User talk:Sohailjan

Welcome!

Hello, Sohailjan, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Seats and Vote Share in Opinion Polls for Next Spanish Election

Hi!

Well, it's an actual nightmare to find a proper design for this. However I chose to discard the two tables system because it makes the article unnecessarily long, forcing you to have two tables, two links of everything, two sets of parties and all of such. When there are very few polls (such as for alternative election polls), you may end up having two tables to show just a small bunch of polls (check how that would work with the "Aznar's party" alternative scenario poll). And when there are too many opinion polls, it becomes just impossible to navigate the whole article. And also the fact it's veeeery difficult to compare seat projections to vote shares with two tables (something which is done naturally when polls are published by the corresponding clients, but you couldn't show that here properly with two tables).

Having the two side by side was my preferred choice, but it made the table enormously wide. Depending on the number of parties you chose to add, it became just impossible to handle, so you may either end up removing parties from the table or just stick with a heavily crumpled version of it.

The current one is not perfect either, but I think it combines both the possibility of allowing direct comparison between seat projections and vote shares without the need for duplicity or the issues of disproportionate width. All designs have pros and cons. With the current one it's a little more difficult to compare trends, but it's still way easier than the comparison of seat/votes used to be for instance. I tried to highlight the differences between seats and vote shares by using a different font style for seat projections and adding the % symbol to vote estimations, but I'm still guessing out how to improve on this. I'd thought on using the newline element (<nowiki>
<nowiki>) and remove the second row showing seat projections merging them together, so that this:

Polling firm/Commissioner	Fieldwork date	Sample size	Turnout							PNV			Lead
JM&A/Público	2 Jan 2017	?	63.4%	32.1%	17.4%	24.8%	14.8%	2.7%	2.2%	1.3%	0.9%	0.4%	7.3%
				134	59	91	38	10	9	6	2	1

would look like this:

Polling firm/Commissioner	Fieldwork date	Sample size	Turnout							PNV			Lead
JM&A/Público	2 Jan 2017	?	63.4%	32.1% 134	17.4% 59	24.8% 91	14.8% 38	2.7% 10	2.2% 9	1.3% 6	0.9% 2	0.4% 1	7.3%

I think this could help solve the sortability issue too. Issue with this is that seat projections couldn't have their background shaded in a different colour than the one used for the corresponding vote share, though it's arguably very difficult (at the Spanish nationwide level) that the most voted party does not win the most seats (it's theoretically possible, but very, very unlikely and has never happened as of yet). Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)