Talk:2024 Irish general election

Infobox

Do we need an infobox that takes up half the article? This is contrary to the point of infoboxes, as per MOS:INFOBOX. Why don't we leave it out for now, or use something more compact. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. How about something like what is being used now in the Next United Kingdom general election? Then switch back to the current format when the election is called? Spleodrach (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lot neater. I'll amend to that format in the morning, if nobody beats me to it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Include or leave out I4C

Spaastm has removed Independents 4 Change from the opinion poll table (and incorporated their general election result in with Others/Independents). I4C have not been specifically mentioned in any of the reports on polls since the election, but they had one TD returned in the 2020 election and they are a registered political party. Do we include them in the table, or not? What would the basis for excluding them be? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

They are a registered political party with 1 TD, but if they are not mentioned in the polls, then why have a column which will not have any figures in it? So I would not inculde them, but no strong objection to them being included either. Spleodrach (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to point out that their last TD has a new banner Right To Change since May 2020. I think that is that for I4C. Wikimucker (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Irish Mail on Sunday and opinion polls

The Irish Mail on Sunday is not the UK Mail on Sunday, but may be considered to come under the same RFC that has deemed the UK Daily Mail to not be a reliable source. However, in Ireland, the Irish Mail on Sunday commissions opinion polls from the "Ireland Thinks" polling company. These have thus far been reported on in this article, with the inclusions cited to third-party sources (i.e., not the Mail). Should the Irish Mail on Sunday polls be included in this article; or not? (These polls had been included in the Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election article until also removed yesterday by David Gerard. Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources that were removed were the Journal quoting the "Irish Mail on Sunday" and by Filip van Laenen quoting a Mail on Sunday; presumably again the Irish one. The discussion quoted by David Gerard for the removal needs further expansion itself, and is entirely UK based. But, and i quote, "The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail". The UK Daily Mail. Arnkellow (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

And just to clarify, it is the same parent group, but a different editorial and journalistic teams. Also as the RFC states UK, I would hope that a casual bit of anti-Irish racism and lumping together didn't happen as per WP:AGF. Arnkellow (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I am deeply unconvinced it counts as a different publication. The Irish Daily Mail and Irish Sun are covered by their own UK parents' deprecations, for example. I must say, though, that a claim that treating the IDM as the DM is racism as an excuse for using the Daily Mail as a source is a new stretch - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Read.The.Above.Again. Arnkellow (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging B. M. L. Peters, following most recent edit to article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Both the Irish Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail UK are owned by the same parent company, however they have different editorial staff, although the problem seems to have been solved for the most part in 2017, and 2019. The RFC states that "The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail." Furthermore the polls are usually reaffirmed by secondary sources, although if some are not, I will search for them and add them. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Everything that lives on dailymail.co.uk is covered, as are all editions of the Mail on Sunday. That line in the WP:RSP listing refers to unlinked publications (e.g. Charleston Daily Mail, Daily Mail Nigeria, etc) - it does not exclude other editions of the UK Daily Mail, which these are. I know because I added that text. It's a querulous reading to claim it does exclude the Irish editions of what is the same paper. A talk page cannot form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against the broad general consensus of three broad general RFCs on deprecation. I've noted this discussion at WP:RSN, to get more eyes on the issue - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The decision on WP:RSP listing is that the UK Daily Mail may not be used as a source. You, however, have removed secondary sources from extra.ie, thejournal.ie, and galwaydaily.com, which merely mention the results of polls conducted by Ireland Thinks and commissioned by the Irish Daily Mail. As far as I can see, the RSP does not extend to treating the Daily Mail as an Orwellian unperson. It, and its stories, can still be reported on by third party sources, as happens here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ireland Thinks polls are reported by multiple secondary sources different than the Daily Mail (even polling aggregators abroad, such as this one), and the polls by themselves have not been shown as being unreliable just because of the source that happens to commission them. Thus, pretending to enforce WP:DAILYMAIL in such a way here seems rather aggressive and contrary to encyclopedical purposes. DAILYMAIL even states that it should not be used as a source "when other more reliable sources exist" (which is the case here). As a result, these opinion polls should not be removed, IMO. Impru20^talk 10:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is also the issue that the polls themselves have not been conducted by the Daily Mail, but by a polling company, of which the Irish Daily Mail just gets to be the commissioner. That content, however, is reported by other secondary reliable sources as well. Aside of the aforementioned concerns from other users on whether DAILYMAIL applies to non-UK media, I don't get to understand how DAILYMAIL can even be of application to justify the massive removal of all opinion polls whose ultimate source is not the DM, sincerely. Impru20^talk 10:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Lead"

I've reverted the addition of a "lead" column.

