Talk:Opinion polling for the 2016 Irish general election

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Basis for inclusion?

I know this article has been extracted from Irish general election, 2016, but could someone explain the basis for inclusion as a distinct "column" within the table? Most polls consistently measure FG, FF, Labour, and SF as their "headline" parties. (Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes also includes the Green Party). Why, then, are the PBP/AAA included as an individual entity, when most opinion polls include them in "Independents/Others". If PBP/AAA are being specifically included, we should also include Renua, the Social Democrats (both of whom have sitting TDs) and the Workers Party, at minimum. Anything else is showing bias. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour only those parties/groups that have current members of the Oireachtas. Snappy (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always found it a bit silly that RTÉ and IPSOS lump a whole bunch together under an "OTH/IND" label. Especially impenetrable where or when the "OTH/IND" grouping had a poll or actual seat majority. In any event, while IPSOS/MRBI limit their macro analysis to "FG/FF/SF/LAB/OTH"[1], RedC group things as "FG/FF/SF/LAB/IND/AAA/GP/SD/RENUA"[2]. While I would lean towards the latter approach, if the majority of sources don't break down their macro "OTH/IND" label, it might make for complexity of the table (or limiting the sources to what the table can "handle"). In honesty I'm not sure it's worth tying ourselves in knots - this'll all be moot in 3 weeks. And can't imagine people are coming here for their polling numbers anyway..... Guliolopez (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except in the (very likely) event of a second election later in the year. Would agree that if the Greens are included, so should SDs and Renua, leaving the Other column purely for Independents. Only last weekend's Millward Brown didn't give a complete breakdown, but generally they're only given in written sources, rather than on TV.Culloty82 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the table in two - prior to 2016, and 2016. The 2016 table now includes Renua and the Social Democrats, and I've moved the Green Party to the end, as they're the only listed party with no current Dáil representation. There's something odd with the Social Democrats column, though - I can't get it to display the white-on-purple colours, or stick to being 60px wide. Could someone more knowledgeable on wiki markup take a look, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know

Why is there no don't knows? Mobile mundo (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the actual polls (available in the references) you'll see the reported figures are after elimination of the "don't knows". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical summary section

This is not the place to discuss user conduct. Please, start again, and discuss nicely. --John (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. You seem to be keen on removing the opinion polling graph from the Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016 article, on a rare basis of it "being illegible" or it being "small". It's perfectly legible, and it's actually not small (it's currently sized at 900px; that's surely not small) so I don't know where your issue comes from. You say "no one asked for it", but actually it was asked for here. You also seem to ignore the fact that opinion polling graphs are pretty common in Wikipedia. See some examples:

Just a few examples, but I could spend the entire day showing you examples like those. They are there because they're actually useful in showing trends in a quick and easy way that tables alone can't (just think how, otherwise, people wouldn't lose their times in asking for them or making them out, since it's not an easy job to do). If you're having issues with it on your mobile phone, it's only a particular problem (why are you using your phone as a main browser for Wikipedia, anyway? Wikipedia is mostly computer-oriented right now), but understand that we can't just make this to fit the purposes of a single person in opposition to a whole many (see how you are the only one that keeps removing the graph despite the article being frequently edited by others. You're the only one experiencing issues with it, it seems). And we can't just put it in the bottom, because no one is going to notice the graph there unless they actually go to the bottom, and because that wouldn't solve the issue you seem to be having anyway. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever graphical representation that user was looking for is not the same as the one that you included. There is nothing similar or as ugly on the British election article. While I appreciate you may have spent time and energy on it, it really imparts very little relevant information (no key, and what are the dots? What are you doing when multiple polls fall on the same day?) and it simply isn't legible for any of the smaller parties or recent polls. That's on a Samsung Galaxy S4 and Nexus 9 tablet, because I'm travelling at present. When I return, I'll remove or edit it, and if detaining it, will certainly will move it to the bottom where it doesn't interfere with readers being able to easily access perfectly clear, legible data. And we write WP for readers, not editors. Interested readers will scroll to the bottom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Above two comments copied from my talk page - they're relevant for the actual article's talk page, not my talk.] Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, I've moved the "graphical summary" to the bottom. Now that I'm home, I can confirm from using my 21" monitor that nothing bar very general trends is discernible from that graphic, even on a monitor. (Because apparently it's only intended to be viewed on desktop, or something.) It's safe to say that people coming to Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016 are looking for hard numbers, not necessarily general trends. It's impossible to discern what actual numbers the parties are polling at, there's no key to explain the various dots, the graphic is also already out of date, which really isn't acceptable when there's an imminent election, and it's completely impossible to discern anything about the smaller parties.

(I see Impru20 gave me less than a minute to write on the Talk page before reverting - classy - and s/he appears to have missed the reply I did actually leave on my talk page. BRD, Impru. Talk. Here.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an issue with Bastun, who keeps removing/moving from place the graphical summary that was added by me a few days ago. The graph was added for several purposes: 1. Because it makes the list of polls to be more visually readable and show trends, 2. Because it goes in line with what many other opinion polling articles say (I've posted a few examples in Bastun's talk page, as well as an explanation as to why his edits are wrong or unfounded, in my opinion), and 3. And not less importantly, because one such graph was asked for in the 2016 Irish general election talk page, by user Boreas74.

User Bastun kept entirely removing it at first, claiming some technical issues that, so far, no other user has experienced, neither here nor in other election opinion polling articles displaying similar charts. Then, for some reason, he has started defending to bring the chart to the bottom of the page for no reason, something which could cause visibility issues for the chart, since people may not even notice at first there's a chart at all unless they go to the bottom page (and also the weirdness of the situation, as it's customary practice in Wikipedia for opinion polling charts to be placed other opinion articles. In his latest edit, he did it basing himself on a "per talk" argument. So far, however, I can't see which talk page is he talking about, since surely I can't see any ongoing discussion on the issue on either this or the Irish general election, 2016 article.

Just a few moments ago, the user again changed the chart from place to the bottom, once again without any justified reason. I post this here so other thoughts can be gathered on the issue. Impru20 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've violated 3RR, Impru20 - please self-revert. "Technical issues"? WTF? No. I'm saying the chart imparts nothing - no useful information - bar broad changes, because the table is terrible. This article is about the opinion polls. Opinion polls give hard numbers for each party + independents. That's what people are coming to see. Not an ugly chart with no discernible difference between parties on 1% and parties on 4%. If you want to put in a graphic, fine, put in a useful one (some of the examples you posted have a key and legible figures, yours doesn't). But put it in at the bottom, where those interested can click on the TOC and drop down to it; or they can scroll down. (Catering for the laziness of users or their technical inability to scroll as a reason for burying the meat of an article under an illegible chart is some of the most bizarre reasoning I've seen on here in years!) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added this while other were commenting - As Impru20 wrote I originally suggested someone add a graph of polling data because I thought it would be easier for people to take in the relative positions of parties, as well as the direction of movement of parties, which commentators usually mention as being more important than individual polls. Additionally there had been some discussion as to whether the smaller parties should be included in the tables and I thought this would provide a solution. There are 4 parties polling between 1% and 4% but that isn't a fault of the graph. For me I think the graph adds additional information and as all the individual polls are still available doesn't remove anything. Lastly I just looked at this on my far from state of the art iPhone 4 and the graph displays fine, although the party names are hard to see until I zoom in, but I think that is likely to be a problem with any graph on a small screen. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 19:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, Impru20, I'm perfectly willing to compromise here by including the trend summary after the actual polls - which are the subject of the article. Despite it being out-of-date, just 11 days out from a general election. You're being intransigent and illogical insisting it must go at the top. It's a click away via the TOC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boreas74 - wihtout looking at the poll tables and just using the summary, could you say with accuracy how the AAA-PBP have fared in February 2016 compared to the Social Democrats? On a 21' monitor, not an iPhone? How about for all of 2016? Any problem moving the summary to after the polls they purport to summarise? Are you ok with having an out-of-date table, 11 days out form an election? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun I actually didn't violate it, since one of my reverts was for an unjustified page section blanking by you. But you did violate it, actually. And I'm not going to self-revert because you're just trying to disrupt the article. Let me address you in several points: 1. No other user has complained on this, and Boreas74 publicly thanked me for the addition of the chart (which he had asked for) in the Irish election article talk page. Obviously, if the thanked me, he surely was not having any issue. And, if no other user of the many that had been editing this article has changed it or complained about it, it seems obvious that they are not having any issue. So, either you're the only one having the issue, or there's no issue at all.

2. You're making assumptions of what others would think about the chart, despite others having actually commented on the chart. It was asked for, and after its inclusion, I was thanked for it. Then, no one else is having complains about it. Only you. So talk for yourself, don't try to speak for others when, obviously, others' views are neutral at best, and unsupportive of you at worst, at least since the time the chart was added until now.

3. You say the chart imparts nothing: that's your opinion. Other users do find it useful, and such charts are added in other articles and they're still there, and are still useful. On your talk page, you complained on the chart not having a key (despite the key being obvious in the chart itself; maybe if you checked it you would see it) and then on an alledged lack of explanation on issues that are indeed explained: on the image's description page. Your only solution to these "technical issues" (because yes, those are technical issues) is you either removing the chart or moving it to the bottom. Just because of it. No one supported that. No one discussed about that (despite you saying "per talk" on one of your edits, but no discussion has been done about what you say).

4. You have not cared to engage in discussion. Every discussion on the issue between ourselves has been opened by me. Firstly, in your talk page. Then, in this talk. So it's really curious you try to point up to the 3RR, when the one engaging in edit warring is you. I didn't report you for outright vandalism because, under the good faith principle I wanted you to have the chance to explain yourself and for others to state their opinions on the issue. But obviously, as you kept engaging in edit warring, and your "explanations" are either unsourced or blatantly wrong (if you don't check the image for the data you look for, it's your problem, not others'), I'm not sure if good faith must be assumed here any longer.

