV y Coalición Canaria, Pedro Sánchez podría reunir una amalgama de 175 escaños, la mitad de la Cámara y el símbolo más evidente de la situación de bloqueo político.

Yes, they treating CC the same as they would treat PSOE: as a party which could or could not be relevant for government formation. This in the text; when we check the data itself, they show no difference in treatment for PSOE and CC, aside from the number of votes or seats each one gets, which not really a difference in treatment but just the objective, impartial data. This is like this for many other sources in the table.

The issue here is that, while reliable sources may be subjective (or not, opining that they are subjective is another subjective approach in itself), this is what the sources say. You are not a reliable source, so excuse me if I give what sources show more value that your own point of view. The reason "there has to be a cut-off" is for presentation purposes. Ultimately it's up to us to decide who is included and who isn't, and we should make that judgement based on what is most useful and most concise to the reader. Again, this is a subjective appreciation; you're not expalining where this "has to be a cut-off" stance is required in Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Rather, you're giving out your own, biased stance so as to why some parties should be shown and why others shouldn't. While it is respectable, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies, so if we have to choose about an alleged, subjective conciseness necessity and sacrificing NPOV, the latter weighs more. Further, you say that this would be most concise to the reader, but no reader but you has complained on the table conciseness or lack of it for two and a half years, so let me doubt about that as well. Finally, this is a table; I do not understand what concept of "conciseness" do you seem to have, because it relates to expressing something without unnecessary words. You can be concise in text, but removing entire columns of data is not conciseness, it is exclusion.

I explained how your stance is NPOV and how this is not UNDUE, whereas you are not explaining anything other that CC must be removed just because you feel like it, just as you did in the other page. Sorry, but even if you don't like it, this is NPOV and CHERRYPICK. Impru20^talk 08:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I already said they do mention Canarian Coalition, but it's not with the same weight that they mention PSOE and PP. Even when presenting the data they don't present them equally. They use a hemispheric pie chart and a bar chart to indicate seats and votes respectively, and they give Canarian Coalition smaller amount of space than the bigger parties, so even when they are just conveying data they are giving CC less weight. They don't mention the polling for CC in the article, they just mention CC in terms of the possibility of government formation, while they explicitly mention in the text the polling for parties like PSOE and Vox. This article indicates to us that CC is notable enough for us to talk about government formation (such as the main article about the election), but not in the polling table. It's not that a party isn't allowed to be shown or anything, it's just that we make a conscious choice of which parties to include based on how we judge the information can be best presented. I have never once said that Canarian Coalition should be excluded "because I feel like it", and this is a blatant lie which you should withdraw. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

They do treat them equally in the presentation of data (obviously, they can't give CC more space than their vote and seat allocation entitles them too, but that is not the result an editorial decision but something mathematic), and the "weight" compared to other parties is, again, something subjective. Which is the "required weight" in a source for a party to be considered as noteworthy in the table under your standards? In the text, PNV, Bildu, ERC or PDeCAT are treated equally to CC in that source. If you still have doubts, you may still use other sources, such as El Español's poll from today.

What troubles me is 1) That you fail to acknowledge that all of your previous reasoning has been dismounted, to the point you are now purposedly distorting the source I presented to try to convey it backs your stance, when in fact it does the contrary; and 2) Is all of this really needed just to exclude one or two columns from the table? NPOV doubts will be very difficult to be dissipated with your current reasoning, and this discussion is getting too tedious for the mere effort of trying to exclude a particular set of parties from the table on the eve of a general election. And yes, it is because you feel like it, put it in the words you wish (being subjective, going against NPOV, whatever): it is the result of your own subjectiveness to judge which parties are insignificant enough to be excluded from the table. You have provided no Wikipedia policy backing such a need to remove parties, the parties you seek to remove are reported in a majority of secondary sources, you are mistaking conciseness with exclusion and the table itself causes no issues as it currently is (unlike what happened at Opinion polling for the 2015 Spanish general election), so I can't really understand all of this effort just to have CC removed. Impru20^talk 09:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You're not addressing what I'm saying. My criteria is following these sources. Those parties are reported in secondary sources, but not their polling results. It's appropriate to talk about them in articles but not to put their polling results in the table. The polling is only detailed in a graphic where the larger parties are given far large weight because they've put the polling results into a column chart. In the article they discuss the polling of parties like Vox and PSOE but not Canarian Coalition. CC is just a party that I am using an example here, it's not just CC. They are not represented equally in data, they have used a visual representation and not listing the data. I don't want to be expending much effort here, I think you are the one making this a big deal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed what you said several times, the issue here is that your criteria is to selectively choose what to use from these sources, and that you won't accept nothing that isn't the exclusion of these parties from the table. Those parties are reported in secondary sources, but not their polling results Once again, this is false, they are reported, and I don't know how you think you'll convince me or anyone else of the contrary when this is very easily verifiable; telling a lie a thousand times wont' make it true, and this is getting seriously tedious. You are intent on unilaterally interpreting what counts as "reporting" in sources and what counts as significant or not. You have not even addressed any of my issues when I required you to explain what was the Wikipedia policy requiring us to have a cut-off nor have you explained what were the issues that these parties were causing here. I don't know what else can be said. Impru20^talk 06:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the graphs where they have the polling results, I'm talking about the text of the article. I don't know why you're persistent on this about requiring a policy necessary to improve the table, but I've already said it's undue weight to include these parties and I've linked the policies about undue weight. There is also WP:DETAIL and I would also look at WP:BECONCISE. You just keep asserting that you've already proven what I'm saying is false, but typically this is misunderstanding what I'm saying. I haven't said Canarian Coalition isn't mentioned in the article at all, nor did I say there wasn't a graphic that contained polling results for parties which includes Canarian Coalition. What I said was that the article gave much more weight in the graphic to the polling results for the larger parties (it didn't only give the numbers), and nowhere in the text of the article do they talk about the polling results of Canarian Coalition. You're making it out like I'm saying the article doesn't mention Canarian Coalition at all, which is disingenuous. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And I said that your remark is false with either the graphs or the text. You intend to re-interpret what secondary sources say to reach your own conclusion in favour of excluding parties from the table, which is not even close to what these sources report.