• We already have shading to show which party is in the lead;
• The importance of a "lead" between two parties is pretty much irrelevant outside of a two-party or possibly three-party system; Ireland hasn't had single-party government in 40 years.
• If someone does want to know the difference, the maths really isn't hard, so the column adds nothing;
• While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, what other articles do isn't relevant here; that said, there is consensus to leave out a "lead" column, on Irish general election & opinion poll articles, which has existed since 2016 - see here and here;
• Consensus may well change, but until then, we should follow WP:BRD - you were bold, it was reverted, we now discuss. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'd advise checking on the talk page prior to introducing major changes to an article. As a point of courtesy, if nothing else. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

First off I want to apologise that I didn't check the talk page to discuss the changes I made after you reverted them, I should have and it wasn't acceptable that I reverted without discussing it first.

Ultimately, while I may disagree with the consensus regarding the lead column I am not really in the mood to try and change this. However, the other additions I made I do intend to reintroduce, such as using Template:Opdrts for dates (I do actually want to change this to the fieldwork dates rather than the current end dates which provide no real valuable data) the formatting changes (such as the move to {| class="wikitable sortable mw-datatable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;line-height:14px;") and the seperation of The pollster and the commissioner.

Below is the changes I am proposing (apart from the date changes).JDuggan (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries at all; I'd have to check timestamps but I think my talk page addition was after the revert, anyway. Can you outline what benefits the proposed changes will bring to the article? And how much additional effort will be required for those who currently maintain the table? I've no way of knowing, since I've never seen them contribute directly here, but I'm assuming BSMIsEditing is manually adding data to whatever is generating their graph, rather than it being a bot or scraper, but it might be. Will a change interfere with that? Fieldwork dates aren't always available; some news reports include them, many only include the final date of polling ("Polling was conducted up to last Friday"), and sometimes we have to go digging on poll companies' websites. I've no objection to the separation of pollster and commissioner, as long as we can still sort the table by pollster and date, as we can at present. If we lose that ability, I'd oppose. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Polling firm	Commissioner	Last date of polling	Sample size	SF	FF	FG	GP	Lab	SD	S–PBP	Aon	O/I
Red C	Business Post	25 Mar 2021	1,000	29	11	30	5	4	5	2	2	11
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	20 Mar 2021	1,026	31	14	27	2	5	7	3	3	8
Red C	Business Post	25 Feb 2021	1,000	29	13	29	3	4	6	2	2	12
Ipsos MRBI	The The Irish Times	23 Feb 2021	1,200	28	14	30	6	3	3	1	1	14
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	12 Feb 2021	1,068	28	15	26	5	5	6	3	4	9
Red C	Business Post	28 Jan 2021	1,000	27	16	29	5	3	5	3	2	10
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	17 Jan 2021	1,247	29	15	28	3	5	5	3	4	7
Behaviour and Attitudes	The Sunday Times	15 Dec 2020	916	32	22	27	3	5	1	2	0	7
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	29 Nov 2020	1,044	28	17	28	4	4	5	2	4	9
Red C	Business Post	25 Nov 2020	1,000	30	12	33	5	3	4	3	2	8
Red C	Business Post	24 Oct 2020	1,000	27	11	37	6	3	3	2	2	9
Behaviour and Attitudes	The Sunday Times	17 Oct 2020	931	30	19	31	5	4	2	2	1	5
Ipsos MRBI	The Irish Times	6 Oct 2020	1,200	29	17	35	4	4	2	1	–	8
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	26 Sep 2020	1,200	28	14	32	4	4	5	3	3	7
Behaviour and Attitudes	The Sunday Times	15 Sep 2020	900	32	19	30	5	3	1	1	0	9
Red C	Business Post	9 Sep 2020	1,000	27	10	35	6	3	4	2	2	10
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	22 Aug 2020	1000	30	11	35	3	5	5	2	2	7
Behaviour and Attitudes	The Sunday Times	28 Jul 2020	921	30	20	29	6	3	1	1	0	11
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	18 Jul 2020	1,000	26	12	38	5	4	3	2	–	10
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	20 Jun 2020	1,000	27	13	34	8	4	3	2	–	10
Ipsos MRBI	The Irish Times	14 Jun 2020	1,200	25	13	37	12	2				10
Red C	Business Post	27 May 2020	1,000	27	15	35	5	3	4	2	1	8
Ireland Thinks	Irish Mail on Sunday	23 May 2020	1,012	27	16	36	6	4	3	2	–	6
Red C	Business Post	29 Apr 2020	1,019	27	14	35	7	3	3	2	1	8
Red C	Business Post	25 Mar 2020	1,062	28	18	34	5	3	3	2	2	5
Behaviour and Attitudes	The Sunday Times	10 Mar 2020	912	35	19	21	6	3	1	3	0	11
Behaviour and Attitudes	The Sunday Times	25 Feb 2020	917	35	20	18	6	3	2	3	1	12
Amárach Research	Extra.ie	16 Feb 2020	1,040	35	17	18	9	3	5	3	–	10
General election		8 Feb 2020	–	24.5	22.2	20.9	7.1	4.4	2.9	2.6	1.9	13.9