5. I didn't notice you had answered me in your talk, since I would have assumed you would answer me in my talk. That's surely an error on my part, but doesn't change anything else of what I'm explaining.

And you may save your insults for another place, thanks. If the chart is ugly, that's your opinion. If you don't find it useful, that's your opinion. I just made a WP:BOLD, supported edit and you just uniterally reverted it, then you didn't care on entering discussion until I did, and now not only you accuse me of 3RR (which I wouldn't have committed, since one of my reverts was for an unjustified blanking made by you; but you, on the other hand, did violate the 3RR) but you also come here to be offensive and unpolite. I'm not telling you how many Wikipedia rules you may be breaking right now, but to put it simply, and as far as I know, Wikipedia is not yours. Thank you.

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I type too slowly, I haven't read the last comment yet so this is a replay to Bastun --- I do see the problem with differentiating the positions of the small parties. Baring in mind that Impru20 has spent some time designing and producing the graph, lets think about some solutions. Should the graph cover a shorter time period? That might allow the axis to go from 0% to 35% say, rather than 50% as it currently does. That might mean a lot of extra work though, I don't know. I think part of the problem here is just that there are four parties clustered around 2-3%, inside the margin of error in most polls, so I'm not sure how much info we can really expect to get from any graph showing national polling data.

The graphical display does seem to be at the start of most similar articles so I don't see a problem with doing that here too. It also makes sense to me to have the summary first and then the detailed tables afterwards.

If we can try to take a collegiate approach I hope we can find a solution. Perhaps some other editors can give an opinion? --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 20:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is it. I've reported Bastun for vandalic behaviour, after not only resorting to insult and personal attacks here but also going as far as to use a warning to threaten me in my talk page. Taking the rest of the user's behaviour, it looks like his intention is only that of being disruptive. Impru20 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. S/he did, great. One editor, plus the chart's creator, likes it. I find it illegible.

2. Um, I think that's just a repeat of your first point.

3. The "key" lists each party's colour and does not explain what the various dots are. Elsewhere you argue that people will be too lazy/inept to scroll down the page to see your chart if it's moved there; here you argue that people should click through to Wikimedia Commons to read how to interpret the chart. That's... inconsistent.

4. I have. For some reason, you thought to post on my talk page rather than here. I responded. I copied the posts here. I got reverted after editing the article, with an edit summary of 'See talk', with you not giving me even one minute to post here. I see now you also refactored my comments. (That's not cool). I have tried to engage you in dialogue, and I've offered a perfectly reasonable compromise - moving the trend summary to after the polls, where it can be reached with one click of a TOC. The article is about the polls, after all, not a summary - which seems to omit several recent polls, only 11 days out from an election.

5. Sorry, but you have breached 3RR - I removed the graphic twice, and moved it to the bottom twice. You reverted all of those. That's four reverts. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2. No one else is complaining. You're the only one having a problem. Stop being disruptive (in any case, one confirmed editor and me supporting the chart is already more than you, isn't it? If you go as far as to despise two users, then what would you do on yourself, a single user?).

3. Info is in the image's description, again.

4. You haven't. I opened both discussions; you being unwilling to enter in one until I did. If you had an issue with the chart, you should have first commented it here, not just going as far as to delete it just because you felt like it, then engaging in edit warring and forcing others to discuss the issue with you.

Your last comment accusing me of 3RR was blatantly offensive, and you followed it by a threat on my talk.

5. I didn't. My first revert was for an unjustified blanking of you. The second one was a revert of your revert to my edit reverting your blanking, so it also counts as a revertion of blanking content. That's two reverts. As far as I can see, you made your first "revert" by deleting the chart (it was a revert in all but name). Since then, you made three other reverts. That's four reverts. And between all those reverts, I tried to enter in discussion with you, but you kept reverting.

So, this is over. You have broken 3RR, resorted to insult and personal attacks and even to threats. You've been reported for outright vandalism. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20, under the CC-by-SA WP licence, I am perfectly within my rights to copy and paste something from my talk page to here. They then become my contribution to this page. You do not have the right to refactor the talk page comments of other users. Stop doing it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to enter into another edit war in this talk page? I opened this section. You do not have the right to move my comments out of place so that it can fit your views. My revert to your comment here has been done because you have refactored my own comment in this talk page, moving it behind your ranting so that it comes later. So STOP-BEING-DISRUPTIVE!! Impru20 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check the page history if I were you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimucker would also like you to adjust your table, I see. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimucker wants to make adjustments. You just wanted to remove it or move it out from place. I can discuss with Wickimucker if he wants to, not with you. I've already lost my patiente with you, seeing as your only purpose is to disrupt the article and the discussion. Impru20 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins looking into my threatening and abusive, vandalism (*) should note that my talk page comments here have now been twice refactored by Impru20, despite me asking him/her not to do so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now see what you did. You opened this section just while I was writing mine, then you just placed my comment behind yours so that it seemed like if I was answering you, when I actually hadn't seen your comment because we posted them at the same time. You're just accusing me of something you just did yourself. So yes, I'd check the page's history, because you're acting in an entirely disruptive behaviour with me. I've not done anything to you, so stop ranting me like this. Impru20 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'll revert my last revert, since you did open a separate section, but I'm changing my comment's position, which you unjustifiedly moved. I was not answering to your rant, so please, respect others' comments. Impru20 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical summary

Ok, so now that the discussion has been archived for good, I propose to users Wikimucker and Boreas74 to discuss on the chart's format, so as to make this actually constructive. Wickimucker did state that it could be improved, but I didn't check what he actually meant for. Impru20 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c is that the graphic is perhaps a tad too large. My suggestions are.

1. Trim timeline to start on 01 Feb 2012 earliest and perhaps 01 Feb 2013, 4 years is quite :enough of a lead time, it is now over 5.

2. Perhaps reduce Y axis from max 50 to max 40

Otherwise do keep up the good work Impru20. Thanks.

Wikimucker (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the timeline suggestion. Basically because that would leave the 2011 polls out, and from what can be seen, some important developments happened in the 2011-2012 period. As an alternative, the graph size can be adjusted. It is currently at 900px, but it can be made somewhat smaller if needed. I see it fine now, but I don't mind resizing it a little bit. Issue would be that making it too small would make it nearly illegible without clicking on the actual image, which should also be avoided.

As a result of the previous point, the Y axis can't be lowered to 40, as it would leave some polls out from its range. However, it can be lowered to 45, which would remove the 45-50 empty gap. I'll take a try at it.

Cheers, and thanks. You're welcome. Impru20 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put in the 2011 Actual Results and then jump to 01/01/2013 so. Its too big the way it is...is all. Wikimucker (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it must be big. The parliamentary term lasts for 5 years. Ommiting information would violate WP:NPOV, as we would be removing selective data for no reason.

I've updated the Y axis and lowered it to 45. Impru20 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I will be taking part too. I presume that omitting me was an oversight. I would first like to propose that the graphic(s) be moved to the bottom of the page, after the polls. It will be linked to in the TOC and can be linked to in the lede. (If you use the user template, Impru20, the user will be "pinged" - that doesn't happen if you just link their username.)

Why? This article is about the opinion polls themselves. Not the trend in opinion polls. The polls are referenced, and provide hard numbers, which, presumably, people are coming to the article for. They may be interested in the trend, too, in which case it can be available underneath the polls. Of course, there's also accessibility - text readers cope with wiki tables (just) but can't interpret graphics.

It is vital that only 11 days out from the actual election, any such graphic summary is kept up to date. Currently, it isn't. Can you link your source spreadsheet for generating the graphic, so others can update it if you don't?

The graphic at present imparts too little information. It's impossible to tell from it what actual score any party has at present. Can you:

include latest figures on the right-hand side of the graphic, as is done on some of the graphics you linked in the section above?
I also support Wikimucker's proposal to: "remove the underlying poll data before 01 Feb 2012 as the graphic is excessively wide at this time and set to get even wider with 5 more polls incoming at least"
those 5 (or more) polls need to be included. There will be more this week/weekend.

Actually, the simplest thing to do may well be to create a second graphic and - as Boreas74 suggests - make the second one "smaller" - going only up to 35% rather than 50%, covering a shorter time period. (FG reached nearly 40% in one poll, so maybe there). I would also agree with Boreas' suggestion of a shorter time period for this one. I would suggest February or March 2015 - this will bring in all parties (Renua created March 2015, Soc Dems in July 2015). A "smaller" data set will allow for a relatively larger graphic, which can impart more useful information.

Lastly, to reiterate - we need access to the source used for generating the graphic. Why? So it can be verified. There's currently a purple line staring in January 2015, which according to the colour key looks like it's supposed to represent Renua - but they only formed in March of that year, so there's at least one material error that needs to be corrected. Access to the source which the graphic(s) are based on removes WP:NPOV and WP:OR arguments. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] If you insist on including all of the polls, then split them into individual graphics for each year. As you can see, it's not just me who thinks there's too much in the current single graphic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We dont need a graphic for every year,way too much work,only a more legible one for this campaign from c.01 January 2013 which includes the local election 2014 runup.

