Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#rfc 12EDC67

It has been suggested that the polling aggregation should be removed.

I personally feel that this section should stay because it is a useful and succinct way of summarising the data and frankly says a lot more in a lot less space than just listing all the polling in order. Kirky03 (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, so long as it conforms with Wiki’s reliable sources policy, aggregates should be included in their own separate table with a clear note stating what they are. 143.58.161.84 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::Disagree. This isn't polling aggregation - it's original research picking out the most recent poll from each pollster. Polling aggregate tables compile averages from reliable sources (ElectionMaps, Electoral Calculus, etc). By all means, add those. But this is not that. It's simply duplicating the main table of polls! FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, just letting you know someone has reopened a discussion on this topic. I tried to tag everyone but had trouble with your user. Kirky03 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Disagree - it's just repeating the national polling, but with some massaging. It seems completely pointless and useless. What is the definition of "recent" anyway?! At the moment you have Find Out Now with just one entry, with a previous one a few days before. And as said before, this is not real aggregation, nothing is weighted. If you want to show the polling trends for each company, then make tables for each company, or put in sorting in the tables so that users can sort data based on whatever criteria they want. The current extra box is prescriptive and excessive, and there's a risk of presenting less reliable polls as if they are more reliable, because the area, the sample sizes, and the client is also hidden - a GB poll is not the same as a UK poll. A 1,500 sample is not the same as a 11,000 sample, a newspaper client is not the same as the polling form doing it independently. There is already a persistent unresolved risk of polls being presented in a way that seems to try to steer polling towards a favoured outcome, it feels like NPOV. It needs to go. It was not needed before; it's not needed now.

"I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Original research is strong wording. I will concede that this is not directly picked from one source but it is no more original than the graphical summary and that is not being dragged into debate. It simply takes the most recent polls from each pollster and presents it readily for readers to find and it does that perfectly fine. The only thing original about it is the average at the bottom which is not huge.

:::For me, this is a quality of life addition that makes the very crowded data seen in other sections easier to find rather than any original research in of itself. Kirky03 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::You also concede that you ajust repeating data that's imeediately below it, but with just removing a small amout of stuff.

::::But it also doesn't seem to have a consistent objective rule.

::::For example, if you applied a rule of moving average with a window of 30 days or a month, then that doesn't seem to be being applied, because some of the polls from some of pollsters are omitted.

::::Setting aside the sample size for a moment, there's also the question about sample areas, because some are GB and some are UK. Some are commissions, some are routine. Are you even collating and comparing the same things?

::::The graph is also being dragged into the debate, below, because it has one trendline forking into two trendlines for 3 months!

::::I don't see how removing one or two thigns is a "QoL" benefit, really.

::::IF you want to simplify it... then simplify it fully.. just put the pollster, the date range, the percentages, and nothing else.

::::What is the actual point of your table?

::::Why have you got pollsters from last August and November?! Wasn't it supposed to be the past month of polls? Or are you showing the trend of each pollster? Even if they haven't done a poll in 4 months?!

::::I can see the point of having the GE in it, but I can't see the point of having Stonehaven, BMG, and WeThink there, when they are over a month old, and you omit the polling from the other pollsters from the same period.

::::What is the purpose of retaining pols from 3 pollsters that are not the GE and that are over a month old, whilst exluding others that over a month old? What's that all about? "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah yes - this is what I thought we were suggesting adding (similar to the US articles). Anything we add needs to be from reliable sources, no cherrypicking. 143.58.161.84 (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::It looks like there is cherrypicking, which is why is looks like a sort of meta-OR thing, where you make a selective presentation of data, and omit other data because... ? well there's no explanation... "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agree, as it is easy to see and also a reliable average, as it would make it less accurate if pollsters who public their polliing more often get more weight when working out the average. Gordonlty (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::...but it's not a reliable average. "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm in favour of it staying, it's used on other articles (Italy for instance) and adds valuable information without taking up too much space. Only removed it because there hadn't been consensus on the talk page yet - and it's more effort for everyone if something keeps getting added and removed by various people because consensus is yet to be reached. Benocalla2 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm happy to have this. I would say we need to have some sort of cut off though - I'd suggest only including polls conducted within the past month. Clyde1998 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::This is a decent idea Kirky03 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::There is no clear cut off or sampling window at the moment... you could jsut say, 4 weeks, 30 days, 1 month, or present each month at at time, but at the moment it looks non-objective and very selective, with no explanation about what the selection criteria is. "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think it makes sense to have one since polls by different companies (or even the same company under different methodologies) aren't directly comparable, and "most recent by each" is therefore a useful piece of summary data hard to pick out of the main tables. However, I don't think an "average" row should be included (and certainly not at spurious 0.1% precision!) and similarly I wouldn't include any arbitrary time cutoff (sort the table by most recent first and people can just stop for themselves when they think "no, that's too old") as those both feel like major OR (poll aggregator sites competing heavily on making the "best" decisions on cutoffs, averaging methods, weightings, etc.) 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:6A44:14A8:64D:1658 (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. CR (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Might serve to rename the section "Most recent polls by pollster", as well. CR (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, that would be clearer 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:6A44:14A8:64D:1658 (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi, just letting you know someone has reopened a discussion on this topic. I tried to tag everyone but had trouble with your user. Kirky03 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Recent = how long? "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::The summary table at the top is not only unnecessary, but it tries to present all the polls as of equal value by hiding the sample size, the geographical area, and the client, as well as the frequency of each pollster's poll, never mnind the polling methodology.

::It's not really doing the claimed "QoL" thing, it's just repeating the information directly below it and presenting it in a biased way - it filters out the information about the poll that would change how the poll is seen.

::One graphing technique is to have different sized circles to represent sample size. You see that a lot on charts of this style, such as charts showing the relative sizes of countries' GDP or Population, whilst plotting some other parameters on the x and y axes. "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:I appreciate the "Most recent polls by pollster" section - it is a useful summary for users that removes some of the bias introduced by other presentations (such as the graph) that include all poll results, and thus give more weight to polls by pollsters who publish more polls. This is particularly important because different pollsters have different biases, and there is *no reason to believe the pollsters who publish more frequently are less biased than those who publish more frequently* (indeed, a pollster who uses a 'cheap and nasty' methodology might undercut other pollsters, and thus might get commissioned more often, or be able to afford to bear the costs themselves more frequently).

: I also wonder whether, if the new name for the section in the page is considered reasonable, the section in this talk page might be renamed to match - to start with I couldn't work out whether it was talking about the section or the "Graphical Summary". User:Dr Arsenal (talk 12:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::That is a reasonable reason, but the trouble is that some polls are being omitted for no clear reason, so the thing you want this table to do, is not happening... or even the opposite might be happening. "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::As long as each pollster is listed in this table and we’re not cherrypicking, I’m relaxed either way as to whether the table is included. I personally don’t find it that useful but I don’t object to it being there, provided it is properly kept up to date in realtime. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I don’t think this duplicated section is necessary. I vote to delete it 152.37.116.150 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi, just letting you know someone has reopened a discussion on this topic. I tried to tag everyone but had trouble with your user. Kirky03 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, just letting you know someone has reopened a discussion on this topic. I tried to tag everyone but had trouble with your user. Kirky03 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, just letting you know someone has reopened a discussion on this topic. I tried to tag everyone but had trouble with your user. Kirky03 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The other issue I think is worth raising (and maybe my maths is conceptually flawed here), is that the sample sizes vary significantly sometimes, and there's no weighting of polls. How can a result of a sample of about 11,000 be of equivalent value as a sample of about 1,500?

Polls are often reported as being way out, and this might be a reason why.

Why not weight all polls by size? Say 1% of a poll sample is it's weighting multiplier?

Why not then use the weighting to normalise all polls to 1,000 and see what the chart/graph of polls looks like. What do we think?

When you go on an online retailer's review page, and you have for example 500 reviews saying 3/5 and another saying 50 reviews 5/5, you naturally tend to believe the bigger sample more.

You can see this concept explained quite well by 3Brown1Blue (a statitics video channel):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8idr1WZ1A7Q

"I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:I do support this (very low-rated pollsters with low sample sizes get the same weight as high-rated pollsters with large sample sizes) but I'm unsure how it would be implemented. The code for the graph just takes the date and percentages, plots it onto a graph and draws LOESS lines using a span DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think it might help fix some outliers that are gradually becoming more evident. It helps rate the polling sources a bit too, for credibility.

::Lazy websearch:

::https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2018/01/26/how-different-weighting-methods-work/

::Quoting...

::seven weighting methods:

::* Raking

::* Matching

::* Propensity weighting

::* Matching + Propensity weighting

::* Matching + Raking

::* Propensity weighting+ Raking

::* Matching + Propensity weighting + Raking

::https://www.decisionanalyst.com/blog/dataweighting/

::Quoting...

::* If possible, always perfectly balance the sample during the sampling and screening process so that you never have to weight any data. This is almost always the best and most defensible solution.

::* If you do decide to weight survey data, remember there is a price to pay. Nothing in life is free. The cost of weighting data is reduced accuracy. The sampling variance, standard deviation, and standard error increase.

::* Remember that the cost of weighting data is greater (in terms of reduced accuracy) when the sample size is smaller. If you have thousands of respondents, you can weight the data as much as you please and the cost in reduced accuracy is very small. On the other hand, if you have fewer than 100 respondents, the cost in reduced accuracy might be very great. Be especially cautious in weighting data when samples sizes are small.

::* In deciding whether and how to weight survey data, it’s a good idea to review the cross-tabs to see which demographic (or other) variables appear to have the greatest impact on the answers. For example, if men and women give very similar answers, weighting the sample by gender will have little effect on the percentages in your tabulations. On the other hand, if different age groups are giving different answers, then weighting by age will change the numbers in your tabulations.

::* When data must be weighted, weight by as few variables as possible. As the number of weighting variables goes up, the greater the risk that the weighting of one variable will confuse or interact with the weighting of another variable.

::* When data must be weighted, try to minimize the sizes of the weights. A general rule of thumb is never to weight a respondent less than .5 (a 50% weighting) nor more than 2.0 (a 200% weighting).

::* Keep in mind that up-weighting data (weight › 1.0) is typically more dangerous than down-weighting data (weight ‹ 1.0). In up-weighting, you have too few respondents and are pretending that those respondents each count for more than one person; and the greater the up-weight, the more those respondents' answers are exaggerated.

::* A best practice is to create two sets of cross-tabulations: one set weighted and one set unweighted. Look at these two sets of cross-tabulations side by side, to make sure all the numbers look reasonable.

::and...

::https://www.appinio.com/en/blog/market-research/weighting-survey-data

::I'm not a statistician, so I'm not going to bang on about it, but I think that the polls are not quite on point, for the two reasons I've raised:

::1. the sum of all percentages add up to +/- 3% in some cases; and,

::2. the weightings are not there, so there's a risk of outliers skewing the data and the chart, such as the recent January 2025 Deltapoll and Opinium polls; and the January 8th Find Out Now poll seems to be missing 3%, so looks like an outlier too.

::"I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::This would be clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

::::All polls are reliably sourced, all polls meet clear inclusion criteria, including; weighting all polls to make their sampling representative of GB as a whole, publishing their methodology, sample size, date range and client.

::::I can understand why some people don’t like the polls, the trends they show, and therefore the resulting graph - I can see why there are some creative ideas to change that. But Wikipedia is not the place for that because…

::::The above suggestions are not only a bit complex for your average reader, they would make keeping the article up to date very challenging, and… all of this is a clear breach of WP:OR and therefore prohibited on Wikipedia. We must stick with the approach of the last +25years of simply publishing the polls in a standard data table and producing a graph - no creative analysis.

:::37.156.72.174 (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::: "original research" is defined here Wikipedia:No_original_research as:

::::: "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists"

::::: The rounding (and resulting chart) and the aggregate table both fit the description of Original Research because they are not presenting the granular data in the BPS-accredited published polling reports. To follow your argument, if we want to rely purely on published data such as this for accuracy and veracity, then we should only have the data in the tables in the BPS-accredited published poll documents, with at least as meny dp as in the largest sample, and no rounding and no charts and no "aggregates" that aren't really aggregates at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_data

::::: so if your largest source is the General Election, of nn,nnn,nnn, then each sample should be nn.nnnnnnnn to capture each integer sample of data, and for the smaller samples, you will have fewer dp by definition. The data at least then will be accurate down to the individual sample, rather than rounded based on an arbitrary dp quantity or the absence of dp at all.

::::: Normalising data is not original research, because you are using the data that is present in the source to adjust for distortions in your chart.

::::: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)

::::: Not doing this is closer to "original research" because we are presenting misleading information in tables and charts by implying that a sample of 1,500 is of equal value to a sample of 11,000.

::::: If you wanted to exempt the General election, and use the largest sample size as the reference point for how many dp to to capture total granularity down to the individual sample in the source, then you need 5 dp in this case, because your largest sample is of size nn,nnn

::::: Generally, the samples are of size n,nnn, so in most cases 3 dp is enough.

::::: That will eliminate rounding errors, and correct the current NOR problem. of skewed data by pretending that small samples are of equal weight to large samples. Obviously the GE is the largest sample of all, and the MRP poll of 11,000 is the largest poll sample, and both are more representative than a sample of 1,500, for reasons that are self-evident.

::::: If we continue as is, then you could have scenarios where there polls of samples of <1,000, a few hundred (and this has happened before), that are treated the same as larger samples, and this undermines the stated objective to present accurate and credible data.

::::: "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::1. The “rounding” etc is not done by anyone on Wikipedia. It is done by the pollsters themselves who produce a ‘headline poll’ which then gets used by the client media outlet. That is patently not a violation of wiki policy.

::::::2.The graph produced is patently not original research because it is simply every single data point (which is every single GB weighted poll) plotted on a graph. It is nothing more than an unadulterated visual representation of all the data points.

::::::If however we were to do things like put arrows showing key political events on the graph e.g. budget, grooming scandal etc etc to try explain/contextualise movements, then that would be original research. 143.58.249.12 (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::: "So there's a risk of outliers skewing the data and the chart" - something to note here is that the "outliers" aren't necessarily wrong. At the 2024 general election, the eventual GB result for Labour was 34.7%. Every single poll conducted within a year of the election placed Labour above that point, often significantly. Had there been a single polling company placing Labour on 34% rather than in the 36-41% range, then they would have been a massive outlier and all the same arguments about them affecting the graph and the averages would have applied. They would also have been - with the benefit of hindsight - right!