Ireland Thinks poll, July 2021

Can anyone find a source for this? Can't find any online, and the Ireland Thinks website seems a little out of date; they don't appear to publish the full poll from any of the Mail on Sunday results, at least for the last year. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has come back on this and I still can't find a reference to it myself, so I'm going to delete (or, well, comment it out for now). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Refs

References

Including notable events in the poll

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)

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)

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Including results of other elections in the Opinion polls subsection

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

• Opinion polling for the next German federal election
• Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election
• Next Dutch general election#Opinion polls
• Opinion polling for the next Danish general election
• Opinion polling for the next Portuguese legislative election

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Business Post Feb '24 poll

Lough Swilly, can you check the a) polling dates, and b) numbers polled on the latest Business Post poll? The reference is paywalled. It was read out on the Brendan O'Connor Show as something like 1,009 people polled, with polling dates finishing during the week, not yesterday. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake about the polling date. It was 16 Feb-21 Feb. I also wasn't aware the Business Post even had a paywall, because of, well, browser extensions. Annoyingly, other websites have not reported on the poll yet and RED C hasn't even released their report yet. I'm just going off of the Business Post article. What do you suggest we do with this poll? Remove it until this month's report is released and a non-paywalled website reports it? Lough Swilly (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I'd leave it; we don't have the number polled for others in the table. Just put in a question mark, until we have a source. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, too, the data-sort-value for the date should be the last date of poll; and the data-sort-value name for the polling company/publisher should just increment by one from the prior poll by that publisher. That value is what lets you sort by publisher so you can see all the RedC polls or all the Ireland Thinks polls together. I've update the latest ones. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sunday Independent March 2024 poll

I've added up the poll numbers multiple times just to be sure - the numbers they report add up to 101%... I don't know if there's anything to do about it, I just though I should mention it in case someone thinks it's wrong. Lough Swilly (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Majority of 87 or 88 seats?

As one seat is allocated to the Ceann Comhairle, the seats needed for a majority should be 87 right? Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's half the total seats, plus one, so 88 is correct. See, e.g., Government of the 33rd Dáil. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The 2020 Irish general election page states a majority of 80 seats was needed, while half plus one would be 81.

There will be 173 voting seats in the next Dáil, so a composition of 87-Government, 86-Opposition, and 1-Ceann Comhairle, should be possible right? Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

God, I'm remembering the runup to the last election and interminable debates such as this one :-) No objection at all to you changing it to 87, but if a certain editor reappears here, expect more "debate" :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading of it is that 174 seats, the government (or parties) will need 88 seats to govern, as 1 seat will go to the Ceann Comhairle, leaving 87-Govt and 86-Opp, and 1-CC. However, as has happened in the past, the govt could entice an opposition TD into being the CC, so the Govt then only needs 87. Our nearest neighbour, have (seats / 2) + 1, see Next United Kingdom general election. Hope this helps! Spleodrach (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sunday Indo poll, 24th March

Can someone with access to the Sunday Independent add in the values for last date of polling, number polled, and percentages for S-PBP and Aontú, please, for the 24th March poll? I don't have a sub and it's paywalled. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Not sure what the sample size is. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look during the week to see if Ireland Thinks puts it up on their website. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I should have access to the print version of the Sunday Independent when it's uploaded to the Irish Newspaper Archive. I'll keep an eye out for it. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Include Independent Ireland in Polls

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)

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)

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)

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? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

"Will be on 25 March 2025"?

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)

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ha, no worries, we've all been there! :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Including a Government Support Column in the Opinion Polls Table?

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Retiring Incumbents

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)

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)

Either works, but a separate table would allow us to capture the MEPs; it's probably the better option? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Fianna Fáil ideology

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)

• Note: This has now become an RFC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Contesting parties

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

This is a normal table to add for national elections on Wikipedia. See, for example:

• 2025 German federal election#Political parties and leaders
• 45th Canadian federal election#Political parties and standings
• 2024 Lithuanian parliamentary election#Participating parties
• October 2024 Bulgarian parliamentary election#Contesting parties and coalitions
• 2024 Romanian parliamentary election#Parties and alliances
• 2024 Georgian parliamentary election#List of major coalitions or political parties

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)

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? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on date of election

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)

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)

We will do that when the election is called. WP:V is a core policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Meaning of opinion poll numbers?

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Opinion polls section

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)

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, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Separate article for polling

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

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There's a "rush" because it's standard. We do this for elections in other countries. ItsNotGoingToHappen (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Campaign Issues

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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

[a] Refrence

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)