Nice compact and representative. Wikimucker (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just selectively remove data for some dates, because that would be random and in violation of WP:NPOV, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". You would just hide from users the trend lines for 2011 and 2012, when there is valid opinion polling data for those published by valid sources, so that can't be done, sorry. Impru20 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion and consensus reached here overrides WP NPOV as the editors have broadly agreed and made it so Wikimucker (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, consensus does not override NPOV. Check WP:NPOV introduction when it clearly states that: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Impru20 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite intrigued on what your actual issue is, since now you talk as if your issue was the same than Wikimucker's all along. First, you wanted to removed the chart. Now, you want more of them. You quite surprise me. If there's too much in the current graph, that's the pollsters' fault for publishing many polls, not mine. We must represent what reliable sources say. And reliable sources do show opinion polls for the whole period 2011-2015. Breaking the chart by years would just disrupt the entire point of the chart itself, which is to show a fair representation of the trend lines' evolution during (in this case) the 31st Dáil. I'm actually skipping the entire part where you just disregard the chart. You're the only one vowing for its outright removal, so that doesn't need any more discussion. And, btw, customary practice is to put the graphical summary above. Because it is intended as a summary of opinion polls, and obviously, you don't put summaries at the end, right? Impru20 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put in two graphics so, a short legible compact one on top and a full one at the bottom. Just get rid of that monster illegible graph on top. PLEASE!!!!! Wikimucker (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "summary of opinion polls", though. It's a graphic representation of (currently) most of them, with an arbitrary cutoff sometime in January (which, according to you, is in itself a breach of NPOV), and you want it to be a representation of all of them. As it's not a summary, it's perfectly in order to put it after the full, accurate and available data from which it is derived. You're still omitting the most recent polls. Rather than speculate about me, could you address the concerns raised above, especially re access to the source spreadsheet you're using? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm answering here both this comment and some points you stated in the comment before that:

The source used is Excel. Surely you can generate your own graph out of there, it's quite easy to do.
A second graph can be done for the campaign period (to say an example). I don't mind creating a second chart so long that the period that it covers is justified by some significant event, not randomly and just because of it. Otherwise, it can be subject to future removal by others that don't understand its presence there, and with much reason.
When you say that it is vital that only 11 days out from the actual election, any such graphic summary is kept up to date, actually, it isn't. Check WP:PERFECTION: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Perfection is not required. Anyway, I'm keeping this up to date as much as possible. And currently, it's up to date, as it includes all polls up until the latest 13 Feb poll.
Mind you if I ask where do you get that only most polls are included? All of them are. Up until 13 Feb 2016. However, as the chart starts from 25 Feb 2011, months displayed in the X axis are only shown when the month reaches the 25th of the given month (it's shown 1 time per month, you know). That's why Feb 2016 doesn't appear yet, as we are still on the 15th. But that doesn't mean data is not included. Of course it's not included.
And of course it's a summary. You can check the definition of what a summary or abstract is here. For graphical summaries, check this. Impru20 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've illustrated exactly my problem with the graphic in it's current form - it's illegible (and that's two users saying so, and requesting a move to the bottom). It's impossible to tell that you have included the polls up until 13 Feb, because of the size/amount of information included.

Yes, I presumed the source was a spreadsheet. There's at least one error in the source you're using. Show us the source. Put it on Dropbox or Google Drive and give us the link. It's quite easy to do.

We are requesting a second graph with a smaller data sample so that the chart can be legible. That's not "random" or "just because." Go from Feb/March 2015, to bring in all registered parties now contesting the 2016 election; or if you want a larger dataset, go from 23 May 2014, the local elections.

Perfection may not be required, but errors and sources should be available for checking/correction. Why is there a purple line for Renua starting in January 2015? (Second time of asking). Show us the source, so issues of WP:NPOV and WP:OR don't arise.

Um, no, I know what an abstract is, and your graphic isn't one. Again, two users requesting it (the current graphic) be moved to the bottom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Renua/SDP from 1 Jan 2016 is not an issue. They barely existed in 2015 or earlier.

The only issue is that the LARGE graphic on TOP tells the reader very little and that compressing the timeline to a more representative 3 years including a national election in 2014 captures the essential data in a legible and perfectly clear form. Wikimucker (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the main issue is that the large graphic on top tells the reader very little - it should be moved to the bottom, and feel free to do so. The issue with the Renua(?) line is accuracy. The party did not exist until March 2015, so how is it included in polls from Dec 14/Jan 15. Where there is one error, there may be more. Where errors are discovered in the source figures in the tables or their supporting references, they can be corrected by any editor, as you and I have both done. If only one editor has access to the source spreadsheet from where the graphic is generated, we can do nothing. That's a problem. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most opinion poll choices for minor parties are PROMPTED, read the data. Most numbers for minor parties are prompted numbers after the respondent says 'Independent/Other initially. I ain't going back over that lot. :)

Just move that lumpy graphic is all. Wikimucker (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know - but they can't be prompted to say "Renua" when "Renua" was just a twinkle in Lucinda and Eddie's eye, so how is it there? Moving the lumpy graphic would be a great start all right :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at page 4 of 10 of the hard data ( the second of the two source links when I ( it _IS_ usually me nowadays) edit the polls in periodically) for the 13 Feb poll.

The poll numbers since 2011 are by convention prompted polls and with don't knows excluded. Pruning the graphic is almost the least of the NPOV issues that need addressing, arguably they should all be core vote unprompted values. I just follow the long term convention me.

Please move the lumpy graphic outta there. PLEASE. Otherwise I will go contribution negative for the duration. Wikimucker (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief comment on the inclusion of Renua from Jan 2015, nb 31 for the RTE poll on the 13th Jan says that Renua was at 1% even though the party had not been named, I think it was being called Reboot Ireland at the time. In terms of the graph, the best compromise might be two graphs, the current 'full' graph and one as described by Wikimucker. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 06:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im getting heartily sick of looking at that graphic now and no 'smaller' graphic has been forthcoming. I therefore propose:

1. Move it down page ( leaving it precisely as is content wise)

2. Heat colouring the 2016 poll data which then takes top billing to 28 Feb. People want _Flash Information During_ campaigns and the 2016 polls provide that.

3. After 28 Feb when final FIRST COUNT data for the election is in the big graphic can move back to the top of the page for all I care. The data set essentially freezes at that time.

4. I will execute this Sectional reordering of 2016 Polls and of the large Graphic later on.

5. No net data will be added or removed to the page unless a new poll is published today. A small graphic containing a subset of poll data shall no longer be required. ..Thoughts from Impru20 Boreas74 Bastun on this reformatting designed to provide better campaign 'flash' data to all Wiki Users.

This page is the only Poll of Polls table generally available on the Irish election. Wikimucker (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm answering this here since this would, otherwise, be difficult to answer.

Bastun No other user is saying that the chart is illegible. Wikimucker's complains are related to the chart size. You just say it's entirely illegible and wanted to entirely remove it, on the grounds that it was ugly. That's different, sir.

I'd kindly ask you to don't speak for others when they themselves are talking here. That's entirely rude. They can tell us their opinions, and actually do it and show that their complains are not the ones you say they are.

The chart is not going to be put at the bottom, because that has no sense. However, the full chart can be put below the 2016 polling table, and a second one for the campaign period can be put above. Just as done here.

The source is an excel spreadsheet with the data shown in the article. As simply as that. Renua (have you already detected which trend line is? The blue one, not the purple one) has data up to January 2015 because it appeared in the polls in January 2015 (it is first listed in the Red C opinion poll for 13 January, as you can probably check within the table). As for the spreadsheet, I've no way to upload it here, but in any case, uploading it here would reveal some personal data of mine that is attached within the file, and as you would understand, I'm not gonna say my name to you. If you're not willing to assume WP:GOODFAITH and believe that what I'm saying is true, it's your problem, not mine. You say there's an error. Which error is it? I've already show you that your previous "errors" weren't such.

So far, the chart shows all polls up to 13 February, and thus it's up to date. I mentioned WP:PERFECTION only to note you that the fact you posted (that the chart must be keep up to date as a necessity) is not true, and that's supported by a Wikipedia guideline. But anyway, the chart is up to date, so no one actually understands what the complain here is.

A second chart starting from a "random date" is surely random. What date should it be? 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015? Several dates have been mentioned, but no reason has been put to explain why those dates and not others. That's random. Put a defined date, explain why that date should be used, and we can discuss it. Otherwise, I'm not going to use a random date that I'm not able to justify. Propose a given date to be used (campaign period, using the local elections as start date, etc) and justify it, and then we can discuss it.

And check your facts. You just go on to accuse others of things without even checking that your accusations are true, and what happens thereafter is that you claims are denied and proven wrong. So we only end up correcting you because you are not able to check your own facts by yourself. Learn to do that and check your facts. No data outside this article has been used, and no data included within the article for the parties shown is left out.

Wikimucker If the issue is the size, it can be resized to make it smaller, but it causes no aesthetical of technical issue. Many other articles use opinion polling charts, many of them made by myself, and cause no issue. We can't just put it at the bottom just because of it.

I don't really understand what you meant in your last comment. I mean, the reformatting you propose. I don't understand it ("heat colouring"?). Impru20 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK . Looks much better now 2016 data table is on top and graphic moved down. I have no further issues with the article layout. Wikimucker (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also downsized it from 900px to 700px, since it seemed one of the issues was it maybe being too large. Impru20 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ok, I'm answering this here since this would, otherwise, be difficult to answer." I don't understand what this means.

You appear to be making this personal, presumably because you're offended because I said I thought the chart was ugly. Please stop.

The bit where Wikimucker said the chart was illegible would be the bit where he said it was illegible.

Renua did not exist in January 2015. The poll asked about "Lucinda Creighton's new grouping" before it's membership, policies or even name were known. Including it as Renua is dodgy, in my opinion, as it verges on WP:OR, but others seem happy to leave it there so fair enough.

I didn't ask you to upload your spreadsheet here, I asked you to upload it to Dropbox or Google Drive (or any other shared storage would do.) WP:V is one of our principles. Right now, we can't verify your source data because it's not available. Personal data of yours that is attached to the file? That makes no sense. Why would there be any? Make a copy of the file. Remove the personal data. Upload the copy and give us a link. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be responding to the above, Impru20? Btw, resizing the graphic down to 700px make it even more illegible. There's effectively just a coloured blob down at the bottom right hand side now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It just mean that, for simplicity, I was starting another row of comments. I think that was very easy to understand, but your call.

No, I'm offended because you're just harassing me because the fact that I added a chart you didn't like. Now you pursue me at every discussion I have with other users in this talk page just to contradict me. And just as happened below, you ended up asking for a solution to a problem that didn't exist just to oppose my view.