::: "by pretending that small samples are of equal weight to large samples". The sampling error on an otherwise perfect 1000 person poll is +/-3%. On an otherwise perfect 10,000 person poll the error is +/-1%. But either way, the polling companies quote (somewhat optimistically at times) +/-4% on their headline figures, because the random variation of the sample size is not one of the larger contributors. So for example at the 2024 election, picking a company which did both to try to minimise other methodological differences, Survation's final conventional poll was about 4% off the real result on a sample size of 1679 (+/-2.4%). Survation's final MRP, though, was about 7% off the real result on a sample size of 34,558 (+/-0.53%). The errors in polling *not* due to the sample size tend to massively overwhelm the basic random sampling error.

::: Any attempt to predict in advance of an actual election which tests them which polls are more likely to be accurate is not only Original Research, it's also really likely to be wrong. Wikipedia should therefore just be providing the raw dataset in a convenient format to allow readers to make their own choice of wrong prediction. (there is I think a reasonable argument on that basis for not plotting averages on the graph either and just showing the points) 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:F0E5:84E5:A9DE:EEF1 (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::::That is true that outliers are not necessarily wrong, but when you have two diverging trends within one series, it looks like you have to choose between having a wider band of possibilities, or determining whether some data is as "truthy" as others.

::::For example, is having:

::::* 5 polls from one pollster in a row, of 1,500 size with similar outcomes within the space of 10 days in parallel with

::::* 2 polls from two pollsters in a row, of 2,500 size with divergent ouctomes within the space of the same 10 days

::::going to bias the trend in favour of the more frequent small polls?

::::If it did, then there might be an incentive for someone with money and an agenda to fund lots of small polls with leading questions or a visually leading presentation, to generate a particular trend. Some people suspect this of happening, and particularly when actual vote results diverge significantly from polling, as has happened in living memory, more than once.

::::It's not clear where your comment about "any attempt to predict..." comes from, but I think given the history of polls failing, it's not completely unreasonable to ask a few questions and try and open up the machine to see how it works.

::::From the trend line on the graph at the moment, it looks like the red line diverges into two trends from about Oct/Noc 2024.

::::Does that mean that there are two trends? Or that the is a wider range of variation for the red trendline than for the other ones?

::::If you've ever looked at meterological forecast charts for waves and weather at sea, in general they tell you that the preduction becomes very unreliable after 3 days, and they display it with a widening error band, so that you can see there is less confidence in the trend line as you move further into the future, and they generally don't bother displaying it beyond 10 days ahead.

::::So, my question is about trying to open up for discussion and explanation (not just for me, but everyone) what is happening there.

::::Let's try and remember that this is not a pissing match about who knows best, it's about explaining and presenting why you think its best in a similar way that at uni, an economics PhD might do a show and tell of something they know about to a group of engineering PhDs, knowing that they might not be familiar with all his terms and processes, but that they are capable of understanding them if they are explained clearly without reaching for verbal flourishes. I am too stupid for all that, and most of the audience are too. "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I am a statistician. What {{u|Macdaddy}} is quoting is about weighting individual responses within a survey. That is already done within each poll. The question raised in this Talk subsection is about weighting different polls when producing an average of polls, which is a different question. The only weighting that I think would meet WP:CALC and not be WP:OR is to weight by the square root of the sample sizes, as that's basic statistical theory. The maths exists to do that for a LOESS curve, but whether it's practical to do that here, I doubt. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agree it’s impractical but I would like to point out that even to “weight by the square root of the sample sizes” would involve original research, as you’d be making a calculation not made by reliable sources - I say that with no disrespect at all to Bondegezou).

:::::The only approach Wiki policy compliant approach re graphs is to plot all the data points published by reliable sources (as is currently done).

::::143.58.232.145 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree that it's on the edge of WP:OR. We do have WP:CALC for routine calculations. To a statistician, weighting by the square root of sample sizes is kinda routine. (It's the sort of thing I wouldn't bother providing a citation for were I to do it in a research paper: it's just obvious.) I note that we already provide a LOESS curve under a WP:CALC justification, and the maths for a basic LOESS curve is considerably more complicated! But, yeah, I'm not pushing for this. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Though CALC specifically says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." which is true of any pair of polls from different companies (and sometimes for pairs of polls from the same company) especially for the headline voting intentions. Consensus seems to be that it's okay to ignore that here, but I do think including the LOESS lines at all misleads more than clarifies. (Doing a quick check on the final polls of 2024, weighting them by sqrt(sample size) gives a polling average which is almost exactly as wrong as the unweighted polling average in terms of difference from the real GB result, so uncontroversial or not it's hardly worth the effort.) 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:EA31:6A6C:6A41:7AFA (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Listing every single data point - as presented by reliable sources - is not comparing or contrasting them. It is simply listing them, whether that be in table or graph form. The trend line is not analysis either - it is compliant with CALC and other wiki policies. There is also a +24 year precedent of this approach… I literally cannot believe the arguments I’m reading 🤯 143.58.232.145 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You might not be able to "literally" [sic] believe it, but not everyone is as clever as you, so the verbal flourish is obviously needed to remind them of that, and to not bother asking questions or making suggestions, because you obvoiously know best. "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Doesn't a larger sample size generally increase the credibility of a poll by reducing the margin of error and variability of the estimates?

::::Sure, credibility also depends on the polling methodology, including: how the sample is selected, the timing of the poll, and whether it accurately represents the target population, and non-response bias. So yeah, a well-conducted poll with a smaller sample size can still be more reliable than a poorly designed one with a larger sample; but generally speaking, Every schoolboy knows that the general public tend to trust polls with larger sample sizes for good reason.

::::The summary table at the top is not only unnecessary, but it tries to present all the polls as of equal value by hiding the sample size, the geographical area, and the client, as well as the frequency of each pollster's poll. "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's an interesting question. Larger sample size certainly increases the "credibility" in the sense of how much people are likely to believe it's true, but if you compare the final 2024 polls difference from reality with their sample size, there certainly isn't any "bigger is better" in evidence in terms of accuracy of results. BPC polling companies tend to quote a +/-4% likely error regardless of the sample size of the poll (when the pure sampling error would only be 1-3%). The problem isn't that most (or all) of the polls aren't wrong, it's that there's no reliable way to tell which they are in advance. So it's up to the reader to use their own metrics to determine which ones are of most value.

:::::At any rate, this seems more something to link to Poor Historical Performance Of UK Political Polls or something similar than to try to wedge into this article. 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:692:26FF:FE59:D09B (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::All of this relies on not following Wiki policies. Obviously, what is produced is imperfect - most approaches will be. However, what we currently have is the best approach possible, within wiki policies. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Macdaddy I don't have an opinion either way on whether we should weight based on sample size. But I noticed that Opinion polling for the 2025 Canadian federal election does weight on sample size. "Trendlines are 30-poll local regressions, with polls weighted by proximity in time and a logarithmic function of sample size." —Profzed! 21:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I know external links have been used on polling pages for a while now, but they are nevertheless against reference conventions and WP:EL. In particular, there is the risk of link rot and the fact that no archive links can be included. Dajasj (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:These confirm with the formatting restrictions. This is why we don’t have a problem with a load of broken links 152.37.80.168 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Which formatting restrictions? Dajasj (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:I saw the "Dis article is got bare URLs innit bruv" warning at the top of the page. I check this article daily. It's a very useful resource about a very serious subject. It's not helpful to nit-pick about the number of citations when a new poll comes out every few days. James Tweedie (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:They are well established as they provide the most reliable data straight from the Pollsters Data Table, making them references or citations does not remove the risk of link rot, this rot applies no matter what it is linked to be it data tables, newspaper or analytical pieces. There is however a way to manage these and in fact Wikipeadia provides a tool to assist, it fires off a bot that checks the link and if broken replaces it with one from the Web Archive ( I think it uses the wayback machine) Pugpa2 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:They are well established as they provide the most reliable data straight from the Pollsters Data Table, making them references or citations does not remove the risk of link rot, this rot applies no matter what it is linked to be it data tables, newspaper or analytical pieces. There is however a way to manage these and in fact Wikipeadia provides a tool to assist, it fires off a bot that checks the link and if broken replaces it with one from the Web Archive ( I think it uses the wayback machine)

:If you want to have a look Pugpa2 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

If we carry on with this 2025 approach, we will eventually have heading on for 2000 cites listed in the References section, which seems ridiculous. (The to 2024 article uses opdrts dates 1618 times, so at least that probably if cites were used.)

I think we need to WP:UCS (Use common sense) here. Note WP:Policies and guidelines#Adherence says: Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have occasional exceptions. and that policy lede says Policies and guidelines should be applied using reason and common sense. ... The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. Taking an informal sample of the articles in :Category:Opinion polling for future elections it seems there is a majority using the ExtLink method, so I think we have the freedom to conclude the ExtLink method is "practiced by most editors" and we should carry on with it.

So I think we need to reconsider this change away from using extlinks. Though I have to concede a counter-point is that Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election does use the cite method, and has 1023 cites in the References section (though 7 with red errors in them, showing it needs more maintenance effort), so maybe us having 2000 odd cites would not be as ridiculous as I first thought. Rwendland (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:I agree it is pretty common, that's why I'm trying to change it ;) Because there are so many pages using this style, one would expect WP:EL to mention it as an exception to the rule. If we want to keep it outside the references section, I think it would be desirable to change it on WP:EL.

:Anyway, 2000 references is ofc not ideal, but it is the price for referencing everything we do. And there is the convention that we give more information about the source we use (although I admit I just move them to references, but it's a start). In previous years, we did not even give the title. The thing that is most problematic however is the archiving. If you look at the 2024 opinion polling place and then the 2023 table, you already see the {{tl|Webarchive}} being placed and it will probably get worse over time. It is ugly in the table, but wouldn't necessarily be a problem in the reference section.

:So if there is consensus to ignore a rule, then let's ignore the rule and write it down somewhere. But I believe it is better to transform it to references, if only for the archiving links. Dajasj (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::This appears to have been done without proper consensus and it will likely solve a bigger problem than the one it seeks to solve.

::This article will very quickly get impossibly long and start to cause problems at the back end for Wikipedia.

::i really can’t stress enough how much of a bad idea this is. Link rot is the least of our worries with these massive data articles. 188.214.9.47 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Perhaps we have to split them up then. Large articles should not be a reason to limit proper referencing. Dajasj (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I have asked for more broader input on Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Opinion_polling. Dajasj (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems disproportionate to include columns for Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay:

::1. They have only been named in 3 polls in July/August 24 and have not been named since.

::2. There have been 26 of these polls so far - 3 out of 26, the last being 6months ago!

::3. The party’s standing in the polls does not make either leader becoming prime minister even a vague prospect at this stage and there are no reliable sources/commentators discussing this.

::4. To have 2 columns for these Green Party shows serious undue weight in these circumstances.

:I therefore suggest we replace the 2 columns with an “other” column and name them in a collapsible “show” other.

92.20.135.189 (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds sensible to me. I would also include Ed Davey in others, due to polling numbers, lack of being prompted for and lack of reliable sourced commentary of Davey becoming PM. 188.214.9.43 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree - Ed Davey features in most polls, unlike the Green leaders, so there's little need to change anything. Kirky03 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::He doesn’t - look at the data. There were dashes next to his name in all but 4 polls 188.214.9.43 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The recent 5th example is a set of 2way run of polls a) they are rare, b) they don’t reflect the reality of the voting system, c) this one recent poll doesn’t change the reality that Ed Davey is not frequently prompted for 188.214.9.43 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Apologies, I got my wires crossed and was looking at Leadership approval. My bad! Kirky03 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::No worries - agree that Davey should certainly be in Leadership approval (but not “preferred PM”)

:::::Don’t really know what to do about Denyer/Ramsay leadership approval - the preferred PM solution won’t work :/ 188.214.9.43 (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Sorted but it looks like there’s been an edit conflict 188.214.9.43 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Fixed 188.214.9.43 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have just undone Chessrat rebranding the "Other" column in the preferred PM table to Ed Davey. It is incorrect to state that he is the only person referenced in the column, Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay of the Green Party also feature in this column.

:I agree Ed Davey/LDs should be listed in the other tables but not in this one because of the reasons listed above - same with Greens. I hope an edit war does not occur. 143.58.249.57 (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::The Green Party leaders only feature in the column of the lower half table, which has a different set of leaders (Sunak for the Conservatives). For the lower-half table an "other" column makes sense, but for the upper half Ed Davey is the only leader featured in the "other" column so there's absolutely no reason to use that format. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The only leader in the upper half of the column for now - in any case he only features in 5 polls (one of which does not even reflect the UK system, as it was on a head to head basis).

::::The reality is that it is only 7 months since the election, the odds of there not being any other polls at all that feature the green leaders in the next 4 years are slim.

::::Ed Davey having his own column is not reflective of the reliable sources or what the pollsters show. This would be undue weight. Hence consensus for the change made. 143.58.249.57 (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Davey is featured in 5 of the 25 polls, Farage is featured in 10 of the 25, and Starmer and the Conservative leader are featured in all 25. So surely any argument about Davey's inclusion could just as feasibly apply to Farage's inclusion.

:::::It's not really undue weight to not collapse polls- all collapsing does is make the information harder for readers to immediately see. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Difference is

:::::::1. Dozens of reliable sources commentate on the possibility of Farage becoming PM. That’s not the case for Davey.

:::::::2. Farage actually leads in many of these polls. Davey only leads in head to head polls which are not reflective of the system we live in.