I don't know why you're persistent on this about requiring a policy necessary to improve the table 1) Because your own point of view does not serve as a valid requirement for a cut-off being added; 2) You explictly say it, you see excluding other parties from the tables as an "improvement", whereas I don't, as excluding information is never an improvement (further, to improve means the table has some issues now, which you are still not clarifying). It's not undue weight, which I already explained why above. DETAIL applies to text, not to tables (you'd see how it refers to "paragraphs" and to prevent "overlong composition", which is not what happens here). Further, DETAIL refers to the level of detail in a parent article, but expressly favours expanding information in "child" articles (the parent article to this one would be 2019 Spanish general election, this one being a split-off or child article which serves precisely the purpose that DETAIL aims to fulfill). Finally, BECONCISE applies mostly to editor interactions in discussions rather than to actual article content; if anything, it would be appliable to this discussion rather than to the article.

It's also troubling to me that you are taking it so hard with Canarian Coalition. I haven't even mentioned CC in my previous comment and you have done so four times in your reply, and you've been very focused on it throughout the discussion. You're obviously keen on removing CC from the table, the reason why I don't know, but that's clearly NPOV. Impru20^talk 07:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we should apply the policies, and the principles of those policies to these tables. I have never said that parties should be removed from the table based on my personal preference or anything like that. You're acting like you've never heard of the idea that some parties would be excluded from polling tables, so there's obviously some standard where we include some parties and exclude others. Canarian Coalition has only been an example here, it's not about that party in particular. You may remove all my references to Canarian Coalition and replace it with EH Bildu if you prefer, I have no personal views on either of these parties and I've never been accused of any bias towards political parties. These accusations of bias here are very uncivil. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

These parties may be polling low, but still high enough to be projected to have seats, which they did in the last election. They do belong here. PACMA, who had no seats last time and never poll enough to get one could be scrapped, though. --Aréat (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

These are proportional representation elections, so it's much easier to get a seat and with less overall national support. They're better suited to regional polling tables. These tables aren't about how many seats they will win, they're about the amount of people who indicate they will vote for them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aréat. I also agree that PACMA is the one party I could see off the table as they are not mentioned in many polls and when they do they do not have any seat. Nonetheless, I'm in doubt as to whether PACMA should be removed now or we should wait until after the election has taken place. Impru20^talk 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

My 2p: include all parties that win seats since they're inherently notable within the context of a parliamentary system; in the case of PACMA, I lean towards inclusion because they're polling higher than seat-winning parties, even if that's because they're not merely a regional party. Mélencron (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Graph

Might as well shorten the x-axis to the end of April, 2019 now that the election is called. 2402:8100:3978:80:38D2:66EA:DCB:61CB (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The previous election graph also did it. I guess it's a way to portray the election being called early. Or it's not so easy to change it once it's been filled.--Aréat (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Electopanel/electomania