There's a Renua figure for January 2015. So it's listed. If you don't like it, tell the pollster. It is not my issue.

So far, I think Wickimucker has no more issues with the chart. That leaves you as the only one still complaining on it. Since that's at least three users in favour of its inclusion and onle one (you) against, I think this can be regarded as solved. Sorry.

WP:V refers to referencing and citation, as well as copyright.

And I may also point to you that WP:GOODFAITH is also a principle. I'm not uploading it just because it can compromise personal information of mine that I can't remove from it, that I'm obviously not giving you. But everything that needs to be explained is explained in the chart's image description. It's a "twenty-poll moving averages". So, if you don't believe me, it's perfectly verifiable by you: just make your own Excel with the data and you will see that it's the same. So far, as I can see, you're only complaining on this issue to have the chart removed, despite the issue being already solved.

The real issue, however, is that you're not assuming good faith, and try to attack me for reasons that are rather absurd. And that's problematic, because that means that it is you the one taking this to personal grounds. As far as I'm concerned, and as you're not even willing to check your facts right before making your statements as you've shown in repeated comments (thus making me doubt about your true motives here, which seem to be just to disrupt me), I'm simply not stopping at addressing you any longer, because for what I have seen, you may be very well just trolling me. You're just creating conflicts out of nowhere, and trying to keep alive already solved discussions just for the sake of it. And in may cases, you're pressing for issues are, so far, non-existant. If you have an actual issue, I may care at stopping at you, but as you may understand, I'm here for real discussion, not just to play fun with you. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am not attacking you, I have never attacked you. Now, can you please explain how a spreadsheet recording Irish political opinion polls, that you're using as the basis for including a chart on this page, contains your personal data?! Can you please explain how or why you can't remove it? Right now, nobody can verify your chart. (WP:V is not about copyright, it's about verifiability.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. So now you didn't personally attacked me and used a template warning on my talk to threaten me just because you weren't able to defend your position in a discussion after several serious mistakes you commited, such as asking for a chart key when it was already there or rudely asking me to explain something that was already explained in the chart's description. Your problem was that you didn't checked your facts right before making your accusations. You also repeteadly "pursue" me on nearly every discussion I open on this talk just to oppose whatever view I may have. You still keep on this behaviour, and you're free to do it, but I'm also free to defend myself and, of course, stopping addressing you as I see you only spark rude conflict here, and that nothing good comes from a discussion with you.

The chart is correct, presents no data issue and I can't remove it because it's attached to the file, as it shows the session name of my computer. In any case, I don't even know why I'm telling this to you. The issue was already solved. Accept it. You just wish to keep it alive because you didn't agree for the table to be there and you didn't win it over, yet still want to press for its removal. You don't have the reason here. Close the discussion.

WP:V has a section for copyright issues. But again, I should have guessed you wouldn't have even bothered at checking it. Oh well.

This discussion is over for me. Impru20 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop raking over the coals of yesterday's discussion (closed by an admin!) and telling me what my "problem" is? You're making this personal, for no reason. You maintain the chart is correct. Without us being able to verify that, it's certainly open to challenge and removal. I'm not doing that, I'm instead asking you to share the source. "The chart is correct, presents no data issue and I can't remove it because it's attached to the file, as it shows the session name of my computer." This makes no sense. You used Excel to make a chart out of the underlying dataset, yes? It's the underlying data that is the issue. It needs to be verifiable. It's very simple. Make a copy of the spreadsheet. Delete the chart from it if it has the "session name of your computer", whatever that is. Upload the Excel to Dropbox or Drive or similar, share the link. It won't contain your name or the name of your computer, the latter of which is useless to anyone, anyway. You could have done this in the time you took to write your reply. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday's discussion? Many of the things I mentioned are from today, just from a while ago. You keep on the same manners as yesterday, so it's obvious I must also make reference to yesterday, as it's a continuous behaviour.

You still try to press on a closed discussion over unfounded complains. I'm not gonna give you personal data, that's it. WP:V doesn't mean what you're doing right now. Accept the result as it is. You can't just pretend to keep this ongoing just because you didn't like the outcome. Impru20 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I do not want any personal data, did not ask for any, and don't understand how your spreadsheet could contain any. Please supply a link to the spreadsheet you are using, or to a copy of it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, close the discussion. Now. Impru20 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the source to be in compliance with WP:V. Unsourced material is likely to be removed at any stage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this issue now, or you'll be reported for harassment, for trying to maintain a conflict with other user and for being unwilling to comply with an established consensus. Impru20 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, guess someone aside from myself also opposes your view. It's a mere graphical representation of the polls shown in the article, so it doesn't require further citation.

So far, your abusive use of WP:V to try to press forward your point of removing the chart could constitute WP:GAME. Stop this and leave the issue now, or I'll have to start to officially warn you in your talk page as a step previous to reporting you if you keep on this behavior. Impru20 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear - you can "officially warn me in my talk page"; but when I issued a warning for your violation of 3RR, that wasn't a warning, it was a "personal threat"? Ok... I am not abusing you. Please be civil and stop your personal attacks, thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't used a template warning on you so as to press my claims forward. I warned you here repeated times, and seeing how you kept on with this behaviour I left a message on your talk. On the other hand, you used a template warning right away from the beginning just because you weren't able to discuss the issue first. I'm being perfectly civil and try to respect etiquette, and started this assuming good faith (I can't now, as much evidence is contrary to that) yet you never did. I demand you to elaborate what exact personal attacks I'm making to you, or to withdraw that accusation. You made it several times yet you don't prove it; I usually tend to explain the policy breachings I notice on your part. That why I write walls of texts, those that you don't like. Because I care to elaborate. Impru20 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with chart

WP:V is one of the five pillars and is unequivocal: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"; "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

Impru20 states that the source for his chart is the opinion polls listed; but he also states that the source is an Excel spreadsheet, presumably containing copied poll data, and, apparently, "personal information". He consistently refuses to make this spreadsheet available. The chart therefore is not verifiable.

- If the data is shared, it can be verified, in accordance with policy. If it is correct - great; if it is not correct - it can be corrected and a new chart generated. Also great. A shared spreadsheet would, of course, also allow anyone to update the chart as and when necessary.

- It would be a matter of a couple of minutes to remove any "personal data", share the spreadsheet to Dropbox or Google, and share the link. It would therefore seem to be unreasonable to refuse do this, preventing verification.

Impru20 has consistently refused to amend the chart to display fewer dates, despite requests from several users.

- Displaying fewer dates would allow for a larger-scale chart, allowing easier visual interpretation (can anyone, right now, tell from the chart who is leading between AAA-PBP, Greens, Renua and Social Democrats?!)

- WP:NPOV has been cited as the reason for not allowing any other dates to be the cut-off point (although there is no logical reason why any arbitrary date can't be chosen - 1 Jan 2015, March 2015, even the local elections in 2014, without causing any NPOV problems.

- Despite the apparent importance of WP:NPOV, an arbitrary figure of "20-point moving averages" for the trend lines has been chosen, and, it appears, smoothing has been applied to the lines. If choosing a start date of the local elections would be a breach of WP:NPOV, then applying smoothing and 20-point moving averages would also certainly be a breach of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - the polls do not say FG had 44% support on 4 September 2011 that gradually declines to 40% by 17 September; rather, they merely state that FG had 44% in the B&A poll of 4 September and then they had 40% in the Millward Brown poll of 17 September - i.e., smoothing should not be applied. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's not any problem with the chart. I challenge you to put a single opinion polling chart of any user where the spreadsheet is given, so that you do prove your claim right. Because as far as I know, policy doesn't require users to put their spreadsheets here, and they haven't. I challenge you to do show us an opinion polling chart where that policy of yours is applied, because, otherwise, you'll be only abusing of a Wikipedia guideline (WP:V in this case) just to press forward your ridiculous claim to remove the chart, that you didn't get after losing your bid to do it through either editing or discussion here. And if you can't prove that, and you're indeed abusing of a Wikipedia policy to avoid consensus, that would be gaming the system.

I've said I'm willing to make a second chart, which was what was agreed with other users, and not what you say. However, I asked you to give me a justified date to do it, because several random dates were put and I'm not creating a chart out of a random thought. So far, you haven't been willing to answer me in that point, and I've been given no specific date to be discussed.

All in all, you're only trying to break consensus and common Wikipedia established practice just because you want to have the chart out of here. So, unless you stop your behaviour from now on, I'll have to report you for breaching WP:GAME, for keeping on your continuous harassing manners on me and for prospective disruptive editing. Your call, but I'm not standing this anymore. Be mature and accept that you lost your claim and that the chart is not going to be removed. Impru20 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again - be civil, stop the personal attacks, and please supply the verification required. It really will only take a couple of minutes, less than you took to write the above paragraphs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'll do it once you supply where that policy of yours of giving out the spreadhseet is applied. Put me an example of where that is done. Btw, can you say where I've personally attacked you? Impru20 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sweden2010RiksdagPolls.svg is an example of raw data (with references) and Python generation code for an SVG image. Whether any pollicy requires it or not, I hope we can all agree that that is a good model to aim at. jnestorius^(talk) 22:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raw data with references is already shown here. This is not Phyton, but Excel, which doesn't have a "source code". If you show me how I can put Excel raw data in such a form I'll gladly do it. And that won't even require uploading any spreadsheet to any outside website, something that, so far, is not done for any chart. Is it? Impru20 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jnestorius I made this, which is as close as I can get to doing that, as Excel does not have a "source code" in the same sense that Phyton does. It seems a bit chaotic, but when you click on the "edit" button it can be seen much better. I hope this helps ending this entirely absurd discussion, which should have been over ever since consensus was reached for maintaining the chart. Impru20 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the raw data rather than the code for generating the graphic. A link to the wikipedia page would suffice for the data and references, but it should be to a fixed version of the page (e.g. [3]), since the latest version may not match. You can add prose for the steps you followed to generate the graphic; I guess step one is "Insert > Charts" but I don't know much Excel. jnestorius^(talk) 07:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, raw data appears! Excellent progress! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Color key?