::::::::Comparing Davey with Farage in terms of polling just doesn’t compare. There’s the top 3, then Davey +10points behind and the greens not far behind him

::::::37.156.72.153 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@37.156.72.153 But there is no benefit to putting him under Other. It does not improve readability at all. It just makes the article harder to read. Whether Davey will win or not is not particularly relevant. RSs clearly don't think Badenoch will win; they think she won't even last as leader. The key thing is letting the readers easily access the results of the polls (AKA removing the need to click "Show"). —Profzed! 22:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It removes the mass of dashed boxes and prevents readers from having to scroll right to see all the data for most polls - particularly if reading on a mobile phone. 37.156.72.153 (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Compared to the four-column version of the infobox ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1275356183#Preferred_prime_minister here]), collapsing the boxes has no advantage in this way. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@37.156.72.153 I would like to point out that I am a mobile phone user. I prefer Davey in separate column for readability. —Profzed! 13:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Indeed. Collapsing those columns makes the table far, far less readable for no perceivable benefit CR (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I notice the article has been reverted against consensus. This is vandalism and must be reversed, with the vandals receiving a warning.37.156.72.153 (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:Vandalism notices issued to Billytanghh and CipherRephic for reverting edits that had been raised on the talk page and made with consensus of most others in discussion. I am tagging them in here so they can read the above points before challenging them and certainly before continuing to edit war. 37.156.72.153 (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::@37.156.72.153 Please read WP:BRD before you go around templating people for edit warring after one revert. CR (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::@37.156.72.153 This quite a serious allegation. It is also a baseless one. Their edits are clearly WP:GOODFAITH, especially given that there is no consensus in favour of putting Davey in Others. —Profzed! 13:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I notice that this proposed removal of columns has been pushed and supported only by four IP-address editors, three of whom have never edited Wikipedia before and the fourth has only had a few edits- Special:Contributions/37.156.72.153, Special:Contributions/188.214.9.43, Special:Contributions/92.20.135.189, Special:Contributions/143.58.249.57- whereas everyone else (me, User:Kirky03, User:Profzed, User:Billytanghh, User:CipherRephic) who have chimed in have all opposed the proposed change. Seems like a clear consensus against to me, so I'll change the article to the way it was originally. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think they're intentionally brigading, I think they're just on a dynamic IP. CR (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::actually, at one point 188.etc replies to 92.etc as a seperate user - not sure what that's about. CR (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::This looks like a conspiracy theory to me. This might be an appropriate talk page for you both. 143.58.249.51 (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:More voices now say Davey’s column should stay. Head to head polling has added some justification to this.

:However, the Green Party having 2 whole columns when all but three cells in the table are filled with a ‘’’-‘’’ makes no sense. It gives undue weight. Especially when you consider the tiny percentages. :Replacing the 2 columns with an “other” column makes more sense, especially if pollster start including leaders from outside the big 5 e.g. George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, Tommy Robinson (or whatever is real name is), Alan Sugar or whoever else. This way makes including the odd unusual poll easy - future proofing!143.58.232.141 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::Seems reasonable to me. CR (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Looks clunky and frankly uninformative when its collapsed. would be a better idea to move these to a dedicated approval page like we have had for 2015, 17, 19 and 24 elections. Benocalla2 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. CR (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe when there’s enough data to justify a standalone article - we’re not there yet though. I’d hold off until maybe 2026 (depending on how many polls done) 188.214.9.43 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::There's more than enough data to constitute an article as-is. This article was created after only one poll and survived an AfD for its efforts. CR (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, a new article would be consistent with previous Parliaments (other articles). It would also help to address the issue of article sizes. 143.58.249.57 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree, we should follow previous practice where polling and leadership polling were separate articles, it is only this current article that's has amalgamated them Pugpa2 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Why has preferred PM tracker been removed? If removing this - we need to remove PM approval rating as well? NewGuy2024 (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:It hasn’t been removed. It has been elevated to having its own section higher up the article. Scroll up 👍🏻 152.37.116.150 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::Ok my bad - shouldn’t leadership approval ratings go up there too? Seems logical place to have these alongside each other now NewGuy2024 (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::There is a separate discussion above about creating a whole new article for approval polling - this would be consistent with what was done previously 152.37.116.150 (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I was about to add the recent YouGov polling to the Wales table before realising none were added to the Scotland table either. I understand why this is - the sample size is significantly smaller than the other polling there, but in the case of YouGov, they include the sample size of the headline polls.

If there is a consensus for yes then I don't mind filling the backlog, but I'd prefer to ask here before just pressing on ahead. GravyOnToast (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

: There's a big difference between a "poll of Wales" and a national poll's "Wales subsample" - unless otherwise stated (it sometimes is for MRP-style polling, but often not even then), the subsample doesn't have any of the weighting and sampling that the main poll does. So e.g. the national polls might be sampling and weighting for N% from Wales and M% who voted LD at the last election - but that doesn't mean the national poll has aimed to have the correct percentage of Wales-resident LD-last-time voters specifically. This makes them very unreliable even before the lower sample size (if you compare polls in a series you'll see *much* bigger and likely illusory swings in the subsamples as compared with the headline figures). It's not appropriate to include them in the same table. 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:692:26FF:FE59:D09B (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::Glad I asked, thank you! GravyOnToast (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The SNP column was removed from the polling tables in 2024, and I'd like for it to be re-added. It clogs up the "Others" column when essentially all the polls include the SNP, almost no polls list it under "others" themselves – arguably, excluding it is an OR violation DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Don't think I'd go so far as to call it an OR violation but I think we should probably put the SNP column back, yeah. CR (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed- and I'd also add a Plaid Cymru column. There's no struggle for space and it would make the table more readable. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:This has been discussed previously and the consensus reached was not to include them. There's an argument for the SNP being included but the idea was the SNP were not historically included in articles like this and only started to be once their seat total was higher. Since their seat total has now returned to lower levels, they should be treated as before.

:And honestly, I agree. The SNP are limited to Scotland and so their support cannot ever be significant on a national scale and so their % support will always be fluctuating around low numbers. It just adds space and makes it harder to read, especially on a phone.

:And this goes double for Plaid!

:That said, if the decision is made that the SNP should be included (fair enough for them but I encourage not Plaid) then I should remind people that these changes should be done to the 2024 polls as well as the 2025 polls because so far, they have not. Kirky03 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::I don’t think it’s really about us as Wikipedia users deciding unilaterally which of the pollsters results to include and which to bunch in “Others” — the fact is that all of the major pollsters have been including the SNP as a party instead of doing what we’ve been doing and pushing it into “other” so should we not follow that too? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 07:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I am against this change and I think it is a disgrace how stealthily this has been done. You have done this without even 24 hours, you have not sought to re-engage those who were part of the consensus that removed SNP and you have not engaged with their arguments. This is unreasonable. I am even more opposed to this edit than I was because of the way it’s been done. Switch it back. 152.37.120.148 (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::To make it worse, you have removed the last discussion on this! It is inappropriate to move the last discussion on this immediately before reopening the discussion. This appears to be evidence of a ting without good faith. This edit must be reversed. 152.37.120.148 (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The previous discussion was automatically archived to reduce the size of the talk page. It's stll available here DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::You seem to have started to let people who previously participated in the discussion know that this discussion is taking place, which is good! But I might suggest that the title "SNP sneakily re-added to UK opinion polling table" maybe doesn't meet the "Notifications must be [...] neutrally worded with a neutral title" part of WP:CANVASS DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::1. The timing of you making the change immediately following the bot is at best highly suspect.

::::::I am merely doing what you should have done. You pulling me up on a technicality about the way I have done told people could be interpreted as a distractional tactic from the main point.

::::::2. Main point is you took the opportunity of the previous consensus discussion being archived to unpick it. You did so without engaging those you knew had opposing views. You then went on to make the change within less than 24-hours. These are all basic facts.

::::::What you have done is wrong and it must be undone. 152.37.120.148 (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::# I made the post because I wanted to make a change. I literally mentioned it in my original post that there had been a previous discussion, and seeing no opposition I was BOLD and made the change

:::::::## It's not a "technicality", it's a very real policy designed to prevent campaigning (posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner)

:::::::# I did not "opportunity of the previous consensus discussion being archived to unpick it" – that was just a coincidence

:::::::DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'd also contend that, when the SNP won their huge number of 45 seats in 2019, they got about 4% of the total national vote. That isn't a very big number, and their current polling is around 3%. Discriminating based on seat counts or percieved parliamentary relevance isn't particuarly helpful for parties that only stand candidates in one part of the UK. The best way is to just record what the pollsters are actually saying in the table DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::This is arguably a reason not to include them. In 2019, they were the 3rd largest party on 4%, now they are tiny on 3%. The SNP vote share will never vary much due to very firm limitations of them onlt being in Scotland. Including a party of this size is limited in appeal and is not worth the space it takes up on the page in my opinion. The only reason they were included previously was, despite their small vote share, they were a large parliamentary group.

::But again - SNP is more subjective but please not PC and also any change needs to be consistent across the 2024 polls as well as the 2025 Kirky03 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have removed the PC column (literally everything in there was either missing data or 1%, this is not necessary) but have kept the SNP there FOR NOW. Hopefully a clear consensus can be reached soon - as had been done previously - and we can decide what to do with it. It would be useful if people not currently involved in the discussion could voice their opinion. Kirky03 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::I have not been on Wiki for a while and have received an email notification about this.

:::I am very disappointed to see what has happened here and especially how it has been done. Very disappointing.

:::There has been no substantive change, I cannot see an evidential trigger for this discussion to be re-opened. Therefore all the previous arguments should be featured in this discussion - perhaps it should be unarchived.

:::It must therefore be assumed that ALL editors that said they were against a standalone SNP column remain against it for the same reasons previously stated.

:::I note when the previous discussion was archived - and I make no comment about the timing of that and recent edits. However, it seems clear that the archived material should be brought back into this article.

:::The addition of SNP column needs to reversed - no question about it. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::My point is that the article does not lose anything by including the SNP, and its exclusion seems entirely arbitrary. All of the pollsters in 2025 so far have included it but we're just pushing it into "Other" because reasons DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::There is absolutely no point in hiding some parties behind a "hidden" notice; it achieves nothing other than making the table more inconvenient for people to read. It's not something which is done in other similar articles- see e.g. Opinion polling for the 2025 German federal election, Opinion polling for the next Israeli legislative election, etc. I really can't see what possible benefit there is in this. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Other nations have different electoral systems such as proportional representation which makes 3rd parties more important. In Germany, a party with as little as 5% vote share could enter into a coalition government - not strictly the case here. So, there are some differences which might justify this being more parsimonious.

:::Also, I'd like to gently remind you that there was a previously found consensus that the SNP column would be hidden behind an "others" column and it is you who is trying to change the status quo and will need consensus before enacting your changes. Kirky03 (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@Kirky03 It's not just PR systems- all opinion polling articles contain columns for all candidates. See Opinion polling for the 2021 Canadian federal election and even Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election, which has nine columns with no issues. I would like to note here that you have so far not provided a single argument for your proposal to make the table less readable.

::::This article has in recent months had a lot of issues with brigading from IP address and new users trying to remove and hide information- there was a similar attempt to hide information in the Preferred PM table not long ago. Instead of referring to the previous "consensus" (which had only a couple of experienced members agreeing and a similar number disagreeing, with little participation in the discussion), maybe you could explain what you think is wrong with the longstanding format used in most other articles? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I believe that this whole article has in many ways lost its way, becoming cluttered and not user friendly, for example although called Polling for next UK.... the section with actual polling is only the third section in the article.

:::::As regards whether to include SNP as column, I would suggest we are guided by the pollsters themselves and almost all include SNP as a potential response. This idea of using MP count as an indicator seems rather ill thought out as if applied universally would mean Reform being included in others as SNP currently have more MPs than Reform, which is a nonsense. Furthermore at there peak of 40+ MPs they only polled 4% UK wide as opposed to current 3%. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am against the re-addition of the SNP and the addition of Plaid. I think it is awful this was done within 24hours of the original discussion being archived. How do we report the above editors who have done this? What’s happened is tantamount to political activism… on Wikipedia! I think it’s really serious. 92.20.135.189 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::says anonymous IP editor, the discussion happened and consensus prevailed, that's how wiki works, its about providing information for interested readers not hiding it away. I would suggest the simplest way is to rely on the pollsters if the consistently poll for a response to a party then we should ensure it is recorded in the article. Pugpa2 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::IP's comment is overly dramatic but the spirit is true. The way this played out was original discussion is archived and within 24 hours, someone suggests going against that previous decision and then before much conversation has been allowed to happen, edits the article against the previous consensus. This is not how the wiki should work. Opinions can change but this was incredibly rapid.

::::::::I'd also like to mention that, YouGov for example, ask whether people intend to vote for incredibly small parties such as Women's Equality Party so the argument doesn't hold.

::::::::I've given up on this debate. I still stand against this change but there's a select group of people starting fires everywhere and I can't be bothered to argue this one even though we have today decided to remove valuable information in order to restrict the width of the table while opting to keep in a PC column which contains a long list of 1s. The fact remains that the way this was done was appalling and frankly, if parties involved had waited for a consensus to be reached before making changes, I don't think there were strong enough voices on either side to warrant changing the status quo. This kind of thing should not happen again. Kirky03 (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::As regards which parties to include or not I really don't think that is for us to decide, if pollsters regularly poll for a particular party then we should be capturing that data, please note emphasis on regular and pollsters being in plural. I am sorry but your example from yougov would not meet this criteria as they do not poll that party every time and most pollsters don't at all.

:::::::::My support for this has nothing to do with the width of the table, but rather consistent, sensible and easily understood principles of who is capture in article, when that might change.

:::::::::I believe the approach above does, I hope you will accept my input in the spirit it is offered, my only desire is to make this article as good as we can and to do that we need consistent and coherent approach.

:::::::::There is much to be done to bring this article back to the standard it should be and hope you will continue to feel free to add your contribution. Pugpa2 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::For the record, it is not your contributions that have been an issue. Kirky03 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::SNP and PC should not have there own column, their is nothing meaningful to gain by representing them on the table, makes the table less readable overall and we had already established consensus on the 2025 polling page that the inclusion of those parties was not neccesary. I dont see how anything changed since then to warrent reinclusion, especially not for PC. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Good Morning

:::The recent discussions had established that long standing precedence had the parties sorted as per % of popular vote at last election.

:::It also established that it really is not for editors to be deciding which parties are or are not included, that is for pollsters to decide by prompting on a regular basis for a response, if they do so then that data should be captured and displayed, others captures those parties that have not been prompted for. A simple robust process. It has nothing to do with number of elected representatives or % polled. A simple robust process that takes editors out of what can clearly be a highly contentious subject which inevitable becomes subjective.

:::We should stick to this position and avoid more contentious approaches, I would suggest that much of the 'activity' around this article is because we stray into highly contentious areas. Lets keep it simple and straightforward Pugpa2 (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::it's of my opinion that the non-inclusion of the SNP and PC where never 'contentious' and such consensus was made in the polling page for the last general election. Wikipedia is not majority rule, and is governed on consensus. There is no consensus for the re-inclusion of either the SNP or PC. This isn't about editors deciding which parties to include, it's a simple fact of 1. PC is not even prompted in a good portion of polls leaving blank values for a vast portion of the table and is unable to mathematical achieve over 2% of the vote, 2. Neither party is represented on the graph and the change in value is negligible 2 - 4% on average for SNP, 1 - 0% for PC.

::::Consensus should be sought for this change which has not occured. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is rather difficult to see what has or has not been changed due to concensus or not such has been the state of this article and talk page.

