Talk:Opinion polling for the 2013 German federal election

Arrangement

I am the one created the situation where the data was divided by date. And I did so because someone was deleting the data at the end of each calendar year and starting over. There is no benefit to be derived from dividing by year, and the only reason I did it was because some years were top posted, while others were bottom posted. The purpose of providing all of the back polling is to allow readers to see the change over time, which is so difficult as to be effectively impossible the way the page was set up. I knew that fixing things would require a significant amount of work, so I procrastinated. I have now carried through on what I always intended to do, making the data more accessible for readers and enabling the use of graphs to summarize the data. As things previously stood, that would have been so difficult that no one would have done it. I have also removed scads of code that was wholly unnecessary, making this page slimmer and faster to load. -Rrius (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to see excess code removed, I wish you'd done that independently of a reformat, as I see considerable value in dividing the page by year. I have reverted you once more under WP:BRD.

Quite simply, the division by year should be there for the same reasons all section or sub-section headings exist -- it makes it much easier to find your place on the page. Just as on other pages, it seems silly to assume that people will be looking for only the data at the top of this page, and you've removed any way for them to navigate this page conveniently from the Contents box.

On the other hand, I appreciate the need for contiguity, so I suggest that we return the sub-headings for years, but keep the current overall party polling/chancellor polling/preferred coalition format.

In other words, this proposed format would look like this:

Party polling

Party polling for 2013

Party polling for 2012

Party polling for you catch the drift

Chancellor polling

Chancellor polling for 2013

Chancellor polling for etc.

Preferred coalition

Preferred coalition for 2013

Preferred coalition for 2012

Preferred coalition for so on and so on

Refs

External links

This would let us keep sub-section headings, while still providing considerably more contiguity than the old format, as now polling for each year would only be divided from the next and previous year by a sub-section heading, and not Chancellor and Preferred coalition polling as well.

Thoughts? --4idaho (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented it for the party polling, but it is unnecessary for the other polling. The party polling tables for 2011, 2012, and 2013 are pretty long, but none of the other kinds of polling is even as long as one of those, and this is the last year for which there will be polling. Adding section headings and heading rows would be more disruptive for them than helpful. -Rrius (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland)

Are there polls with Alternative for Germany already?81.58.144.30 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the pollsters reflected here, only the most recent INSA poll asked about AfD. It took 3%, by the way. Given the amount of effort it takes to add a cell in between two other for for every row, I think we should wait to see if polling for AfD becomes more common. -Rrius (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would only have to do it for the 2013 data. Not too bad. --Lukati (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Done --Lukati (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new poll

http://www.radiohamburg.de/Bundestagswahl-2013/Umfragen/Trend-Research-Umfrage-Bundestagswahl-Schwarz-Gelb-momentan-ohne-Mehrheit Germany - Trend Research poll: CDU/CSU 38%, SPD 27%, Greens 10%, LINKE 9%, FDP 5%, AfD 4.5% 145.52.145.41 (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]