What the purpose of this color key was?

Color Key To 2016 Polls:

Government Parties (FG/Lab) Rise Government Parties (FG/Lab) Fall Government Parties No Change

Both government parties lose support ever since 2012. It has a rather little use. Furthermore, the numbers don't give up in any case for a re-edition of a FG/Labour coalition (rather, voices pointing to a possible FG/FF coalition), so it would also be rather pointless to point something like this up. At the same time, parties now contest the election as separate entities, and while both FG and Labour would support their government's action, it's rather irrelevant right now. Impru20 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

up down same as last one. Heat Colouring, Green = Go and Red = Stop.Wikimucker (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you make the comparison between polls, not the last election. I see. But what the purpose of that is? I still see it as redundant and rather unnecessary. Impru20 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are the TRADITIONAL PARTY COLOURS at bottom and that is the 2011 RESULT ....FFS :(

I will leave the ROWS in the individual opinion polls all white WHILE the issue of ROW based HEAT colouring is discussed. This pernicity editing is getting bloody tedious.

The 2 Government Parties are running IN COALITION and the heat map ( you cut the explanation bit out anyway Impru) and their results should be heat coloured as the AGGREGATE of the 2 Parties.

This following bit makes no sense, fancy explaining it??? ""the numbers don't give up in any case for a re-edition of a FG/Labour coalition (rather, voices pointing to a possible FG/FF coalition)" These 2 parties, in fact no other parties, are running as a coalition, only FG and Labour are. Wikimucker (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is being left as the last consensus version. Your change is profound (since it changes the entire mechanic of the table by changing how it works) so it must be discussed first. There's no reason for leaving all the rows white either.

Then, please, write correctly. You don't have to put words in capital letters. It looks like you're shouting.

The 2 government parties are running separately. Fine Gael on its own and the Labour Party as well. By no means are they running in an electoral coalition; otherwise they'll have presented a single list (as it was done in Portugal), not both of them. That is first.

Secondly, by no means it's assured that the FG/Labour government coalition will be re-edited. Mainly because numbers won't add up, probably. So what you try to do is rather meaningless, since the fact that the government parties lose/win support doesn't tell anything in itself in respect to future party combinations.

In another sense, what you propose could potentially be a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as you are limiting the only possible government alternative to a FG/Lab gov't coalition. But we can't guess the future. Maybe a FG/FF government is formed; maybe FF is able to rule in minority. We can't guess it. So we can't just give the FG/Lab combination more importance than others. And much less in the way you do (which as I have explained, it helps to tell nothing in itself). Impru20 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The 2 government parties are running separately. Fine Gael on its own and the Labour Party as well. By no means are they running in an electoral coalition; otherwise they'll have presented a single list (as it was done in Portugal), not both of them. That is first." You are completely wrong and Ireland does not have a list system anyway.

I'll let someone else explain it to you as I am fed up of the interminable nonsense now. :( Wikimucker (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Fine Gael and Labour are running separately. Name it "lists", name it "candidacies", name it "parties", name it whatever you want. The fact is that both parties are running separately. The fact that they are running a common campaign (which is probably what you do actually mean), in no way means they are running together, since it's obvious they're running with their own candidates each. They're not standing common candidates in constituencies, but they each support their party's own. So no, they are not running in coalition, and I'm not wrong. You should correct your position, as it's obvious they're not running together.

Plus, the fact that they run a common campaign does not even mean they will repeat in government. If they lose their overall majority, it's likely FG will seek FF support instead, or will try a three-way FG-Lab-FF coalition, or whatever, in order to command a majority. Or even more, maybe a government without FG is formed. So your proposal has no sense, since you assume FG and Labour will be re-elected, and entirely discard other possibilites. We can't guess the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Impru20 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimucker's change imparts additional information in a clear format. Support it's inclusion. Just as I wouldn't attempt to impose my views on a Spanish general election article, maybe those not based in the country could refrain from making erroneous statements and attempted ownership, as I've just listened to one of the coalition party leaders confirming they want the coalition re-elected. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have a blue background on one party's column. Support it's removal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not explaining how it adds additional information, and fail to refute my own arguments. Parties making a common campaign doesn't equal to parties running in coalition for an election. You seem to only support Wikimucker for the sake of it, just to go against me. You accuse me of ownership, despite me only pressing for the consensus version. Rather, looking at your behaviour, you yourself could be accused of ownership at this article by trying to break a consensuated style, by trying to break other users' discussed and agreed for-edits and by refusing to enter discussion before any change. Current opinion polling table was agreed for in the Irish election article, 2016 talk, so you must discuss change instead of making useless changes for the sake of it.

And "Just as I wouldn't attempt to impose my views on a Spanish general election article"? What? First, the one pressing for a change is you, not me. So the one wanting to impose your view is you, not me; I'm just in support of the previous, consensus version. And secondly, I of course can edit whatever article I want to. You're no one to dare to limit myself to any given set of articles, sir.

You've went on to accuse me for unchecked facts on your part just to have something to accuse me for. Keep acting in this manner, and I'll have to ask for admin intervention. Any personal fixing you have on me, leave it to yourself, so stop harassing me, thanks. Impru20 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I've just been listening to one of the coalition party leaders seeking re-election of the coalition. Apparently you know better. Apparently, two editors agreeing something can be overridden by you - and that's consensus? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Bastun and Impru20 for contributing on the row by Heat colouring idea, I'll wait for other regular contributors Snappy and Boreas7a4 to get their spake in.

To clarify

1. Wikimucker asserts that the two grovernment coalition partners are running as a coalition party and that both parties aggregate performance will reflected in a heatmap colouring.

2. This heatmap colouring can be used going forward for whatever combination of parties forms the next government.

3. My preferred solution is to heatmap by AGENCY not by publication date, eg Ipsos with Ipsos, MRBI with MRBI and RedC with RedC. I would appreciate input on that single point from all parties.

RgdsWikimucker (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, re 3, that makes lots of sense; each polling agency uses slightly different methodologies and has their own quirks. Heatmap by agency would allow readers to much more easily compare IPSOS polls with IPSOS, Red C with Red C, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. But they are not running as an electoral coalition as long as both parties do electorally contest each other in constituencies. They run separately, and they electorally fight each other. You're mistakenly confusing it with the fact that both parties are running a common campaign, and that together defend their government's record, and that they defend the re-edition of the pact. Yes, of course, they do that. But that enters into a political party's strategy to run an election campaign. But that is one thing (to run a common campaign), and another, different thing is that they're effectively running in coalition, because they aren't. Voters will vote for either Fine Gael or Labour, they are not voting for both at the same time. Further, that does not that mean that their government coalition will be re-elected, or that their future pact is the only relevant possible post-election coalition (this would be WP:UNDUE, as you would be giving an undue weight to the FG/Lab coalition over other possible pacts).

2. I find rather difficult to accomplish that.

3. Or just don't "heatmap" at all. I think it should be left to people to make the additions they want with the data that polls give. Keep in mind that opinion polls DON'T show aggregated results for alternative coalitions. We doing that would be only our subjective opinion on what coalitions would be possible, and that would violate WP:NPOV. Sometimes, simplest solutions are the best ones. I don't think this is needed, specially seeing the issues it may cause. Impru20 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bastun, I will ensure that this is clarified if others are amenable to the overall row formatting idea. Wikimucker (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are sortable. You can already sort opinion polls by polling firm... Impru20 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun, have you even noticed that the table is sortable? You can already sort opinion polls by polling agency. Your issue on this has no sense, as there's no issue at all. Just sort the table by polling firm and that's it, you can make the comparison. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious personal animosity is obvious. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your no-response doesn't answer the fact that you are, as of now, looking for a solution to a problem that is already solved and, thus, does not exist. Impru20 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20 This assertion of yours is also factually incorrect as was your earlier comment on lists Voters will vote for either Fine Gael or Labour, they are not voting for both at the same time.

I categorically assert that in the STV and Multi Seat constituency Irish model voters can in fact vote for BOTH at the same time but the precise effect depends on whether the second acquires votes from the first by either a) Distribution of surplus or b) Elimination.Wikimucker (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in the strict sense. Voters can vote for both at the same time, but only with some requisites. They don't have double the votes so that they can vote for all candidates of the two parties in all rounds; they eventually must choose. Otherwise, with your interpretation, all parties should be regarded as running in coalition under the STV system. Which is obviously not correct, right?

The fact that Fine Gael stands separately as "Fine Gael", and Labour standing as "Labour Party" separately, is what breaks your view. They are not contesting the election in a joint candidacy compromising both parties, but they are independent. They may be running a joint campaign, avoiding to attack each other and pressing for re-editing the government coalition, but that's it. Parties are free to say during the campaign who they want to form government, of course, but that doesn't mean both parties are running in an electoral coalition, and that's what you're saying, which isn't obviously correct. Impru20 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh ??? Otherwise, with your interpretation, all parties should be regarded as running in coalition under the STV system. Which is obviously not correct, right? Your interpretation you mean??

AndThe fact that Fine Gael stands separately as "Fine Gael", and Labour standing as "Labour Party" separately, is what breaks your view. They are not contesting the election in a joint candidacy compromising both parties, but they are independent.

Interdependent is the word I'd use. Lets wait for some wise input from others shall we. This interminable and circular 'talk' is getting in the way of editing time!Wikimucker (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, yours. If you say that FG and Labour are contesting in coalition because of the STV system allowing for people to vote for both parties at different rounds, then all parties would be considered, on your interpretation, as running in coalition, as people can do that with all parties, right? (Not just with FG and Labour; the Irish electoral system applies to everyone, not just those two).