:::::I think this topic is another where we are best to avoid subjective views on matter and base it on available evidence, pollsters always sample for SNP and for that reason alone should be included the idea of having a % or MP count as criteria is a subjective one. As for PC of the 46 polls this year 35 have prompted for them, I think that is regular enough to merit there inclusion. Pugpa2 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm more sympathetic to maintaining the SNP, though still don't believe theirs much need to represent them on the table. There is absolutely nothing to gain from representing PC, they rarely poll over 0% and a significant portion of polls don't prompt for them. I don't think it's subjective to say a party polling at less than 1% shouldn't be on the table. Most other nations have similiar principles, especially where reporting is done usually as whole numbers unlike other nations like Spain where inclusion of small regional parties are more relevant. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Their is precedence for including SNP and PC, and it appears to have been based solely on the pollsters prompting as stated above 46 polls this year every one prompted for SNP and 35 prompted for PC. Again it is not for us to decide who to include or be sympathetic to it, let the pollsters do their work and respect it, no matter what our personal preferences may or may not be. Pugpa2 (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Tbf party inclusion has never been down to any real criteria, its just discussed based on merits because its incredibly nuanced. Imo, my own personal opinion of the criteria I'd use on whether I believe inclusion is reasonable is that in order 1) does the party intend to stand in over 10% of Parliamentary Seats (capability irrelevant, but if your voteshare is capped at 10% anyways i dont think there is much reason to include as 3% can be vastly different to 4% in regards to final outcome, its just to statistically noisy. Though id be minded differently it were common to report as decimal like in spain or canada.) 2) are they prompted by at least 80% of major pollsters 3) Does the party have at least 20 westminster MPs. The SNP nor the PC can justifiably meet those criteria, hence why i can understand inclusion for the SNP in previous years but PC should never be included for the fact there numbers are influenced to much by statistical noise. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::ps inclusion is having no impact on width or readability of table Pugpa2 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I really am appalled by what has happened here. There has been no substantive change to the situation since the previous consensus and the previous arguments that established that consensus have not been revisited or in anyway unpicked. The change was made the day after that discussion was archived - I'll be generous and call that a remarkable coincidence.

:::::However, I must say that it is not appropriate to assume the silence of previous editors in the previous consensus means that they accept your arguments or otherwise agree with you. For the avoidance of doubt; I do not.

:::::My view remains as previously outlined. I agree with others, that that discussion should be resurrected from the archives.

:::::Realistically, I think we need to take this issue to RfC. It would be important to ensure that myself and others are pinged - I do not spend much time on Wiki these days. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agree. This is political activism. Look at their arguments lower down. They apply logic to suit their argument and ignore that same logic undermining their point. How can anyone assume good faith with what’s happened on this page? 92.20.135.189 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The graph by {{ping|DimensionalFusion}} is very good, but I think it has the issue that the trend lines are so smooth that they don't really show actual trends well. Compare with :File:UK opinion polling 2010-2015.svg where there is more movement in the trend line over shorter periods of time- in the graph on this page by comparison, it covers a period of 7 months so far but the lines are all extremely smooth and don't really accurately follow the trends. The most recent graph update's addition of detail to the Lib Dem and Green lines is good, but the other parties could perhaps do with more accurate trend lines, e.g. the main increase in Reform vote share was the period from mid-November (averaging around 18%) to mid-January (averaging around 24%), with the rise having been slower since mid-January, but the trend line does not really show this.

Also again like the 2010-2015 graph example, I think it would make more sense if the beginning of the trend lines in July started from the actual election result- having the Conservative line start as low as 20% based on a single poll in the start of July rather than the actual election result, and the Labour line as high as 36% again thanks to the same single poll, is a bit misleading. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:About the script:

:{{ping|Chessrat}} I believe it was originally created for German federal elections (which use Proportional Representation, making smaller parties much more relevant) so it has the option to use different "span" sizes, which are essentially how smooth the line is (because of the aforementioned Proportional Representation thing, different parties can have different span sizes).

:In the most recent update I noticed that despite the Lib Dems getting 16% on two seperate polls (I looked into it – their highest since June 2019), the trend line was essentially the same as it was before – so I changed the Greens' and Lib Dems' span sizes to be 0.8 whilst keeping Labour, Reform, and Conservatives' at a span size 4 as they are bigger parties and changes tend to matter less. So currently I have the span sizes set to 4, 4, 4, 0.8, 0.8

:By default the value in the script is 0.05 (which is crazy small), and smaller span values tend to give more credence to outlier polls on the graph, whereas larger values (like the present 4) tend to miss short-term changes.

:Anyway, should all parties have the same span size or should it be different? If so, what should the new values be?

:About your second point:

:The lines do start from the last election result – in the script, the previous election result is counted as a "poll" too which is why Labour's line starts so high: it's about halfway in-between the actual result and the July poll. Incidentally, this could also be fixed by setting a lower span size! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Realised there was already a discussion. All parties should have same span, so either revert span change or apply it to all parties. I think two polls at 16% hardly counts as a trend so ofc there is almost no change. Perhaps, a middle ground between the new span and old span can be used on all parties. The Lib Dems and Greens now look wobbly despite so far there being little change. (Update as of 13:28) @DimensionalFusion, I see that you decreased the span for the Lib Dems and Greens on the graph. But I believe this is a mistake. I do not see a reason for it. According to [https://gitlab.com/gbuvn1/opinion-polling-graph documentation], "parties which have fewer polling data" need "a separate higher 'span' should be used". In other words, parties with more polling data should have a lower span than those with more. But Labour, the Conservatives, Reform, Lib Dems and the Greens all have an equal amount of polling data. Every pollster mentions all of them. Which would mean that they should all have the same span. Now, the Greens and Lib Dems both look very wobbly despite consistent polling. —Profzed! 13:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::I would say all parties should have the same span size for consistency. I do think a more "wobbly" line is preferable for showing small changes over time- see e.g. :File:UK opinion polls 2017-2019.svg in which short-term changes can be clearly seen- all previous articles have much less smooth lines like that. What I would be inclined to do is roughly: setting the span for all parties at something like 0.3, and also weight the last general election result to function as the equivalent of 5 polls with that result (because the actual election result is much more important than the two July WeThink polls for long-term trends). It's possible that that would lead to too much of a focus on outliers but I think it's at least worth trying.

::Regarding @Profzed's comment that there is "little change" in Lib Dem/Green polling... the Lib Dems were polling around 13% in October, dropped to 12% by December, and have nowadays been having more and more poll results around 14%. I think this is a meaningful change that should be reflected in the trend lines. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, note that small changes for the big parties are still quite meaningful- one of Lab/Con/Ref being a few percent above the rest would likely have quite a meaningful change to an actual election result if an election were held. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::In seperate polls in just Feb so far, Reform UK has been anywhere from 29% to 24%. Also in Feb, the Cons have varied from 25% to 18% – if the Lib Dems or the Greens were increasing by 7 points in the same month they'd be on about 19% and 15% respectively. My point is that small changes matter but within big parties they matter less DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Chessrat There isn't really a difference between 12% and 13%, whilst YouGov have always polled Lib Dems at 14% with the exception of the latest poll. (I think there was only something like one non-YouGov poll at 14%.) I do agree though it was probably too straight previously but I feel like it is too wobbly now. Do you know which span was used in the 2017-2019 graph? Because it appears less wobbly there. If not, we could ping the creator. (And if it is was 0.3, maybe I'm just being weird.) —Profzed! 16:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't know, but as far as I can tell from the documentation on the gitlab page, span values should be different depending on the length of time covered by the graph- i.e. the longer that the period is, the lower the span value should be. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Chessrat I see. That'd make sense, given the additional polling data. —Profzed! 16:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Appearances can be deceiving! The 2017–2019 and the 2015–2017 graphs only feel like that because of the shorter timespans – both were only 2 years whereas 2010–2015 and 2019–2024 were both 5. This graph assumes 5 years whilst it's being updated – when the election is called, the graph will thin down DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree - span should be consistent. There is already too much assumption being put into this (whichever span is chosen is completely arbitrary) and then altering span based on how popular a party is just adds more to that.

:::However, (partaking in the arbitrary discussion_ I do think 0.3 is wayyy too granular. My personal opinion is that a middle ground should be sought between the 4 currently given to major parties and the 0.3 proposed for smaller parties. Perhaps 2? This is, broadly, a significant drop from 4 at the moment and will allow little changes to be seen in a way they can't at the moment (7 months on from the election and the trend lines are still effectively quadratic) but would avoid showing small, margin of error differences and can still act as successful trendline.

:::I also believe the idea of including the 2024 results - and possibly giving them increased weight - is quite strong and something of which I am broadly supportive although I think such a change may need a decent consensus behind it because it changes what the early parts of the graph represents, taking it from showing opinion polling over time to opinion over time (a subtle but real difference). Kirky03 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I've updated the graph to use a span of 0.3 to see what it looks like DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::@DimensionalFusion Looking at it, I think 0.3 is defintely a no-go. —Profzed! 16:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@Kirky03 Since 4 was the previous span and 0.3 was @Chessrat's suggested span, what would you think about 2.15 as a middle ground? —Profzed! 16:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Profzed}} I've now updated the graph to use a span size of 1, which is a nice round number to decide on lower or higher DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::@DimensionalFusion That is definitely a lot better. I think I'd go slightly higher, but it'd be interesting to see everyone else's opinions as well. —Profzed! 16:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Looking at the versions with 0.3 and 1, my feeling is that 0.3 is probably slightly too wiggly, but 1 is far too smooth and misleading. Reform mostly stayed static in the polls from August til the end of November and has been mostly static for the last month, and the three biggest parties have all had minimal movement in the last month. The 1 version of the graph fails to show any of this and just shows a steady rise for Reform and steady fall for Labour over the last seven months, which isn't accurate. I would probably go for something like 0.5 or 0.6- 1 is way too high in my opinion. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Chessrat Actually, that is a very good point. —Profzed! 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Alrighty {{ping|Profzed}} {{ping|Chessrat}} so I'll update the current graph to use a span of 0.5 and use 0.5 for all parties in future graph updates. If it needs to be upped to something like 0.6 then we can discuss that later! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Looks good to me. Thank you for doing the work on this! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::👍 —Profzed! 20:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:I might raise this point as well - should similar changes not be made to the Scotland graph?

:I think the selected span of 0.5 should not be used here (due to the much lower density of polls) but perhaps a span lower than the current 4 but higher than 0.5?

:I'm not convinced either way but it might be worth considering Kirky03 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::Probably, but you'd have to find whoever updates that graph and pester them DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I am late to the discussion. I suggest the new span, whatever is currently in use at the time of this message, is too small. The wiggles in the lines now shown are just artefacts, they don't represent anything real. The graph is now not smooth enough. Bondegezou (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed. CR (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:You can check the file history of the graph if you'd like – there's lots of options there of different spans. Which one looks best to you DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Bondegezou I think the issue is finding a span without these swiggles but which is not inaccurate. So 1 is definitely too high as @Chessrat pointed out. Maybe @DimensionalFusion could try some spans in between and either come to a conclusion herself or perhaps update the graph several times so we can all discuss them. Since it's now at 0.5, we could test 0.6, 0.7 and 0.8. And assuming the span can be to 2 d.p., we choose an in between value if need be after testing those. —Profzed! 14:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::I've updated the graph with the latest poll and to use a span of 0.6 DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@DimensionalFusion, thank you for testing 0.6 out. I had a look and I think it is generally nicer, but it re-introduces the error with Reform increasing during February. Could you test out values between 0.5 and 0.6 and upload the highest one without this issue? Thanks. —Profzed! 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::At 2 decimal points, we are getting so precise we are at risk of overfit Kirky03 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Kirky03 I suppose. If we stick to 1 d.p., I think we should use 0.5 then. But I still think we could something in between like 0.55 assuming it does not have the aforementioned issue (but maybe we don't go super precise like my previous reply suggested). The parameters can always be changed though; this isn't a prediction model which has to "lock in". —Profzed! 18:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't agree- all of the wiggles in the graph all have statistical meaning to them and are backed up by large numbers of polls. They're also similar to what's seen in past graphs, for instance the November 2024 Conservative peak is pretty similar looking to the May 2013 UKIP peak in :File:UK opinion polling 2010-2015.svg. I think the current graph is perfect and I don't see a need to change it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Chessrat I think a bit more smoothing would be nicer. Look at Greens Oct–Jan. And I think the Lib Dems went up a bit too readily as well. It should definitely go up but the amount it went from two polls is quite a lot. Reform dropped a bit Nov, which could probably just be smoothened out since support didn't really drop. So I think a minor increase in span could be good. —Profzed! 14:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Not sure what the problem with the Green line is? It's closer to 7% at the start of October when most polls had them on 7%, and slowly goes up as they get more 8%, 9%, and even 10% polls. The Lib Dem line may be very slightly too much but I don't think it's enough to require much of a change. Maybe 0.5 to 0.6 would be okay but I don't think there's a big issue really. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@Chessrat 0.6 seems reasonable. It just needs a minor increase. I just thought it might be good to have several values to compare. —Profzed! 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'd be okay with that. I tried installing the software for generating graphs myself but ended up with enough error messages that I gave up! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I think the 0.6 version is good. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Chessrat I did notice though that Reform is now increasing in February again according to the graph. I was thinking something in between like 0.55 maybe. —Profzed! 07:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've update the polling graph with the latest poll and changed the span to 0.55 (as well as fixing the legend so I didn't have to manually add it in every time, plus weighting the start data more) DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@DimensionalFusion Thank you for all your work! —Profzed! 11:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Thanks {{u|DimensionalFusion}} for doing all the iterations on this. I think the current 0.55 is OK. I'd personally go for something smoother on the basis of the known confidence intervals in these figures, but not worth arguing over! Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

not a fan of the change to polling lead, makes sense on the pollster specific table, but the table of all polls just looks incredibly cluttered and I don't think is neccesary. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:@EnglishPoliticalPerson Well, I don't think it looked that cluttered before the SNP was moved from Others to own table. You can see that discussion at #Re-add SNP column. —Profzed! 14:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:See MOS:COLOR- Avoid using color as the sole means of conveying information. Always provide an alternative method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::But colour is not the sole means of conveying information in this example, you have text and also the data in the actual row Pugpa2 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:I personally like it - a slight bit of clutter that adds quite useful information.

:For the 2019-24 Parliament, it was sufficient to be displayed as previous because you would naturally assume the gap is Labour v Conservative but in the current context at the very least, we have had leads over the past few months of Lab over Con, Lab over Ref, Con over Lab, Con over Ref, Ref over Lab and Ref over Con.