Electopanel/electomania opinion pollings should not be part of this article. They are simply an online questionary for voluntaries. Can someone delete them? Miguelazo84 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As opinion polling, they'll obviously stay. Their method is not dissimilar to that used by some pollsters (i.e. IMOP). Further, they are frequently reported in reliable sources, which strengthens their inclusion. would like to highlight that just because some entries may not be liked by some people does not mean they should be removed; we should respect WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. Impru20^talk 14:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It is tedious to see that "Opinion polling for the [insert year here] Spanish general election" pages have become Impru20's realm and others' views are just ignored or forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.16.229 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I dunno why this is said. I have no issues with most of the editors in this page, and indeed I typically work collaboratively with some of them in order to keep improving these pages. A different thing is with those that happen to impose their particular view of which polls should be reliable and which shouldn't, typically seeking to exclude even some of those widely reported in reliable sources. Cheers. Impru20^talk 17:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Internal polls

while I think the panel based polls are fine, there seems a bigger issue here. Why are reported internal party polls from PSOE or PP with no data publicly available than is published in the media, acceptable? How on earth are they objective or reliable? And the use of only certain party's internal polling is clearly not neutral either. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Internal polling has been always added for Spanish elections when made available and reported by reliable sources, as it is not unfrequent for political parties to conduct and release their own polls. On the reliability or objectivity of these polls, it would be the same as some others or that of the panel actually, as each pollster typically has some sort of bias; we must make this analysis based on the reliability of the sources that report them and not based on our own opinion of the polls. On the neutrality bit, it is not an issue here since no distinction is done with respect to the party conducting such polling. Cheers. Impru20^talk 13:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur that the addition of internal/party polls is perfectly acceptable as long as it's properly noted. Mélencron (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That this may or may not have always been done is not a great argument to continue doing it. Something simply having been mentioned in a source that is generally considered reliable does not mean its inclusion is consistent with other Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, as stated by WP:ONUS. For a start based on the definition you are using if a twitter ‘poll’ were conducted and reported on by some media it would satisfy inclusion here, which would obviously give them undue weight. At the very least if internal polls are included they should be better highlighted than they currently are to allow the reader to decide. As a non-Spanish native English speaker it wasn’t clear to me at first these were internal party polls just by having a party name in the firm/commissioner column. Perhaps a short note in the introductory paragraph saying that the list includes internal polling? ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A "Twitter poll" would not be eligible as the "poll" commissioner would not be notable, nor it would mean the definition of what constitutes a standard "opinion poll" (however, a way different thing would be that an opinion pollster publishes their poll results in Twitter first. This is typically done in other countries and is considered valid in Wikipedia).

What you suggest is to give internal polling a different treatment merely based on a subjective thinking. The poll's commissioner is already shown (the party in this case), it is not hidden. The same would happen should the commissioner be a newspaper and the actual pollster was not revealed. There is no point in presenting them differently, because that would hint to the reader a conclusion on the poll's itself that the actual sources that provide such results do not suggest. Impru20^talk 14:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability is a criterion for article creation, NOT article content. See WP:NOTEWORTHY. So the notability of the twitter account would be irrelevant. Even if it were what of the case of a Twitter poll conducted by a notable account, like one of the official party Twitter accounts? Secondly how do you know how the internal polls have been conducted when it seems in most cases the polling firm supposedly involved IS hidden? So how do you know these internal polls satisfy “the definition of what constitutes a standard ‘opinion poll’.”? In fact we know more about how a random twitter poll is conducted than we do about the internal polls. So in reality you are already treating sources differently by considering the reliability of the originator of the data.

We most certainly can, and should, highlight the provenance of data especially if there is clear potential for intentional bias. In fact the article already does this by highlighting exit polls, as well as post-ban polls. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, Twitter polls are user-generated content, thus not a reliable source (WP:USERG). Further, on the issue of how to use Twitter as a reliable source, you should check WP:TWITTER which pretty much excludes your whole Twitter argument as WP policy already excludes to a great deal the use of social media as reliable sources on third parties, events, etc. On the issue of how do you know these internal polls satisfy “the definition of what constitutes a standard ‘opinion poll’.”, well, this is an issue in Spain because if you apply such a restrictive criteria as you intend, this could possibly affect some pollsters as well, as it is not unfrequent in Spain for opinion polls to be released without some basic fieldwork data (less likely as of currently, but was very commonwide for polls during the bipartisanship years).

There is no intentional (nor unintentional btw) bias; keeping suggesting so would be a breach of WP:GOODFAITH. The reasoning for including internal polling has been explained and it is also done elsewhere in Wikipedia without much trouble, so I can't really understand this sudden drama about it. So long as the media that publishes the poll is a reliable source there is no issue with this.

Finally, the highlight of post-ban and exit polls comes because of a legal clause in the first case and because of the particular methodology of exit polls (they don't ask whom would you vote for, but how did you already vote). This is, objective criteria. In this case, you suggest highlighting some polls based merely on a subjective opinion from yours that these are intentionally biased. This does not meet WP:NPOV. Impru20^talk 15:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Latest PSOE poll not credible

Please dont show it. We dont have the numbers for two of the other five major parties, no polling company has published any official data and rumours from party internal sources are not credible.

62.226.91.247 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Logotipo EAJ-PNV.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)