They're contesting separely. That's it. There's no "interdependency" in elections. Parties contest separately, or group themselves in joint candidacies. That's what the law says. There's not a middle legal ground allowed. You insist in confusing parties' campaigns with parties' candidacies. They may be coordinating themselves so as to keep polite between each other as government partners, but they are running separately from each other. I don't know how something so obvious can be that difficult to understand. Impru20 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I#ll stick with interdependent seeing as I know what it means. :) Wikimucker (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... Ok. But understand than that as a concept is not legally appliable. I understand what you mean, actually, but you're putting it the wrong way. FG and Labour are allies and refrain from attacking themselves in their respective campaigns, as their will is to form a government coalition... but are still running as independent parties from each other. And we must abide to the legal definition of parties' standing separately. Which is not a electoral coalition. In a government coalition, two parties or more ally each other to form a joint government together. In an electoral coalition, two or more parties ally themselves to contest an election together. An example of this would be the Portugal's case, which does not happen here.

Anyway, I hope you've checked the sortable function of the table, as it pretty much solves any issue with the polling firm comparability. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on the 'T' bit of STV some time Impru20 and don't conflate the Irish system with the Irrelvant Portugese List system or similar, thanks.

I will not proceed with the heat based marking schema until tomorrow to give other contributors a chance to get their oars in. There is no reason why Irish Polling pages need look 'in the least' like some Iberian concoction. Wikimucker (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are confusing things. I'm not telling you anything of what you're talking about. Again, Fine Gael and Labour are standing their own candidates. They are contesting the election separately. That's a fact, no matter how you try to disguise it.

Iberian concoction? What's that? The UK, Italy, Sweden, Poland... all use similar systems to the one in place in this article, and are not Iberian.

You can't proceed with it if there's no consensus. And there isn't. And as I told you earlier, your "scheme" can potentially violate several Wikipedia guidelines. Impru20 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only places in the world using PR-STV are Ireland and Malta. Our electoral system is completely different to that of the UK, Italy, Sweden and Poland! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, the point you both are trying to elaborate doesn't have anything to do with the electoral system. Parties contest an election together or separately. In this case, they are obviously doing it separately. They are both shown separately in election debates, in opinion polls and in the election ballot. Seriously, this is so simple to understand that I'm actually thinking if you both are just kidding at me. Impru20 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion is incorrect. Impru20 You can't proceed with it if there's no consensus. And there isn't. And as I told you earlier, your "scheme" can potentially violate several Wikipedia guidelines.

'There is a simple consensus' and Bastun and I have broadly agreed while Impru20 has largely interjected 'elements' of Portugese practice and relied in general terms on Wiki Guidelines WITHOUT detailing what element of what guideline could be breached in support of their position. I consider this position together with the undue volume of input to the talk page to be bordering on the vexatious and frivolous at this moment in time.

I am therefore trending towards agreement with Bastun that serial objections and overwrought contributions to this Talk page, designed not least to make it utterly unreadable, in themselves establish a prima facie case of ownership and I am not averse to supporting any action that Bastun may choose to take on the matter. HOWEVER I have specifically requested further input from 2 other contributors to this page (Snappy and Boreas74) and am unlikely to support escalation until they have had a chance to comment from their own points of view.

Please refrain from any more LONG contributions Impru20 until those 2 users have had a chance to comment as invited. I will not edit this article for 24 hours ( no matter what) and I do not want to see any further contributions other than those I have asked for if you don't mind.

'If I find' this talk section was 'Deliberately' cluttered with more verbosity between now and midnight (GMT) tomorrow 17th I shall have to consider the ownership case proven and will make myself fully available to support whatever course Bastun considers reasonable after that time.

> 24 Hour Purdah > Engage! Wikimucker (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this seems to have escalated and gone down a strange path. My position from the start was that the article was better with a graph of polling data. I understand that people have strong views about what that graph should look like, the period it should cover, where it should appear in the article, etc. I'm not as invested so I'm happy for others to work these issues out. I think Wikimucker's idea of a 24 hour breather is a good one as there seems to more heat than light being generated at the moment. In terms of new ideas aimed at finding a solution everyone can live with, could we add a 'Governing Coalition' line to the graph that would show the combined FG/Lab support, if that is something some users think is important? Would there be a benefit to a graph which covers the same period as the first table, i.e. from January this year? I'm reluctant to suggest too much work for other people to do, my own wiki editing tends to be modest spelling and grammar stuff. That's my two cents. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 08:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've made serious accusation, that I obviously must refute (you'd understand that you can't just said what you just said and pretend me to just shut up).

First, you have not consensus to make your change. The current version of the table, with the blue shading of the most voted party, was agreed for in the 2016 Irish election article, back when the tables were still there, by at least two users, different from me. Dozens of edits have been made by many users to the articles and the tables since then, without changes being made to the current shading format. Furthermore, as per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Such, the shading of the most voted party format can be said to have achieved a pretty wide consensus.

You then made your change, which was disputed. Under the same rule, new consensus is only reached if an edit is made without dispute. So, as you didn't achieve consensus through edit, you have to do it through discussion; discussion which, by the way, I opened myself to discuss the issue (because you didn't come here to discuss this until I did). Then, we have that both Bastun and you agree and I don't. But since you're trying to press an edit on an issue which was achieved with a wider consensus, it's obviously not enough. That comes first.

Secondly, I'm only saying that new consensus must be reached before making new changes. That's not ownership. WP:OWNERSHIP means that no one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. As far as I'm concerned, it is you who are pressing this issue trying to impose your own particular view of this, even going as far as to remove the background shading despite the discussion being ongoing, and with Bastun even going as far as to disregard my own opinion for not being Irish (a clear case of WP:OWNERSHIP when he said that just as I wouldn't attempt to impose my views on a Spanish general election article, maybe those not based in the country could refrain from making erroneous statements, meaning like if I couldn't comment here or offer my opinion for not being Irish). While discussion is ongoing, the last consensus version is left, which I think is a nice temporal compromise for the duration of the discussion (as we at least know that it is the version that causes the less dispute with other users). So, don't overestimate WP:OWNERSHIP, as if we do indeed analyze the situation, it could be applied to you, not me. I'm not trying to impose anything. I just try to discuss the issue and for you to don't impose your view while the discussion is ongoing until new consensus arises.

And I'm disputing Bastun's move here, as he still wants to press his case of removing the chart despite he not winning it over by whatever means he finds necessary, and has shown enough proof that he is just opposing everything I say just for the sake of it (because he didn't like that I added the chart, which, btw, was asked for by another user), and not for real contribution to Wikipedia, even going as far as to game the system using the Wikipedia WP:V policy just to do that. He has adcquired a personal fixation for me, intervening in every discussion I take part in in this talk just to oppose whatever view I may have. So we can't actually say he agreed with you, but rather, he agreed against me. Which is not the same as agreeing with you.

I don't have anything against you, but if you go as far as to proceed to any action against me just because you weren't able to discuss the issue nicely, I'll also have to take the proper actions against you (for onership and trying to impose an edit without consensus) and Bastun for continuous harassment on me and gaming. I don't want to take this to those ends, and I'll not threaten you to abstain to speak. Speak as you wish, but please, keep this polite. However, I agree with the 24-hour hiatus if that helps solve the issue, and I don't find any issue that this is treated with the proper etiquette if possible.

I started the discussion and I'm the one most interested in seeing it ending in a nice way for everyone. Boreas74's proposal of adding a separate FG/Lab column could be a nice compromise which can be discussed and even agreed for.

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/reads wall of text misinterpreting lots of policies, engaging in personal attacks and incivility...

Hunh.

Wikimucker, Snappy recently changed username to Spleodrach so may have missed your earlier ping.

Your break idea is a good one; I'm out of here for 24 hours. I've explained above why verification is needed on the chart, and that there are also problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but the 'citation needed' template just gets reverted and I get followed to my userpage with another rant. Back tomorrow. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun I wasn't answering to you here, but now that you bring the issue (since you talk on misinterpreting "lots of policies"). I'm still waiting for you to prove with real and factual examples the facts you claim are "policy". And I ask you to state where and how I'm personally attacking you or being uncivil in this comment. Because you're making serious accusations without explaining why. Impru20 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK so 'having' allowed 24 hours, and noting with dismay that further 'verbosity' was inflicted upon this talk section despite my urgings of restraint I shall now summarise.

The consensus is Bastun and user Wikimucker are in favour of row based heat coding. User Boreas74 is indifferent. User Impru20 has flooded this talk section with text in the very few days since it was created and (I am not reading through all that again) but I suspect they are against the idea to summmarise their overall position. However they made one valid and generally verifiable point which is that the biggest single party got a coloured background after some 'discussion' elsewhere and so that will remain. No other users contributed to this ,'eHemmm', 'discussion'.

I will implement the row based Heat coding later on today for the 2016 data only and showing the aggregate performance of the 2 Coalition Partners ( up/down/same) since the immediately previous survey by the same Polling Company.

I think this section of the talk page has now had its day and if someone wants to discuss aesthetics post implementation they should start a new section in this talk page and KEEP IT SHORT AND TO THE POINT. as a courtesy to all editors.

TTFN Wikimucker (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I care to elaborate on an aspect I find relevant, I'm free to do it, specially if you make the accusation you do. That's not 'verbosity', but elaboration. Fact is your edit has no consensus, since it doesn't revert the previous-established consensus.

What I find with dismay is that, in this comment, you fall to a noticeable lack of etiquette and uncivility by adding sarcastic expressions that, so far, I don't think are needed for a current understanding of the issue.