:That is my reasoning at the very least for supporting this specific change - it adds a little clutter in exchange for a large amount of information. Kirky03 (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Kirky03 I would note that this isn't a change. The lead has always been included. —Profzed! 15:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Profzed The difference is that the table currently incorporates the lead and the second placed party, making the column a lot wider CR (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@CipherRephic Ah, I see. Comparing last election and this one, the lead is only wider by the tiniest margins. So given the extra information, I think it's worth it. —Profzed! 15:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:I would agree, lead is cluttered with too much information, would advocate returning to simpler cleaner layout of lead% and party colour.

:Om a similar vein not at all convinced that "Most recent Polling by Pollster" adds anything to the article, presenting a table which is a mix of older and newer data and a cluttered lead column, all in all a bit of an eyesore and an uninformative one at that, would suggest just deleting it Pugpa2 (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Pugpa2 Agree with the point about the most recent pollster. On a side note, it lists a source but is updated more frequently than said source (which is not an issue if the table correctly sourced the polls, i.e. cited the same sources as the main table, but it is wrong to list an unused source). —Profzed! 17:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that the lead column is too cluttered. We don't have to say the lead is over (which is the equivalent of specifying who is in second place). I'd drop the lead column entirely from the "Most recent Polling by Pollster" table. The lead doesn't matter; the raw figures are what matters. Bondegezou (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree - most polling tables on Wikipedia that have a lead column only have the pp lead and party colour. I understand that this method could make the column more accessible to some users and provides more insight as to which party is second, but users could just read the table to know this information, and this change ultimately just means that there are a few extra bytes for each poll cluttering an article that is inevitably going to be very large. Nicholas13t (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Nicholas13t I understand that it uses more space/storage, but visually it hardly increases the width. So I don't really see the benefit unless we're scraping the barrel to keep server costs down. —Profzed! 21:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The issue is not about space the actual cell is cluttered Pugpa2 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Profzed I understand that, although the reason it doesn't make the table wider is because it is already as wide as it can be. for visually impaired users (who some have argued this would make the table more readable for) who use Wikipedia with text scaled larger, the table can easily become less navigable. Even though I think it should just be reduced to the pp lead, I understand why it may be useful to add "(party) +1", but "(party) +1 over (party 2)" is just unnecessary in my opinion. Nicholas13t (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::That makes sense to me, the argument that putting text in for party thereby improving access to those who use a reader is to my mind a good point. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I like the lead over format in the current political context of a 3 party system so would argue for its inclusion but if it is causing accessibility issues, and there's no other way (I think I just need to accept I lost the SNP/PC column battle lol), I'm not passionate enough about it to argue against its removal. Kirky03 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::At this point this topic has been running for a week

:::::We seem to have consensus that the lead column in the main table is too cluttered, I make it 4 in agreement, 1 opposed and 1 who seems ambiguous. A positive suggestion was that we include text ie the Lead party to assist those who use a reader.

:::::I intend to start changing the lead column to only show the lead party (short name) a plus and %, with the box shaded to the appropriate colour Pugpa2 (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::This statement was reached and conversation ended. This could be because people stopped caring about the discussion or, as I interpreted it, people agreed with the consensus over the last few messages.

::::::Either way, one user took it upon themselves to undo this edit without participating in the discussion at all. I think that is clearly not the right thing to do at all and an insult to everyone who did take part in this. Honestly, I prefer the way the article was and would like it back that way but my main motivation for this is that I don't appreciate someone can just come in and overrule a discussion like this because they feel like it and get their way via those methods.

::::::Hence, I am going to suggest that we put the lead column back to how it was after this discussion ended but before the certain individual implemented their own individual will. For clarity, that is "(party) +1" which does not overclutter the table as many worried but does improve accessibility and was seemingly the happy compromise the people in this discussion could at least tolerate.

::::::In order to give every one the chance to voice their opinion on this, I will ping everyone involved in this discussion as well as the person who undid it to give them a chance to talk through their opinion in the correct way.

::::::p.s. I'm not actually 100% sure I know how to ping people properly so I hope this works.

::::::@EnglishPoliticalPerson @Profzed @Chessrat @Pugpa2 @Cr @Bondegezou @Nicholas13t @Impru20 Kirky03 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The conversation ended because there was a proposal here to open a RfC on issues like this one once the current RfC on non-BPC polls has ended. It was absolutely not a tacit agreement with the comments laid out. I would suggest to respect the process in order to achieve as much input as possible as well as to avoid duplicating topics across the talk page. Impru20^talk 09:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The conversation paused because an RfC was opened on BPC, and article frozen amidst edit warring and other misbehaviours.

:::::::Consensus appears to have been achieved on BPC, should we move on and discuss next issue.

:::::::For my part I think we should be looking at

:::::::Most recent polling by pollster - inclusion or exclusion

:::::::Lead Column - largely a formatting issue but seems to have had a lot of attention, although I am not unhappy with present layout which is consist with what has gone before. Pugpa2 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Conversation here ended 4th of March and RFC opened 11th.

::::::::Either which way, tactics used were not ideal. Kirky03 (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The problem wasn’t that the column lead was too long! It was really useful seeing who the lead was over.

::::::::::The problem was caused by the addition of the SNP and Plaid column.

::::::::::The pro SNP and Plaid editors are saying that table width isn’t an issue when it comes to adding 2 columns but claim it is when doubling the width of one column. That is a ridiculous position.

::::::::::We need to go back to the table layout that worked very well for many months.

:::::::::152.37.92.153 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chessrat You placed this in sub-national poll results, but this should be under other polling. I was going to move it myself, but this is a bit difficult on mobile. In addition, the ref has the wrong name and you've cited the same ref several times as different refs. I would just move it up to the text bit above the table and cite it once rather than repeat it within the table. —Profzed! 21:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Done Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::👍 —Profzed! 09:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Perhaps this is another topic for the archives - making space for highly relevant previous discussions 92.20.135.189 (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to bring out any attacks of "this is fortunate timing" because I believe this is harmless and not something being done deliberately but a lot of things that have reached consensus - or at least been discussed - have been ignored now they are archived. Like I say, I think this is more because they are no longer visible and so people just aren't aware of them but I thought I'd raise them.

The first was the re-adding of the SNP Column in which there was a consensus reached which has now been changed. For this one, we can argue that a new consensus has now been reached but this was an example of old conversations being missed. However, the PC Column was also readded for which I do not believe there was clear reason to override the last consensus - which itself stated that if SNP is added, PC should not.

Secondly, the party titles have been unshortened from the 3-letter format that was agreed.

Thirdly, BPC polls have been added - which I believed we had decided would not be the case.

I'm not attacking anyone with this, I don't think anything malicious has happened here but I'd just like to ask people to be aware of the archived discussions and ask if there's anything that can be done to stop this - maybe extend the archiving period? Kirky03 (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:Overridden is perhaps not the correct phrase to be using, rather a new consensus is being reached. As far as I can see this is the way with wiki articles and perfectly normal almost expected. It is healthy and perhaps demonstrates that some having seen these changes now believe they are not helpful.

:Personally I think this article has deteriorated markedly and has lost its way becoming overly big with many sections that could be argued have little to do with polling for next UK parliament. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::I checked the archived discussion, and no consensus was reached on removing non-BPC members. In fact I see more users arguing FOR their inclusion than arguing against them. This may be your personal perspective Kirky, but it is not the "consensus".

:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election/Archive_1#BPC_Polls Here is the link. I count:

::

::* 3 contributers argue for keeping non-BPC pollsters

::* 2 contributers argue for removing non-BPC pollsters

::Depicting this discussion as a "consensus" for removing them is my opinion a misrepresentation of the discussion. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Furthermore, Lord Ashcroft is not a BPC member, but his polls were all included. So clearly there is inconsistency in applying this "rule". https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/officers-members/ FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Doesn’t mean they should be included either - it’s a matter standard of quality and that results and tables are open for peer to peer review - non BPC members do not do this and shouldn’t be treated the same as companies who do NewGuy2024 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Had not seen that discussion, IMHO this is a fairly standard requirement across most UK Polling articles, that they have to be members of BPC any that are not should be removed.

:::Having looked at the previous discussion, by my count it was 3 -2 for only BPC members and the 2 were IP addresses! My vote would be BPC only, that makes it 4 editors(with accounts) for BPC only and 2 (ip addresses) against that. That sounds like consensus.

:::I would be happy to go back through and remove any non bpc entries Pugpa2 (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::Overridden is almost certainly not the right phrase and I tried for a while to find better wording but it was the best I could think of.

::The issue isn’t people challenging previous decisions and a new consensus being reached but people just leaping straight into a new decision without properly challenging the previous one.

::Take the headers for example which had previously been discussed and decided to be 3 letter names, which was then undone over the last few days without any discussion. Kirky03 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree that is very poor practice and again flys in the face of good practice.

:::I think something that maybe contributing to this is the ridiculous short time before talk topics are archived, at present it is 21 days which seems an extraordinary short time, I would have thought 6 months might be more appropriate and reduce the same topic reappearing so soon Pugpa2 (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree. I don't think there's any malice, it is just out of sight, out of mind. We can't keep debating the same topics every month. What sort of auto archive period is standard for most pages? Kirky03 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is getting even worse now as certain parties are engaging in editing warring as I attempt to revert to consensus. I'm stopping trying for the time being because I don't want to engage in edit warring but people need to stop forcing through these changes. Kirky03 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::I am absolutely disgusted, we have editors that seem to think they’re above the rules and that their views and way of thinking is the only possible legitimate route - there’s a word for that but I’ll not use it here!

:::Obviously the consensus arrived at last year should be restored, Wiki should not fall victim to political activism and games like what we have seen unfold on this page.

:::SNP and plaid should be in the others column - if they’re not, there’s no point in having another’s column.

:::Please can someone unarchive the original discussion where all the points for and against were properly outlined? The discussion above is extremely one sided and the tactics are militant. 92.20.135.189 (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh dear, I have already looked at the previous discussion the implementation of which has had unforeseen consequences not the least of which editors making decisions about who is recorded, in which order and doing on site analysis. The consensus was far from clear cut, any who consensus can change and appears to have done so

:::Re including or not SNP PC that should happen in the appropriate talk section Pugpa2 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Assume nothing has changed in approach with including just BPC members - including others, where peer to peer reviews doesn’t take place, should not be included here - too many caveats would surely be needed and a slippery slope to eventually including Twitter polls…. This assume is longstanding agreement NewGuy2024 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::" This assume is longstanding agreement" is not an argument. There has only been one discussion on this on *this* page, and the outcome was 3-2 in favour of keeping non-BPC polls. This is your personal opinion, and that's fine, but you can't call this a consensus or a long standing rule without providing any evidence. That's not persuasive. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Where is the evidence of this discussion? Can see no mention of this - this was brought up several months ago and the agreed consensus then, was to keep, as always been - BPC only polling - otherwise the polls displayed loose their credibility if they’re lumped alongside non BPC polls - happy to be corrected here but logically makes no sense at all NewGuy2024 (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Indeed on inspection I don’t think I can see any other non-BPC polls being included - so again this argument falls down here NewGuy2024 (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@NewGuy2024 Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election/Archive_1#BPC_Polls. This is a discussion you participated in, and the consensus was not in fact "BPC only polling". CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 12:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::"this was brought up several months ago and the agreed consensus then, was to keep, as always been - BPC only polling". It literally was not the "consensus", as Cipher said. You must be confusing this with another article. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It has been longstanding practice across most UK polling articles to only include BPC members, I can not see the rationale why this article should be different.

::::::Looking at archived talk (auto archiving after 21 days?) previous consensus seemed to be 3-2 to ignore this precedence, however 2 of those 3 were IP addresses that appear to only have ever posted on that specific talk. A sensible view might be to provide more weight to active editors who actually sign up to wiki.

::::::Having said that the concensus seems to have changed, I for one think it should only be BPC members nothing else and no exceptions. Pugpa2 (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Again no evidence where and how this was agreed - afraid the reliability of this page is no longer of the highest quality and will be pointing my students and other academia away from here if this the route is now gone down - afraid it now feels like it’s been taken over by partisan players and happy with “polls”, no matter what the quality, as long as it gives the result they want - real shame! NewGuy2024 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It certainly has dropped significantly in quality, like you it feels as if a partisan element have played a large part in creating this situation.

::::::::However I am not ready yet to give up on it although fear I may just get shouted down largely by IP addresses, but I'll give it a go Pugpa2 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::BPC only makes sense.

:::::::There needs to be a clear, distinct method for deciding which polls are high quality (e.g. BPC) and which are not (e.g. Twitter polls). There is, obviously, plenty of grey area in the middle but there's no easy rule for determining that grey area other than "vibes" which isn't good enough.

:::::::BPC is a sufficient, easy method for drawing a clear-cut line in the sand that only includes high quality polls and doesn't rely on "vibes" Kirky03 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Precisely - being a BPC member ensures a level of quality and standard that is open and transparent for peer to peer review…. Non members do not have that obligation and shouldn’t be treated alongside the same as those that do…. NewGuy2024 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Agreed back to longstanding notion that only BPC members? Seems to be consensus amongst regular participants NewGuy2024 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Again no evidence where and how this was agreed - afraid the reliability of this page is no longer of the highest quality and will be pointing my students and other academia away from here if this the route is now gone down - afraid it now feels like it’s been taken over by partisan players and happy with “polls”, no matter what the quality, as long as it gives the result they want - real shame! NewGuy2024 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Can't believe Im having to write this here but freshwater strategies polls should not be included until we have tables from them. There are not tables. There are obviously reasons to include non-BPC members on the page, but if there are no tables for the poll it should not be included. And I feel the need to stress - stop adding it without consensus. You need to justify its' inclusion, not the other way round. It should not be on the page unless consensus has been reached. I will continually remove those polls until it is reached. This is vandalising, please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benocalla2 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:Well said - sure it wasn’t done in malice but still result is indeed vandalism of what should be a table of robust and consistent polls NewGuy2024 (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::WP:GOODFAITH. Please do not accuse editors who take a different position to you of vandalism. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree, well said

:This article is in need of some serious attention, it has drifted (being generous) into shambles and inconsistency Pugpa2 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:Freshwater Strategies polls data tables can be found at [https://freshwaterstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/Data-Tables-City-AM-Freshwater-Strategy-UK-Polling-070125-FINAL.xlsx here for 4-6 Jan tables] and [https://freshwaterstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/Data-Tables-City-AM-Freshwater-Strategy-UK-Polling-F03022515.xlsx here for 31 Jan - 2 Feb tables] . Tables for their latest poll are not yet available. Given how there was previously a consensus (albeit tenuous) for including non-BPC polls, and how many non-BPC or otherwise unreliable polls have been included in the articles for previous General Elections (including Lord Ashcroft, Labour Together, and Number Cruncher Politics for the 2024 election alone), I personally think they should be included if they can be cited accurately, with a note denoting that they are not a BPC member. Nicholas13t (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::Furthermore - and to preface I understand this article won't need this section for a while - but this conversation leaves out poll/ seat aggregators, who are almost never BPC members, and the only BPC member that made aggregations alongside its MRP polls in the 2024 election was Electoral Calculus, whose aggregation was incidentally also the least accurate. Moreover, I feel that we also should address the issue of how exclusive this page should be in citing BPC-only sources before any edit warring occurs in the future. Nicholas13t (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You perhaps want to check that, looking at 2024 polling article the MRP section is very busy and full of what appears to only be BPC members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#MRP_and_SRP_polls

:::The article may require that section now as I am sure I have seen at least 3 MRP polls in teh main table. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Pugpa2 to clarify i was refering to the subsection about seat aggregations, not MRP polls. Nicholas13t (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for the clarification I do think we need an MRP section now as some of these are being inserted into the main table. Looking at previous articles, both polling and Leadeship, it seems very rare that any non BPC member is included in any section but I will have a look at the section you refer to in this current article. Pugpa2 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Can see Freshwater is included again - this needs to be removed…. The argument is that Ashcroft polls have been included, therefore so should freshwater - Ashcroft though not a member do publish their tables that Freshwater do not! NewGuy2024 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Everyone, please stop edit warring. I have counted 11 edits (or 10 reverts) today alone. —Profzed! 21:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is getting out of hand. Every time I try to change things to previous (and seemingly current) consensus, people just keep forcing it back.

