User talk:RERTwiki

Welcome!

Hello, RERTwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Impru20^talk 18:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019

The article Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article made of purely synthesis material. Fails WP:GNG (no coverage at all in reliable sources about this specific and indiscriminate comparison between 2017 and 2019 polling), WP:NOTOPINION (Wikipedia is not a medium to publish opinion pieces), WP:NOTESSAY (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought), WP:NOTWEBHOST (Wikipedia is not a blog or personal web page), WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) and WP:MADEUP (Wikipedia is not for things that some people may just think up). Plus, the article seems to have been created to put a reference of it at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election, only because the author's edit inserting this same content there was reverted (diff).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Impru20^talk 18:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am just about to modify the page to take on board the above. There is no longer anything in the chart other than data which is available on the two relevant Wikipedia pages for polling in the 2017 and 2019 elections. I have removed the moving averages, given that it might be construed that the selection and calculation of moving averages might be construed as opinion, madeup, or synthesis. Because there is nothing here except data from Wikipedia, I submit that it is now backed by reliable sources. The data cannot be considered indiscriminate unless the data in the other posts is considered indiscriminate.

The comparison of 2017 and 2019 has been a topic in reliable sources, for example the Telegraph. If it were helpful I could include some reference to that and other such items.

I welcome the opportunity to avoid falling foul of Wikipedia rules, and would be glad to continue this conversation if you have any further comments.

Personally, I think the chart would benefit from the addition of some kind of simple moving average, and note that these are applied in the graphical summaries on both of the two source pages. Therefore some kind of moving average ought to be acceptable. I would be interested in your comments.

I will remove the proposed deletion notice and await discussion of further possible amendments. RERTwiki (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is actually nothing you can do to fix this because the whole page is a synthesis exercise. The comparison of 2017 and 2019 has been a topic in reliable sources, for example the Telegraph. The issue is not about the topic, but about the fact that you are cherry-picking which polls to compare and how to do it. The topic about the comparison does not need a full article including your own self-made calculations and the presentation of data in a way which is not reflected in sources. Unless you provide a source that shows that your comparison, as shown, is legit, the page should be removed, because the whole page is your own interpretation of sources which is not allowed in Wikipedia. I'll be filling an AfD on the issue. Impru20^talk 13:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the case. The original chart did not cherry-pick any polls, but rather used all polls with data available on Wikipedia. I accept that having to choose an averaging method might be considered controversial, or even cherry-picking, so I have removed the averages and display only the poll results. Please look back at my comments above. The page now is not my interpretation of anything, but rather is simply a display of data which already exists in Wikipedia. RERTwiki (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are cherry-picking given time periods to compare, then determining at your own that this is a notable enough topic to merit its own article even when you have been told by several people that this clearly violates WP:OR.

but rather is simply a display of data which already exists in Wikipedia Sorry, but Wikipedia is neither an an indiscriminate collection of information, a place for things that you may just think up, a publisher of original thought, a blog or personal web page or anything related. This information can be surely very interesting for your own blog or website, but not for an online encyclopedia. You can't just bring unsourced statistics into Wikipedia, or make a compilation of different sources to reach your own conclusions. Impru20^talk 13:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can source the Telegraph to select the range of the x-axis if you like. The chart simply illustrates data which exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is therefore not indiscriminate, not madeup, and not OR, and is not unsourced. I don't understand your comment about using a compilation of different sources. Further, there is no conclusion reached. RERTwiki (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The chart simply illustrates data which exists elsewhere in Wikipedia This is exactly the issue! That data "exists elsewhere in Wikipedia" does not justify you taking it and compilating it on your own. This is outright original research, as it means you are taking data from various sources in order to reach conclusions not stated in any one of these sources (i.e. mixing 2017 and 2019 polls in order to present a comparison not backed by sources). The conclusion is the comparison itself. This is explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia. You also don't seem to have considered Wikipedia's notability guidelines, because even when something is reported in soruces that does not mean you have to create an article out of it. You basically created this article because your attempt to include such presentation at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election was overridden by other users who equally thought that this violated WP:OR, which is not a nice thing to do either. Impru20^talk 14:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can take on board that the move to create a new page may have seemed petulant. It may have been to some extent. I wanted to get the data up, but didn't want to engage in an edit war (that worked), and I could see that the idea that the comparison didn't belong in the 2019 or 2017 pages per se actually had some merit. So it needed to go elsewhere.

I accept that the first version of the page arguably contained too much original content. I don't think the new version does.

There is a page at the Telegraph titled "Boris leads 12 points polls chart shows entering danger zone" (sadly behind a paywall but with free access on registration) shows that comparison between the two elections is notable. In any case, the fact that the last election saw the Labour party catch up with the Conservatives means that one cannot form an informed opinion on current polling without understanding when in the campaign and how fast that happened. For example, if all of the change was in the last week, and the Labour party is now less far behind than it was at this stage, then the Conservatives might be in a precarious position. Sure, one can flick between the 2017 and 2019 pages to try and get a feel, but we have computers to do that for us. In fact, I spent a few weeks doing exactly that before I created the spreadsheet for my own information.

Lastly, these facts may or may not be common currency. However, that doesn't make them wrong. There is always someone first to notice something.

The facts as presented on the page may make uncomfortable reading for some, but the display of ALL available data cannot be construed as having any political bias, in my view. That is what the page now does.

I don't plan to be on-line much tomorrow, but I will respond on Monday to any further comments you have. I will also put the guts of this comment in the deletion page. Have a good Saturday night. RERTwiki (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you copy-pasted this at the AfD page, I have replied to you there. Impru20^talk 19:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Impru20^talk 13:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ashcroft Poll

Hi RERTwiki,

The Lord Ashcroft Poll that you added on Opinion polling on Scottish independence is currently being discussed on Talk:Opinion polling on Scottish independence#Request for Comment: Inclusion of Lord Ashcroft polls.

I would be grateful if you could confirm whether or not you support its inclusion on the talk page.

In the meantime, I will reverse the edits until a consensus is reached.

All the best, AlloDoon (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will see the conversation at the independence polling talk page. I included the poll because I thought it should be included....!! RERTwiki (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! RERTwiki, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]