You say Boreas74 is indifferent. He actually proposed an alternative to yours in order to reach a compromise, a proposal to which I agreed. So you obviously have no consensus, and even there's an alternative proposal put here to discuss, so to reach a compromise. Are you even willing to discuss it, sir? Impru20 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what Boreas74 proposed would be something akin to this:

Date	Source/Link	Polling Agency	FG	Lab	FF	SF	AAA-PBP	RI	SD	GP	Others	FG/ Lab
Date	Source/Link	Polling Agency
16 February 2016	The Irish Sun^{[p 1]}^{[p 2]}	Red C	26	9	19	17	2	2	3	4	18^{[nb 1]}	35
13 February 2016	The Sunday Business Post^{[p 3]}^{[p 4]}	Red C	28	8	18	20	3	1	4	2	16^{[nb 2]}	36
10 February 2016	Paddy Power^{[p 5]}^{[p 6]}	Red C	30	8	18	17	4	2	3	2	16^{[nb 3]}	38
6 February 2016	The Sunday Times^{[p 7]}^{[p 8]}	Behaviour & Attitudes	28	8	20	17	3	2	4	3	15^{[nb 4]}	36
6 February 2016	The Sunday Business Post^{[p 7]}^{[p 9]}	Red C	31	10	17	17	3	1	3	2	16^{[nb 5]}	41
6 February 2016	Sunday Independent^{[p 10]} ^{[p 11]}	Millward Brown	27	6	22	21	3	1	1	1	18	33
4 February 2016	The Irish Times^{[p 12]}	Ipsos MRBI	28	7	21	19	4	1	2	2	16^{[nb 6]}	35
30 January 2016	The Sunday Business Post^{[p 13]}	Red C	29	10	17	19	3	1	2	3	16	39
16 January 2016	The Sunday Business Post^{[p 14]}	Red C	30	9	19	19	3	2	1	2	15	39
16 January 2016	The Sunday Times^{[p 15]}^{[p 16]}	Behaviour & Attitudes	31	6	20	16	3	2	1	3	20^{[nb 7]}	37
25 February 2011	General election	—	36.1	19.4	17.4	9.9	2.2^{[nb 8]}	—	—	1.8	14.2	55.5

If you're really SO obsessed with showing the combined support for the current governing parties, I think this is a solution we can everyone live with. And much more detailed than your initial proposal.

Now I hope you don't say that others are indifferent and try to impose your views. There's a compromise alternative, with more usefulness than what you originally proposed and that should also please your views. So please, don't ignore it and discuss it. And try to be polite in your answer. Impru20 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another version: It could also be done so that the contrast between both "Current government parties vs. Opposition parties" is done. Like this:

Date	Source/Link	Polling Agency	FG	Lab	FF	SF	AAA-PBP	RI	SD	GP	Others	Gov't	Opp.
Date	Source/Link	Polling Agency
16 February 2016	The Irish Sun^{[p 1]}^{[p 2]}	Red C	26	9	19	17	2	2	3	4	18^{[nb 1]}	35	47
13 February 2016	The Sunday Business Post^{[p 3]}^{[p 4]}	Red C	28	8	18	20	3	1	4	2	16^{[nb 2]}	36	48
10 February 2016	Paddy Power^{[p 5]}^{[p 6]}	Red C	30	8	18	17	4	2	3	2	16^{[nb 3]}	38	46
6 February 2016	The Sunday Times^{[p 7]}^{[p 8]}	Behaviour & Attitudes	28	8	20	17	3	2	4	3	15^{[nb 4]}	36	49
6 February 2016	The Sunday Business Post^{[p 7]}^{[p 9]}	Red C	31	10	17	17	3	1	3	2	16^{[nb 5]}	41	43
6 February 2016	Sunday Independent^{[p 10]} ^{[p 11]}	Millward Brown	27	6	22	21	3	1	1	1	18	33	49
4 February 2016	The Irish Times^{[p 17]}	Ipsos MRBI	28	7	21	19	4	1	2	2	16^{[nb 6]}	35	49
30 January 2016	The Sunday Business Post^{[p 18]}	Red C	29	10	17	19	3	1	2	3	16	39	45
16 January 2016	The Sunday Business Post^{[p 19]}	Red C	30	9	19	19	3	2	1	2	15	39	46
16 January 2016	The Sunday Times^{[p 20]}^{[p 21]}	Behaviour & Attitudes	31	6	20	16	3	2	1	3	20^{[nb 7]}	37	45
25 February 2011	General election	—	36.1	19.4	17.4	9.9	2.2^{[nb 8]}	—	—	1.8	14.2	55.5	29.9

Impru20 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had also taken the suggestion on showing the combined polling numbers, made by Boreas, on board but I have a more elegant solution in mind. Wikimucker (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May you come and share your "more elegant" solution here with us? Just for us to be able to discuss it, at least. Impru20 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my suggestion was related to the graph rather than the table data, but it was aimed at providing a compromise solution. I don't want it to be another driver of conflict about the article. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 15:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boreas74 I also just want to end this absurd set of conflicts right know. I just uploaded a chart and hell broke out.

On your suggestion, it would require a separate chart then, because the same one showing separate parties and mixing it with coalition data would be chaotic. But could be done. However, it'd also require for the data to be shown in the table (be it the main one, be it another one) so that data can be verified and speedily checked by anyone. I already had a tense discussion on a verifiability issue despite opinion polling data being pretty obviously there; I don't want to spark a conflict with some user by making tweaks to the chart without an obvious source being there, visible to everyone. Impru20 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Boreas74 but I can easily incorporate combined Government polling numbers per poll/row and in a highly accessible format. 15:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimucker (talk • contribs)

I'm not in favour of combined polling numbers for Govt or Opposition. The way the table is now (as of this posting) is the way I think it should stay. The user formerly known as Snappy - Spleodrach (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And row based 'heat colouring' Spleodrach showing combined government parties coded up (green) down (red) yellow (no change from last poll). Thoughts.???? Iconography top of this section of talk page. Wikimucker (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I not in favour of that. Spleodrach (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just leave it as it is now. The current version does not cause any issues, and it seems that the "compromise" version is not supported, either. Impru20 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renua color?

Which is the official color for Renua? It was shown as blue before, but it has now been changed to gold. In their website they tend to use sky blue as background, but don't seem to have preference for a single color either. Electograph uses sky blue too. Currently, blue is being used in the chart, but it should be changed if another one is used for the party. Which one should be used? Impru20 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Wikimucker (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Impru20 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Eyes Wikimucker (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?? Could you please try to answer politely? I'm just asking to know where it is said that orange is the party's official color, as it has been changed recently without any source shown or reason being stated. Several sources use other colors different than orange to depict it, while its logo has several colors in it and its website shows also several colors themes (sky blue being the predominant one). Impru20 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them. You did not see them. The answer is still Orange 16:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimucker (talk • contribs)

Well, then, as you saw the source and I didn't, put the source. I'm just asking for a source stating that orange is the official party color, so that I can freely change Renua's color in the chart without later being forced to revert the change. "I saw them, you did not see them" doesn't seem enough sourcing. Impru20 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters actually use yellow. Source.

Someone else has yellow, so it is still Orange > https://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/michael-farrington-renua-mayo_front.jpg 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimucker (talk • contribs)

Main posters show yellow as main color. Maybe yellow-orangish, but still showing yellow as main. This is how orange and its shades look, and it certainly doesn't look like what you show. Rather, it's a shade of yellow. I hope we don't end up starting another discussion just because you aren't able to identify the correct color. I was just asking for a source; I already found one. Issue solved. Impru20 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the poster colour is yellow, perhaps with a hit of orange. It's like the colour of that dress again. Spleodrach (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

Lots of broken links in this page, the further back one goes the worse it gets.

Checks and repairs needed or replacement by wayback machine links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimucker (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poll chart, local elections to date

Offering this as an alternative chart:

Clearer, no smoothing applied (avoiding synth/OR problem); the only change to poll data is polls published on the same day are averaged. Happy to include base data in image description or upload spreadsheet to Dropbox or Google Drive. (The leaked poll from tomorrow's SBP is included; I would propose averaging that one with the other polls also being published tomorrow). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like that Bastun so I do.

Any chance you can produce a 2016 _Only_ variant as well as it may be we decide to keep the big chart where it is given all the suffering that came along with it and go with your version of 2016 as well. ?? Wikimucker (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :-) - How's this:

Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, a more blood red Labour and perhaps a reversal of the green codes for SF and FF and now where to put it.

I suggest ( and will wait for others to comment) that it goes in the 2016 Section at bottom. Might as well wait for another 2 polls to come out this evening too.

The advantage of the 2016 graph is that a lot of the action is bunched in the 0-5% space which is hard to make out over the longer timeline in the current graph.

Thanks again for your work Bastun, lets see what others think. Wikimucker (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the (revised and updated) graph for 2016-only polls, with colour changes as requested, as the old graph was (at the time) out of date. It got reverted and replaced with a hastily-updated version of the old graph and an edit summary of "This is up to date" - which was only true after my own upload, as the respective timestamps clearly show. I've re-added this one in any case as it's much clearer on the recent polls and on the smaller parties' actual polling. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that, sound job and exactly where I thought it was required. Exit Poll this evening c. 10:30 pm on RTÉ so be ready. Wikimucker (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have been bold and applied your very same criteria to your chart, as it was outdated. I understand that you added yours because mine was outdated. As mine (the chart that met consensus) is now fully updated, I thank you for your effort and restore the original one. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You contributed nothing to the 'flash' 2016 data chart or to the discussion on it in this talk piece . I have reverted your revision of the article deliberately removing it.

Let Bastun update the 2016 chart in their own time. Wikimucker (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimucker, I see you just told me that "my chart was left alone". Actually, Bastun unjustifiedly deleted my chart, on the grounds that it was outdated, as you can check here and here. He could have just asked me to update it. Or he could have just added his without touching mine. But no, he just removed mine to replace it with his. Because he has never accepted (and still doesn't accept, it seems) my chart, and wants to remove it by any means possible. So, I just applied his same criteria, and removed his chart for being outdated. And also because, seeing how the reason given by him for adding his chart and removing mine was that mine was outdated, now that mine is more updated than his, I saw no reason now to left his there. Maybe Bastun can actually explain to us what his criteria is, though, so that we can actually understand what criteria should we use in his opinion. Impru20 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Impru20, your chart in this article is intact. You are referring to the removal of YOUR chart...about which you are very possessive as I know...from another wiki article.