:I'm stopping for the time being because I don't want to edit war but people need to stop ignoring this talk page Kirky03 (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Kirky03 Definitely. Even after my post here on the talk page, more edits have been made. —Profzed! 22:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::can we please leave things as they are for the moment at least until a consensus has emerged.

:::Just did a count and in this talk item there is a majority in favour of only BPC members polls being included 3-1, however that is not any reason to rush in and make changes, lets take a wee bit of time, reflect on where we are and hopefully garner a clear decision, without premature editing.

:::Articles of this kind tend to only use BPC members polls and for very good reasons, it ensures consistence and transparency, having said that the wording does have a caveat of 'Most' As I understand it this has developed to accommodate a historical anomaly in Lord Ashcroft Polling, they had been members of BPC but left and this accommodation was created. However this may now be creating a wedge type issue allowing others to explore the possibility of including other non BPC members, to the potential detriment of this article.

:::I am a great believer in Keep it simple and straightforward (KISS) as such I think the simple and most robust position is to make it ONLY BPC members polls are captured in this article. The message is simple easily understood and straightforward to administer. It would mean losing Lord Ashcroft polls but I think that is a reasonable price to pay for consistency and some peace on the talk pages. Currently there are no Ashcroft polls in the main article and only 2 in the preferred PM table, so there would be no real loss in terms of numbers and hopefully put to bed this discussion.

:::Most polling companies are multi national so there is no problem with any polling company affiliating to BPC, it is there choice and we should respect it. Pugpa2 (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Back to BPC exclusivity or not

::::Just did a wee exercise as I was having some doubt as to my understanding of previous incarnations of this article. I looked at Polling for the 2024 election and chose the year 2024 as my sample, during this period there were 319 polls recorded on the article, of these 308 were BPC registered, of the 11 non BPC polls 10 were Lord Ashcroft and 1 (the very last one before polling) was from Number Cruncher Politics. Assuming the last was an anomaly that would have been picked up my previous assertion that the only non BPC polls typically captured were for Lord Ashcroft and that this is a historical anomaly.

::::If we hold to previous practice then only Lord Ashcroft would be allowed along with BPC members, this is not a precedence for allowing non BPC members polls. Again I would suggest we tackle this anomaly and just have BPC polls Pugpa2 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Why don't we include BPC polls with a footnote stating that the company in question isn't a BPC member? That way the information is clearly available and readers will be aware of the status of the companies in question.

That or mention at the top which companies are and aren't BPC members. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Because we would be introducing data that was potentially not of the same standard as BPC. This is not a new position as evidenced by looking at previous UK polling articles, where apart from the historical anomaly of Lord Ashcroft non BPC polls are very unusual, very. Pugpa2 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Chessrat @Pugpa2 It would also introduce the problem with which polls to include in the graph. —Profzed! 18:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think that's really a problem, as Ashcroft/Freshwater polls are reported by reliable sources just as much as BPC members are (e.g. Mark Pack's collection of polls which is cited includes Ashcroft). The point of adding a note would be simply to inform readers. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Could you point me at those sources you refer to please Pugpa2 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, City AM is a newspaper generally considered reliable and the Freshwater polls are commissioned by them (https://www.cityam.com/our-polling-shows-hope-of-change-has-turned-to-despair-for-labour/); likewise Lord Ashcroft polls have been reported by the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51457739). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think we have previously discussed the historical anomaly that is Lord Ashcroft, city am is a regional paper (around London).

::::::That anomaly is the core of this discussion, better to do away with the anomaly than have it undermine the integrity of the whole article. Pugpa2 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Disagree - Ashcroft publish tables that can be peer reviewed - Freshwater doesn’t…. Dont like footnote idea - can be missed and table quality is subsequently diluted NewGuy2024 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree - as I've said there has been a precedent previously for the inclusion of non-BPC polls, but adding a note for these polls to indicate that they aren't held to the same standards as BPC polls seems reasonable. Nicholas13t (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::Sounds sensible - I’m in favour of inclusion with a note 92.20.135.189 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm personally against this idea but frankly I don't hugely have the effort to argue against it, especially when it feels the debate will continue going until people agree to include them. Kirky03 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Don’t think it’s as simple as this - it’s a slippery slope we risk going down with this inclusion, even with a footnote - a clear decision needs to be had, however if its decided to included any non BPC members, I will point my students and other academics from this page as it can no longer be relied upon NewGuy2024 (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: THIS EDIT WAR HAS GOT TO STOP. There are a number of "problems" with this page, but it seems that there is too much activism going on and not enough objectivity in reaching a consensus. There is not massive urgency in editing the history, but there is some necessity for all concerned to focus on consistency.

::::: I suggest all would-be frustrated editors take the trouble to look at previous Opinion-polls-for-the-next-UK-election pages, of which there are several now, and use the polling consensus from those as a basis.

::::: We know that it looks like some BPS polls are biased towards one party or another, and we know that there is credible motive for politically energised editors to edit in a way that suits their biases, but if we carry on like this, the page will deteriorate, because the graphs can't be updated. There are several things that I don't like, but I've been on Wikipedia since the state, 20+ years, and I know how it goes.

::::: Don't be editing and ranting via your phone. Calm down, and put your differences aside and cooperate to adopt a rule going forward. I personally want the silly extra polling table removed, because it adds nothing, and has no consistent rule for how it's generated, and I think it's people inserting things like this in, that are part of the problem.

::::: This page will work a lot better if it just sticks to the simple way that previous such pages in this series worked. There are some silly comments and justifications being inserted in this talk page by people who have not been on Wikipedia as long as I have, this is not constructive.

::::: Specific to the point about to BPS or to not BPS, you may as well also complain about GB v UK or sample size, or who commissioned it, but either way, to image that this page is going to be of academic quality is a little bit optimistic. It's a dump of polls that don't all follow the same criteria, and don't map 100%, and so the end result is only ever going to be an approximation, and that's fine. This is Wikiepdia, it's not a peer-reviewed academic publication, it's not likely to be even as accurate as many "journalist" articles. Get used to it. "I'm just some bloke off t'inter'" (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes! People need to stop forcing their opinions through, this page has spiralled into madness the last 3 or so days. Kirky03 (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:There is no reason not to include non-BPC polls; other countries do not even have such similar associations and we do not discriminate opinion polls based on that. Indeed, the article itself states that {{tq|ost of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abide by its disclosure rules}}, i.e. "most", not "all", this is not a requirement for inclusion. If this is such a really important topic for some users, I do not see any issue with adding a footnote for those polls that are non-BPC. Obviously, those editors being disruptive to the point of blocking including these polls by accusing others of vandalism should be shown what Wikipedia rules on WP:VANDAL and WP:DE are and stop their behaviour ASAP. Impru20^talk 10:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Footnotes can be easily missed and if you see the need to include a footnote, you agree there’s a caveat that should be noted before used - therefore why risk including them alongside BPC members? I’m certain this wasn’t the approach undertaken for the 2024 GE polling - so don’t agree that our standards should be allowed to slip now NewGuy2024 (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, people need to stop fighting it out with edits while the discussion is still ongoing, its getting completely out of hand. Although, I daresay that even includes old and wise people who have been on the site for years...

::My view on the discussion has been made enough, we need to draw the line somewhere, why not BPC? The argument that Lord Ashcroft used to be BPC and so has remained by convention is one that, while I disagree with, I admit has merits and so I have no issue with that. Freshwater, on the other hand, should not be included. Kirky03 (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::But the UK does have such an association, which if memory serves came into being in the 90s following a particularly poor showing from the polling companies at a GE. The BPC has been central in raising and maintaining the standard of polling in the UK. It seems non sensical to me not to take advantage of this. Until recently the only real Non BPC pollster recorded was Lord Ashcroft, a historical anomaly due to being a BPC member previously. It makes more sense to tackle the anomaly and preserve the highest standard. This convention is long standing across many UK poling articles. The notion of a footnote actually shows the that these non BPC polls are different so why include them in teh first place. I would suggest that removal will only add to the problems this article already has, does every poll get included no matter the source, what the criteria, who manages or gate keeps this. I fear that it will only increase the number and intensity of thee brush fires that break out here all too often already. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Completely agree - if you need to add a footnote, that tells you something… NewGuy2024 (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Just to point out: I am fine with no footnotes at all. A footnote was the compromise solution made by another user to appease you, and I was supportive of it if it worked as a way to circumvent this weird "worry" about the non-BCP thing; this said, if you do not want a footnote because nothing sort of your desires will be fine for you, I am fine with having no footnotes and with non-BPC polls remaining in the table. I don't agree with their removal because 1) pollsters may have their own motives not to join BPC; 2) a new pollster may conduct legitimate polls but may not join BPC right away; 3) long-established pollsters may leave BPC because of their own reasons; etc. Pollsters should be added based on their reliability. BPC membership can be a criterion for realiability, but it cannot be the only one, and it's absurd that polls are discarded bases on their BPC membership when it's failrly obvious this is being done because some users don't like a particular set of polls and just want the exclude these right away. Reliability cannot be the cherry-picking conducted by some random editors. That's neither scientific nor constructive. Impru20^talk 15:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Reliability is the key element here…bringing in non BPC members, with no obligation to open their tables or indeed publish the rational behind their polls, brings a level of unreliability and risk I genuinely can’t fathom why anyone, who has a genuine interest in this field, would want other results diluted by….no way they should be included and I’m astounded it’s even a debate now NewGuy2024 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::From where are you getting that non-BPC polls are automatically "risky" in any way? We are not here to discuss what astounds you or not. Impru20^talk 15:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Non-BPC polls are not automatically flawed, but there are not protected against these flaws, hence there is a risk. Kirky03 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{ec}} And BPC polls have some automatic protection against any flaw?

::::::::I bet you can make the case for BPC polls having some greater degree of reliability than non-BPC polls as they abide to a set of rules and methodology, but you cannot automatically discard non-BPC polls as "flawed", which is what some users are doing right now just because they do not "like" them. If you have a poll being commissioned by a reliable source and have no reason to exclude them other than their non-BPC membership, then those should definitely not be excluded. Impru20^talk 15:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Indeed - maybe flawless but is basically a big black box that were now being expected to treat alongside other polls that allow peer to peer reviews and methodology clear and published NewGuy2024 (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Quite simple really! In summary, it’s a big black box, with no peer to peer review of tables and methodology is not published! NewGuy2024 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Interesting use of language.

:::::Solution to your somewhat strawman argument is include polls by pollsters who were members of BPC at time of polling.

:::::BPC pollsters have a standard they work to that in itself is worthy of them being given their place. As I understand it the process to join BPC is fairly straightforward perhaps a better question would be why of these other companies not done so. I don't think anyone is saying non BPC polls are flawed, just that we have no evidence as to standard they are working to. Pugpa2 (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::You are basically assuming non-BPC polls are automatically untrustworthy just because of them not being BPC members, which is what I am criticizing. That's not a "strawman argument" and I don't get what is that "solution" you are proposing me, putting in my mouth words that I have not said.

::::::I have said that BPC membership can be a criterion for reliability; indeed, that's what has been in place for many years in UK opinion polling articles. But it's not just BPC polls that get added, and you need more than just non-BPC membership to get any poll excluded. If a poll is commissioned by a reliable source and is not proven to have been conducted under a flawed methodology, what's your reasoning for excluding them? That's arbitrary and somewhat elitist, i.e. requiring pollsters to associate themselves with the BPC in order to grant them recognition in this article. The process may be straightforward, or not, but no law requires them to do so and a pollster does not need to be in the BPC to have a trustworthy methodology. I fear it's you using a "somewhat strawman argument". Impru20^talk 16:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:As a user of the page who finds it useful to refer to and is grateful for the effort put into maintaining it, I think it depends a bit on what you're trying to do with the page, which I'm not totally clear on.

:1) Be (yet another) polling aggregator to show people what the state of polling is. In this case some decisions have to be made on which polls to include to avoid junk data. But the other polling aggregators do this in a variety of ways and seems hard to avoid doing at least some WP:OR in picking things like which to include, what averaging period on the graph "looks right", etc. There's never going to be a "right answer" to this, or there wouldn't be multiple other polling aggregator sites all with their own selection, averaging, etc. mechanisms, so the arguments are going to be permanent. (BPC-only is about the simplest possible rule in this case, of course)

:2) List those polls which are reported on by reliable sources (the article becomes "which polls did RS consider significant", not "which polls meet some standard of statistical value"). Would be more conventional for other parts of WP, but obviously means getting away from the idea that inclusion of a poll in the article is saying anything about the poll's *quality* rather than its *media importance*.

:3) Give up on listing every single poll in a table at all, and just summarise in prose (based on other aggregators, reliable sources, etc.) what happened in opinion polling during the period covered. Also very conventional for the wider WP - Dow_Jones_Index has some graphs, sure, but not a table of every single closing level for every day of its existence, or live updates of the current level. There *would* be far fewer arguments if you didn't start the article until after the election it polls for had already happened.

:Anyway, good luck and best wishes with sorting that out. 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:692:26FF:FE59:D09B (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it is that complicated, we have had a very successful article going back over many years that only used BPC and anomaly of Lord Ashcroft, if this is seen a setting a precedence then the solution is to remove the precedence not turn it into a free for all.

::1 we are not other poll aggregators most of whom would dream of having the traffic this article has, people are free to choose which aggregator the prefer, its their choice

::2 you would need to first define 'reliable sources'

::3 thats a blog Pugpa2 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:From my perspective BPC membership is merely indicative of legitimate polling (and there are definitely poor pollsters within the BPC that come to mind as well). The key principles of the BPC however should be used to judge the reputability of a pollster, as opposed to membership itself. Those being for example, publication of tables, non-witholdal of conducted polling, transparently weighted samples, etc... see no issue including non-BPC polling as Impro has mentioned and the need for that to be sign posted doesn't seem extremely neccesary though may be potentially beneficial. Hinging reputability on one organisation feels like a dangerous path, so I agree with commentary that we stray away from using BPC membership as a sole indicator. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Including non BPC polling but with a footnote just degrades the value of this site in my humble opinion. What next, voodoo polls from twitter (with added footnote indicating that in reality it is meaningless). BPC membership is not a guarantee of accuracy, but it does indicate a certain level of standards being met by the pollster (and without that what is the point of this site). Happytiger00 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::100% my feeling too - those arguing the need for a footnote, which can easily be missed, need to ask themselves why they feel the need for a footnote? NewGuy2024 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Using the footnote option seems like a practical, workable, sustainable and sensible path forward. Each addition to be evaluated per their merits.Halbared (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::Therein is the problem, who and how will each addition be "evaluated per their merits" could you expand how that might work in real world. Why is it any better than Hyperlink? Pugpa2 (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Showing their working out, and use by reliable sources.Halbared (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Ahhhh, define reliable source will be contentious and require agreement from editors who seem to be able to disagree on just about any subject matter. The solution to avoid all of that is to use the system that had been used for many years on this article (or at least its predecessors) and take advantage of a well recognised and respected association and its members - the BPC. This has been one of the practices that had made this article so reliable and heavily used by many, why change a successful practice? especially for one that could lower the standard and become a matter for perpetual disagreement. Pugpa2 (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|Ahhhh, define reliable source will be contentious}} What? Wikipedia works with reliable sources, almost by definition. You have WP:RELIABLE, WP:SOURCE and other many policies and guidelines explaining what a reliable source is and detailing the criteria that a source must have in order for it to be considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. There are hundreds of articles on opinion polling in Wikipedia (many equally successful, reliable and well recognized, or even more) where no system such as the BPC exist, and they have no major issues defining what a reliable source is when it comes to opinion polls. May we stop dramatizing what the BPC implies and stop creating problems where there are none? Impru20^talk 10:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Quite, thank you for linking the WPs, I should have done that to avoid confusion.Halbared (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Your very sure that there will be no problems, I wish I had your confidence especially considering how active the talk page is. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. From that I take it you would agree on what reliable in this context means? and if there are no acceptable published sources (ie Data Tables) you would agree that poll should be excluded? Pugpa2 (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Your first sentence commenting on my "confidence" is entirely out of place; if you want this talk page to be less "active", then just stop posting as it's you and two other users the ones who have been dominating the talk here for days, at times with text walls and/or creating new, needless threads to repeat arguments already listed elsewhere. I would note how some editors have started complaining about "activity" in this talk page only when other editors have started coming in, but not before.

:::::::I made a remark discussing your questioning of reliable sources: Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines telling you how to identify a reliable source, and many opinion polling articles where no BPC exist have no issue identifying reliable sources. {{tq|acceptable published sources (ie Data Tables)}} is your definition of reliable source, not one that we should necessarily accept or abide to. If a reliable media source commissions a poll and publishes headline figures but does not publish a data table (for example, because it choses to put a paywall for such information), would you systematically discard it because it does not fit into your vision of what a reliable source is? Even if that poll is, for example, considered by polling aggregators? Should we review opinion polling articles of elections in the 1980s, 1970s or earlier and remove most polls just because of them not publishing "data tables"? Conversely, does a data table automatically make a poll reliable? What if a pollster publishes a fake or flawed data table?

:::::::{{tq|Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.}} That's exactly the point. We should not deviate from what Wikipedia generally considers a reliable, published source. BPC membership and/or publication of data tables can be two indicators of a source being reliable, but neither a data table does automatically make a source reliable nor non-BPC membership makes a pollster unreliable. Impru20^talk 12:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hmmm, merely exploring the possibilities, I am always prepared to hear and listen to new points of view, its by exploring these that allows potential movement in a persons position. Pugpa2 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I would suggest that if a data table is not open to all then it can not be classed as a reliable source, we all have to be able to access the data. As for relying on a second source such as a polling aggregator does not sound that reliable or that of the commissioning body.

::::::::Your argument above seems to create more doubts for me than it placates. We have a fairly robust system working right now you would abandon that, for data that is not readily available and/or rely on other parties. That seems like a recipe for disaster. Pugpa2 (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This is basically your own, self-made opinion, not a matter of fact. The current system in place does not limit non-BPC polls nor is necessarily restrictive with those polls not publishing a data table. The difference between the current system in place and your position is that yours uses BPC and data tables as exclusive criteria, whereas the current system uses these as indicative of reliability but without such exclusivity (meaning exceptions may apply). That's why the main headline of the article establishes that {{tq|Most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abide by its disclosure rules}}. I repeat: {{tq|Most}}. Not all.

:::::::::Also as a point of fact: you have currently over 80 comments and replies in the current version of this talk page, which is double the next most active user and about three or four times the next ones. Indeed, posting twice most of the times you reply to other users does not help your statistics. I respect that you claim that you are prepared "to hear and listen", but you are definitely not doing that right now and have, in fact, become the main responsible for this talk page being so active. So, unless you have anything really new to offer or discuss other than repeating the same arguments over and over again, I would advice you to back down and truly hearing and listening until a proper RfC is opened to bring back your arguments in a more structured way. And particularly, stopping the "recipe for disaster"-like melodrama which you are keen on bringing in each reply and which does not make any help to any discussion. Cheers. Impru20^talk 13:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I will try not to go round again, I produced evidence of the very low use of Non BPC in election cycle 2020 to 2024, also just how successful this article has been and published those findings on this very page. Suggest this is me trying to check my own position and at same time that of others. These are facts and can not and should not be dismissed as mere personal opinion.

::::::::::I do take your point about number of posts a quick check and I am way out in front (if that is the right phrase) it does seem as if 3 or 4 of us are producing far too many comments, I will try to limit mine a bit more. Rugby is starting that might help Pugpa2 (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|I produced evidence of the very low use of Non BPC in election cycle 2020 to 2024}} Which confirms that there are exceptions to this exclusiveness. "Very low use" =/= "never". This is basically what I (and others, on that hand) keep repeating.

:::::::::::{{tq|it does seem as if 3 or 4 of us are producing far too many comments}} You have 85 comments right now, to Kirky03's 45, Profzed's 38, Chessrat's 29 and NewGuy2024's 28 (I have 26, including this reply to you). Yes, I would say some editors are producing far too many comments, but I think the statistic is crystal clear on who's doing that right now. Impru20^talk 13:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Surely the very fact that it feels the need to state that most of the polls are BPC shows you something though. BPC is the default and you need justification for others to be included. If BPC was not the default, you may as well remove that line, even if it does only say "most". Also, what do you think about the potential compromise of allowing Ashcroft as a former BPC member which presumably still abides by their rules, but not others such as Freshwater?

::::::::::I'd also like to ask, why do you feel so strongly that others should be included? There's been a lot of discussion about the validity of the arguments against including them but less about why they should be included (which is presumably why we've been going in circles like you said). BPC removes a lot of risk and confirms that the pollster is using desirable methods. Other polls may well be fine but there's an element of uncertainty and a risk of less desirable and reliable polls slipping in. So, why are you so in favour of including non-BPC polls that are you willing to accept that slightly increased risk?

::::::::::--note as well, yes other pages similar to this don't rely on BPC but that's because different nations don't necessarily have access to organisations like it. If the BPC didn't exist, we would need to find an alternate approach like other articles for different countries do, but it does exist so we can use it. Kirky03 (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|Surely the very fact that it feels the need to state that most of the polls are BPC shows you something though.}} Yes, to highlight that it is not an absolute criterion. Otherwise, it would say "all of the polling companies", not "most". On the rest of the paragraph, what are you arguing here? I have not discussed or opposed BPC being the standard: it obviously is, as most polling companies are associated with it.

:::::::::::{{tq|you need justification for others to be included.}} The justification is provided by the poll being published by a reliable source under WP:RSP and WP:V, not because of some editor unilaterally cherry-picking it out of the tables because they do not like it. This also answers the part about why others should be included: as long as they appear in reliable, published sources. Otherwise, as said, this would fall under WP:CHERRYPICK. It's not so much of a "need" but to prevent arbitrariness.

:::::::::::{{tq|other pages similar to this don't rely on BPC but that's because different nations don't necessarily have access to organisations like it.}} And that does not prevent them from having reliable sources publishing polls, right? The fact that other nations don't have access to organisations like BPC what does is to prove that an organisation like BPC is not needed for a poll to be reliable, so it cannot be an absolute nor an exclusive criterion. It can help guide editors on the reliability of a poll, easening the job of identifying reliable sources, yes; but it cannot override it.

:::::::::::{{tq|Other polls may well be fine but there's an element of uncertainty and a risk of less desirable and reliable polls slipping in.}} Excuse me, but they are all opinion polls, not the Oracle of Delphi. They all have an element of uncertainty, by definition. BPC membership does not prevent massive prediction blunders from happening. The {{tq|slightly increased risk}} (you yourself acknowledge its "slight" nature) is basically non-relevant in this context; only if a clearly unreliable poll is detected would such a risk be high enough to consider excluding it from the table, but that can only be done in an ad-hoc basis by analizing the reliability of the source, not with a pre-established approach to automatically exclude all non-BPC polls.

:::::::::::{{tq|If the BPC didn't exist, we would need to find an alternate approach like other articles for different countries do}} Yeah, the approach is WP:RSP, WP:V and WP:SOURCE, which are Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines identifying what constitutes a reliable source, not BPC membership. The BPC was only established in 2004, so what approach do you think we are applying to opinion polls for elections before that? We are going around in circles because of you and two other editors' inability to accept what you yourselves have been widely acknowledging through the whole discussion: that BPC membership, ultimately, may serve as a good guide for identifying reliability, but in the end there will always be exceptions as there may be reliable pollsters that are not BPC members (even though they may be at some point). Impru20^talk 18:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::"We are going around in circles because of you and two other editors' inability to accept..." you can choose to ignore your own ability to change your mind, but you can't ignore the fact every one else has tried to find a solution while you just refuse to budge.

::::::::::::You can go through every reply line-by-line seeking any random justification to discount them but can you give your thoughts on my proposed compromise so we can actually wrap this up. BPC is our base, evidenced by the need to include a line stating as such, but there is some wiggle room and so we can include Ashcroft - which is a former member - to avoid controversy there but not Freshwater, which has been called into question numerous times by people here and it simply isn't worth the fuss.

::::::::::::There are also other compromise suggestions which, while I don't particularly adore, do in fact exist and are being discussed by the other two editors you claimed have an inability to accept the truth. I notice you have not participated in that part of the conversation either. Kirky03 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tq|you can choose to ignore your own ability to change your mind}} Or maybe it's you who have an inability to change your mind :)

:::::::::::::{{tq|you can't ignore the fact every one else has tried to find a solution while you just refuse to budge}} Who's "every one else"? NewGuy2024, Pugpa2 and yourself? Because it's the three of you against all other editors right now.

:::::::::::::{{tq|BPC is our base, evidenced by the need to include a line stating as such, but there is some wiggle room}} So basically you are accepting my own opinion but disguising the exceptions as "wiggle room"; well, I don't mind how you want to call it as long as you accept it, so that'd be fine :)

:::::::::::::{{tq|but not Freshwater, which has been called into question numerous times by people here and it simply isn't worth the fuss.}} Who is the "people here"? NewGuy2024, Pugpa2 and yourself? Other people have voiced their support for including Freshwater and I don't think the three of you have made enough of a case for excluding it.

:::::::::::::{{tq|I notice you have not participated in that part of the conversation either.}} In which part of the half-a-dozen threads that the three of you have opened on this talk page you say I should participate in order for my opinion to be considered? Impru20^talk 19:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::sorry but that is factually incorrect on a number of points, 9 editors have commented on this proposal BPC only talk, 4 have categorically supported the proposal but also shown a willingness to consider a compromise, only 2 have shown support for your position, the others seem ambiguous.

::::::::::::::Evidence has been provided showing of the over 1500 polls captured on last article only 13 were non BPC and Ashcroft was 12 of them (11 in months before the last GE) this is not a precedence it is an anomaly

::::::::::::::Evidence has been provided at just how successful this approach has been in providing a high quality and article that can on occasions receive over half a million visits a week.

::::::::::::::This proposal is a tiny change designed to remove a tiny anomaly, your proposal does not appear to be based on any firm evidence but rather sounds like wishful thinking., it carries risk and could lower the standard that this article has achieved.

::::::::::::::I will continue to try to cut down on my posts but will not allow non truths to go unchallenged.

::::::::::::::As the 2nd highest contributor, perhaps you should look to your own posting volume. Pugpa2 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::If you scroll just a little further down, you will see Pugpa2 agreeing there is merit to the idea of having a separate table, and also suggesting including a column specifying BPC as a possible fix. You'll also see NewGuy2024 agreeing a second table is a good compromise. This idea itself was floated by Halbared, a completely different party. I have said I am open to the idea, while also suggesting including previous BPC members which you have shot down. Everyone else seeks compromise, you don't.

::::::::::::::Frankly, I don't particularly enjoy talking to you because you have a bit of a high opinion of yourself compared to everyone else and very little introspection. It appears you believe your opinion is right and it is our job to convince you to agree with us rather than us collectively trying to actually solve this. I've disagreed with a lot of people on a lot of things, including at many points Pugpa2 but I don't find them difficult to work with. If you're going to do that thing of going through every line of my response and writing a paragraph about how it's actually wrong and against WP:whoknowshwat instead of actually seeking a solution, compromise and consensus, I will simply stop wasting my time responding to you and I will treat it as though you're not in the conversation at all - which you might as well not be. Kirky03 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::{{underline|To Pugpa2}}: 86 comments. And I am quite a few comments from coming even close to be the "2nd highest contributor", I would say you should count better.