Leave this article alone as it is not the article you are on about and take that issue up in the pertinent talk page for which you supplied a link here. I am minded to observe that the timeline for Bastun's graphic in the general election article is more compliant with the timeline for the general election article. That is if you want to start a talk piece in there. Please keep it out of here for now. Thanks. Wikimucker (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My chart is intact because I restored it. I put you proof of Bastun removing it without justification. Bastun removed my charts from both articles, this one too. It's the second link I put to you: here

My chart was added by consensus, while the addition of Bastun has no consensus (you yourself stated above that you should wait until more people discussed it). But I'm not even discussing that. Bastun started the conflict by unilaterally removing mine, without discussion, without reason, without warning and against consensus. I just applied his same criteria to his chart, which I think that, if coherent, he would respect. Tell him to respect consensus, be respectful to others, be coherent with his criteria, and I'll be fine. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun just recognized that his criteria was not based on a rational basis, here. I believe this solves the issue. Thank you all. Impru20 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It solves nothing. You are deliberately talking about this article Irish_general_election,_2016 in the WRONG talk page. Wikimucker (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimucker No, I'm talking on this article too. It's not my fault that user Bastun used the same reasoning for removing my chart from both articles, but it includes this one too. And you brought the issue here, so this is being discussed here, as it also concerns this article (again, check the link). And yes, seeing how Bastun recognized that his own criteria had no rational basis, this is solved. And, seeing how I said this is solved... I'm not sure why you now come saying it's not, unless you want to keep this discussion alive for some reason. Cheers, and good night. Impru20 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As of this moment 'your' chart you are so possessive about is in this article. Now stop Impru20 . Wikimucker (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimucker Uh, I stopped two comments ago, pal. I already said this is solved, so I don't know why you still keep maintaining this ongoing. I don't like your tone, but I'm not going to directly attack you as you do with me, as that's not polite. I just request you to stop sparking a conflict. Thank you, and again, good night. Impru20 (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting perfectly good charts by other users then, simples. Your overall behaviour Impru20 is clearly within WP:OWN territory at this stage and if you comment any further on this section of this talk page I will flag this issue higher. Wikimucker (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just applied Bastun's criteria to remove outdated charts. Maybe you should have said this same to him when he removed mine using the very same argument. You shouldn't abuse of Wikipedia guidelines in order to supply a lack of arguments. I already said this was solved three comments ago, yet you still keep this discussion ongoing, and even go on to issue threats to me. Stop it now, Wikimucker. Btw, you can't obviously command me where should I comment or not, specially if you're talking to me, and more specifically if you're doing it in such a hostile behaviour. Discussion should by over by now. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impru, please do not presume to speak for me. Thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak for you; just applied your same criteria to your chart, but it seems it got a different reaction from both you and Wickimucker that when you used that criteria on mine. Nonetheless, I accept your rectification that such a criteria had no basis, and eagerly expect for your chart to be updated. Sincerely. Impru20 (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, just seeing this now. Chart was/is up-to-date; the "missing" polls were exit polls. Exit polls are a) pointless; b) not opinion polls. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling dates column

I really think that the sampling dates column isn't necessary. There's already enough columns and the sampling one provides no important information. VG31-irl 22:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is very useful in the last 10 days of an election campaign. I'll take it out once the voting ends friday if you like. Wikimucker (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with VG31-irl, there's already a "Date" column. Adding another one is just redundant. Furthermore, it's just five days until election and the column is not even near to complete, so it's just unnecessary, specially if intention is to remove it later on. Impru20 (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the date column is when the information is first published (or leaked) . The sampling date is what it was acquired.

Anyway if nobody else wants it by midnight then revert it by all means.Wikimucker (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be better included in the source footnote rather than as a column in its own right. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK so move the data to a Mouseover Popup and delete the column, I have no issues with that. Wikimucker (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of opinion poll of 25th Feb

The poll conducted for The Journal and published on 25th Feb seems a bit dubious for inclusion - a poll "by market research students at the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) who interviewed a random sample of over 1,000 adults between last Friday and Monday." In other words, not carried out by an established market research company with a track record, published sampling methodology and full results including stated margin of error; but instead, by students in and around Dublin only, who are doing one module of a marketing course. It also has no source data bar the news report itself. I'm going to remove it from the table. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

correct decision I think. all the above rationale applies. Shall we start the next opinion poll article for the next election?? Wikimucker (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - I predict a shorter article, somehow... :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun May as well add post election polls from the big four/media to this article for the foreseeables. We have absolutely no idea when the next election is and its is probably 2016 or 2017 latest. Wikimucker (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, happy to. I'd say 2016 for the next one (assuming they manage to actually form a government!) Thought: should we remove the colouring for "most popular party" - it seems superfluous in an Irish context where there have only been coalition governments for years? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, added the SBP/Red C poll to Next Irish general election#Opinion_polls, Wikimucker - probably better there than here, at least for the moment. I've also taken the liberty of removing the background colour from the most popular party - it doesn't really seem useful information when the most popular party is well short of 50% and will have to be a part of a coalition. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of opinion poll of 12th March

In agreement with Impru20 here, Wikimucker - I don't see the advantage of including the post-election SBP poll on this article. The general election marks a natural break point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit of an IP editor who added back the opinion poll to the table with no grounds behind it. The editor had no past contributions to Wikipedia (meaning that edit was his/her first) and the edit was tagged as "possible vandalism", as well as seemingly being done from a mobile device. I don't want to think that was Wikimucker from a logged-out account, since he was the only one defending the inclusion of that poll in this article. Anyway, I suggest any editor trying to press this case forward to discuss it here first. As it seems, there seems to be a reasonable agreement for the general election marking a "natural break point" on opinion polling (which I think is an obviousness anyway) and the inclusion of polls corresponding to different periods of time would have to be very well justified just to even consider it. Impru20 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPA. You may also want to consider using proper edit summaries yourself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?? Why would I want to see WP:NPA? Can't understand your reference to edit summaries, either. Your reference to if I say the earth is a sphere, you'd feel obliged to argue that it's flat in the other article feels kinda funny right now in this situation... Impru20 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, English isn't your first language. Above, you imply Wikimucker is socking. That's a personal attack. You complain about the IP's edit summary, but you have a habit of not using them. Clear? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only guy resorting to personal attack is you. I did not even address you on the above comment and you came here ranting against me. I only noted on the coincidence of an IP editor using a rather generic edit summary to perform the very exact edit made by Wikimucker; an IP editor who happens to edit on Wikipedia for the first time, and happens to do it in this article after Wikimucker's edit was rejected both materially and in this talk; an IP editor whose edit was tagged as "possible vandalism" and, seemingly, spotted to be made from a mobile device. That's a suspicious coincidence and I noted it here just for the case Wikimucker wanted to comment on it (since he seems to have just vanished), but I'm not directly accusing him of nothing (so far, you're the first one openly talking of "socking", I did not mention it). It could also be a coincidence for a random IP guy who happens to edit the Wikipedia for the first time to perfom his very same edit, but it's curious at best. In any case, this would rather be an issue of WP:GOODFAITH (which wouldn't be, anyway, since I'm just noting on this coincidential event and that it resembles Wikimucker's doing, not that it's him) and not of WP:NPV. You, on the other hand, accuse of me of "I don't know what" babbling regarding "edit summaries", which I can't really see what the point of it is in this discussion. There is no personal attack here, except for, maybe, your rather "brutal" handling of situations. Impru20 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't want to think that was Wikimucker from a logged-out account, since he was the only one defending the inclusion of that poll in this article." - is a clear passive/aggressive implication of socking by you. Go to WP:SPI if you believe it to be the case; otherwise, shut up about it. Wikimucker, like all editors, is a volunteer and is under no obligation to you or anyone to be here every single day. It's the weekend, some people have a social life? I'm not babbling, I'm saying - clearly - that looking at your contributions, you fail to use edit summaries. Please do so. Nice "scare" quotes. Good night. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I note on the coincidence of it. Nothing else. If I wanted to make a formal accusation I'd have made it; since I didn't do it, you could please stop ranting on it. In any case, I think Wikimucker would be pretty much able to defend himself if a formal accusation was made, which, nonetheless, has not been the case. Now, on yourself: you keep making "scare" quotes each time you answer this discussion. It's not the fact on how clearly you say the "edit summary"-think, but rather, the fact that it has no connection with the theme of discussion. How does that help the discussion at hand, I wonder? Stop your bully-like behaviour and discuss serious things. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.banda.ie/assets/files/Sunday%20Times%20Easter%20Poll%20Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seat projections

Why are we including a "seat projections" section in an article about opinion polling? The projections were made on the day of the election on the basis of one exit poll, are completely inaccurate, were superseded the following day when the actual, official seat count was available, and furthermore, are not mentioned in the reference given.

If they can be sourced, they might warrant inclusion in the Irish general election, 2016 article - in a sentence along the lines of "On the day of the election, based on an exit poll, RTÉ released a projection of the number of seats that would be won by each party which turned out to be completely inaccuate." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924085711/http://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SBP-26th-October-2014-Poll-Report.pdf to http://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SBP-26th-October-2014-Poll-Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109142219/http://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Paddy-Power-Nov-2013-Poll-Report.pdf to http://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Paddy-Power-Nov-2013-Poll-Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=p> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=p}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

[p 1]

[p 2]

[nb 1]

[p 3]

[p 4]

[nb 2]

[p 5]

[p 6]

[nb 3]

[p 7]

[p 8]

[nb 4]

[p 9]

[nb 5]

[p 10]

[p 11]

[p 12]

[nb 6]

[p 13]

[p 14]

[p 15]

[p 16]

[nb 7]

[nb 8]

[p 17]

[p 18]

[p 19]

[p 20]

[p 21]