:::::::::::::::Explain yourself better because I cannot understand what you are referring to in your first sentence: Who has "categorically" supported you? What is "my position" you are referring to? I did show a willingness to consider a compromise in support of another editor but I was almost immediately rebuked because some other editors did not like footnotes, so you should also consider how you and your colleagues treat those editors who come seeking a compromise.

:::::::::::::::What you have shown is evidence that exceptions exist, and there is nothing wrong with exceptions existing. So your own claim that BPC should be put to some exclusiveness standard is false: it hasn't been until now, and it definitely hasn't pre-2004 as the BPC did not exist previous to that year. The "anomaly" is that you do not like some polls and want to get them excluded, so I do not mind how "tiny" you consider it to be: it goes against Wikipedia's purpose and should not be allowed to proceed.

:::::::::::::::{{tq|I will continue to try to cut down on my posts}} Keep trying then, it's still a long way to go.

:::::::::::::::{{underline|To Kirky03}}: And why should we consider a separate table? We do not do that in any other place or article, there is no reason to do this here.

:::::::::::::::Your second paragraph is an entire personal attack and I will act as if I had not read it. Additionally, {{tq|I will treat it as though you're not in the conversation at all - which you might as well not be}} means basically that you are unable to accept positions that you do not like. Impru20^talk 20:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I don't think we can include the Oracle of Delphi just yet as they haven' joined the BPA and I've not seen them in any reliable sources recently.Halbared (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If a poll is used by a Wikipedia:RSP, then there is no reason to not use it, circumnavigating that seems like Wikipedia:OR.Halbared (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes there is every reason! Otherwise the same notion do we start including twitter polls - non BPC are an unknown in regards methodology and should not be included against other polls who allow peer to peer review as well as open on their methodologies NewGuy2024 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::If you need a footnote - which can easily be missed - that tells you everything…. Only compromise I can think of is that non BPC have their own section away from BPC polls….personally I wouldn’t touch them still as they’re a complete unknown in regards methodology and openness…. NewGuy2024 (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Two tables also seems like a workable solution.Halbared (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Now there's an idea, there might be merit in that Pugpa2 (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::or alternatively a very narrow column on the right of the table indicating if BPC or not, save cluttering up the notes page Pugpa2 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Still can be missed and still wouldn’t want these alongside BPC polls - another table on their own is good compromise I think if it’s insisted to include NewGuy2024 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@NewGuy2024 What if we just apply Politico's standard to non-BPC polls? So the rule could be: BPC polls are included by default and all other pollsters must individually gain consensus to be included, basing this on the criteria used here and any other criteria we decide makes sense. Or if anyone finds a list of their included polls, we could use that.

::::::[https://www.politico.eu/article/how-politico-poll-of-polls-tracks-polling-trends-across-europe/ Politco's requirements]

::::::"There are two major requirements that polls must meet in order to be included. The first is transparency: A poll must at a minimum include information about how the poll was conducted; when the fieldwork was done; who conducted it; who commissioned it and paid for it; and the sample size."

::::::"Second, more crucially, all polls must be based on a sample of people that is under the polling firm’s control, which ensures it is as representative as possible of the population the firm wants to draw conclusions about. That means surveys on social media or on websites where you can click and vote as often as you want are not polls. The statistician Nate Silver has dubbed these online surveys “clickers” to distinguish them from the polls that are relevant for political analysis." —Profzed! 18:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've had a look and tried to find which pollsters Politico uses but have been unable to.

:::::::If anyone is able to find this information, that would be amazing because it would give us a great frame of reference or at the very least a starting point. Kirky03 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I prefer two tables to an extra column or a footnote. It isn't my ideal solution but I can live with it in a way I'm not as comfortable living with the other suggestions.

::::I notice that "Other polling" has been renamed "Hypothetical scenarios" which is a shame because I was going to suggest putting it in there - presumably at the top because people may want to see it quickly.

::::Alternatively, if leadership approval polling does get split as is being discussed currently, that might clear the article a bit and justify creating a new section titled "Non-BPC Polling". I don't know, those are just my thoughts but realistically if it was a second table, it would not likely sit in the same section, surely? Kirky03 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Best practice in these sort of articles has always been to link to pollsters data tables as soon as possible, it is usually acceptable to initially link to newspaper, social media but soon after link to data tables must happen.

Disappointingly this convention has fallen into disuse as far as this article is concerned, we have an inconsistent approach where prime link is to newspapers, pollster articles but rarely if ever to the most reliable source the data tables.

Therefore I have begun doing exactly that, it is a slow laborious process as I have to check the existing link, where it goes to and availability of data tables. So it may take some time but please bear with me and by all means jump in and help.

Lets get this article back to the standard it should be. Pugpa2 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have started with the most recent polls first, as I suspected it is a bit of a mixed bag re existing links. My first trance will be to get those links changed to the ones that are most easily dome usually where existing link is to article that has link to data tables, I am coping that data table link and hyperlinking through pollsters name. However there are some that will require some searching I am passing over these in first trance but will come back to them. Hoping to get 2015 completed by end of day

:Currently about half way through February but feel will to life fading so am taking dogs for a walk. Pugpa2 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:Links to the articles are preferable in my opinion because the articles lead on to related articles, the data, etc. Linking directly to a pdf is less useful. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::If you actually looked at what I have done so far you would see I have left the original link to articles as a reference etc and introduced the hyperlink to data tables using the text of the polling company. I would have to disagree with you the best data is always the data tables, as many newspapers and magazines may not be neutral, doing it this way allows readers the option and choose while at same time being consistent with best practice on other UK polling articles Pugpa2 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Pugpa2 I understand thinking tables are preferable to the newspapers (although while they might try to frame it, they can't lie about the numbers), but I don't see an issue linking to pollster web page. Furthermore, one issue with the tables though is the requirement to download and web pages are easier to navigate. But I have no problem with including both. However, it looks bad to use an external link + a reference, so I think it would be better to just double ref it. So table ref and article ref and possibly place both under a note to avoid clutter. —Profzed! 17:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for that, I have always believed that one of the real benefits for many people of articles like this is being quickly and easily able to get to the data tables, however there can be really useful takes in analysis articles especially if carried out by the polling company themselves, which led to me thinking that having both was the way to go. I had hoped that eventually we might do a wee guide to users and thought that having a hyperlink and a Reference would be an easy way to distinguish the 2 Pugpa2 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Pugpa2 I suppose, that is one way of doing it. Alternatively, if were to do the note method, we could have it display something like:

:::::Newspaper/pollster article: [ref]

:::::Data table: [ref]

:::::I think that might be a bit more explicit and clear and it wouldn't require the reader to have seen a guide. —Profzed! 22:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Reflecting on this one, down side might be the size of the reference page which could end up enormous , previous articles had very small reference pages as they used hyper links for data base links and nothing else, 2024 article had 87 references and 2019 had 45, this current article has 165 already. Again it seems as if this article for some reason has gone down a different path, not sure why or even when but it does appear to be creating issues that were perhaps unforeseen. I am minded at the moment to revert to previous articles practice. Pugpa2 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Pugpa2 Personally, I don't see the issue with having many references. Their point is to verify the information, so the reader only needs to check them when they are cited. I don't suppose they are reading directly through the reference list. But I do believe there was a discussion around using references instead of external links so before making any changes, you should see if you can find it. —Profzed! 08:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The issue is to do with the size potentially of the article, what I am doing here is based on what has been done in previous UK polling articles, it worked very successfully then and readers do not seem to have difficulty navigating or understanding it. Above all that is keeping the article focused on its prime task and the reestablishment of simple robust rules, many of the current issues seem to stem from ill thought out changes. Claims of link rot appear to be overstated, looking at the 2015 article links still work and many have used a bot to change links using wayback machine Pugpa2 (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Firstly my apologise for yet another post, however I tend, when faced with uncertainty, stand back and try to focus on the prime issue. The prime purpose of this article is to provide data for readers in respect to polling for GE, so I thought I would do a wee analysis of where we are and how well we are matching that task, to do so I thought I would look at the current links on the polls so far recorded in 2025, so far there has been 46, that's an average of 2 every 3 days a considerable bombardment rate and perhaps one that requires us to have clear simple rules for inclusion to be able to handle the bombardment rate but for this particular discussion can I ask we leave aside BPC and MRP important as they maybe lets concentrate on prime purpose.

:::::::::As it exists this is what I found looking at the existing links in the main table.

:::::::::File:2025 UK GE polling.png

:::::::::I think this is self explanatory

:::::::::It shows that of the 46 polls links 8 don't work and only 18 go to data tables, we as editors are failing to maintain this to the standard we should be aiming for.

:::::::::Can we at least agree that best source is Data Tables, followed by Pollster Analysis and then Website of Pollster and aspire to get every poll as high up this as possible.

:::::::::I appreciate that often the Pollster Analysis is very interesting and would like to find a way to include it, however if we are to only have one data source/reference then I would go for the Data Tables every time. I had previously suggested Hyperlinking Pollsters name with Data Tables and Referencing other source I still think this is a desirable out come. Pugpa2 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::WP:EL: {{tq|External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.}} Using hundreds of ELs in an article is not keeping them "minimal, meritable and directly relevant to the article". This is it, it's a wiki policy. Claims of link rot are not "overstated": the issue with external links is that they may rot, and then you directly lose all information; as per WP:LINKROT: {{tq|Link rot is a significant danger to Wikipedia because of the reliability policy and source citation guideline}}. Using citations, these sources can be preserved and archived, but this cannot be done with external links. What's the problem, really? Use full citations, which btw allow you to use more than one reference for each poll. Impru20^talk 15:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::As previously stated WP:EL is not an absolute, editors if they so choose can over ride that. Just as happened in every previous previous version of this article, interestingly I had a look at the 2015 and there is very little evidence of linkrot and to some extent would it really matter as this article tends to be a here and now article. Perhaps we need to look at wiki definition of this article as a 'List' which is what it is, and thats ok as judging by the page views it is a list that many find useful.

:::::::::::We have flexibility here if we choose to use it, in fact we could use it to enhance the article. Pugpa2 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::No policy is an absolute, but what is your reasoning for making such a strong exception (one that would involve hundreds of links) here? You are providing none other than that being your personal preference.

::::::::::::You keep arguing over link rot in previous articles, entirely failing to get the point of what WP:LINKROT means. Links can work for years, but at some point they will all inevitably fail. With the use of external links, you will basically ensure that, once a link rots, all information contained within it is lost forever, because the link could not be recovered nor preserved in any way; this does not happen with full citations. In any case, I have checked Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election and it has over 500 archived links; how is it that you can only see "very little evidence of linkrot"? 500 archived links, I insist; that's a crazy lot. And should external links in that article not be replaced with proper citations, a lot of these will end up lost as they will not be automatically updated. Impru20^talk 16:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::My basic premise is 2 fold previous well established practice that has worked well and better for user Pugpa2 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::@Pugpa2 I don't see how putting the same links in a ref would somehow work worse for the user. The only difference is that it prevents link rot and provides more info on source. —Profzed! 17:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Even if you reject the notion of link rot, it does no harm to use refs. —Profzed! 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I think it saves the reader having to hover over ref to see what it is, hyperlink pollsters text for data base link and reference for any other pertinent information such as Pollsters analysis. The evidence re link rot is there to see I looked at previous article for 2015 GE and as far as I could see there was no issue as least as far as the user would be concerned, the system bots periodically check and amend links as required. Pugpa2 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::531 Archived links one to be precise, all archived at wayback machine all with link still working to data tables all original and still hyperlinks. Wiki deals with this as I am sure you must know by deploying bots to archive to wayback machine and change hyperlink when required. I think you have just made my case for me, link rot is vastly overstated and is not a valid reason for not using hyperlinks. Pugpa2 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Sorry but you are just wrong about this, wikipedia has and uses a bot that automatically archives any hyperlink added within 24 hours using wayback machine, it also checks links and amends as required to archived one if required. It has done so since 2015. It stopped doing this for webcite in 2019. Detail here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PLRT&redirect=no Pugpa2 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat surprised at the ordering of the parties in column headings, the convention followed in every other UK polling article reflects the number of elected representatives and not the current voting % as such I would propose that this article follows that long established convention in which case the order should be

1st Labour 404 MPs 2nd Con 121 MPs 3rd LibDems 72 Mps 4th SNP 9 MPs 5th RUK 5 MPs 6th Greens 7th PC with 4 Mps (last 2 sorted alphabetically)

This will be a massive task to undo the poor standard current on display but will significantly improve the article.

As always I would welcome views and hopefully we reach a consensus and allow the work to begin. Pugpa2 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Pugpa2 I agree. Polling is very variable, whilst seats are (almost) fixed. So I would say seat count as of 2024 election (should there by a hypothetical scenario with 80 by-elections or whatever). —Profzed! 17:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::No! Opinion polling headline percentages, reflect the popular vote. That is why Wiki always has ordered parties in order of the popular vote at the previous election. This should be open shut but no doubt we’ll see some political activism on here 92.20.135.189 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Firstly I tend to give less weight to IP address contributions, especially ones that have few contributions and all on just this article.

:::Having said that I would be pleased if you could provide some evidence to support your view, like perhaps other wiki UK polling articles, here is a starter for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election

:::or this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Opinion_polling

:::or maybe even this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election Pugpa2 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Pugpa2 I had a look. The IP user's claim is backed up by the UK examples. Lib Dems got more votes but fewer seats than the SNP, yet come before the SNP (so votes determined it). On the Scottish example, votes and seats march up so fails to be of help. I also think using the popular vote from the last election is reasonable, so I take back my for-stance.

::::But I would like to remind the IP user to assume goodfaith. —Profzed! 19:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Will have a look and a rethink if required Pugpa2 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry but you are just wrong, wiki uk polling has always sorted parties by number of elected representatives and capture the popular vote by reporting the % for each party Pugpa2 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:All previous articles sort by percentage vote share in the last election rather than number of MPs. See e.g. Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election. This is the most consistent way of doing it given that polls report on vote share rather than number of MPs. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::Indeed. Seat prediction tables ought to be ordered by seat winners, voting intention by vote winners, it's really that simple. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 21:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::This makes sense, if it isn't inconsistent with previous articles. Kirky03 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::Ok thanks for that I will have a look and if required will amend my position accordingly Pugpa2 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I stand corrected, having misread previous results, having only looked at the 2017 and the layout for 2019 in that example UKIP were well done on where they should have been as % of popular vote and it appeared as if it was MPs returned. This was incorrect as all other recent examples follow the criteria of % of popular vote at previous election. Regrettably I stumbled upon the only example that did not and took that for norm. Thank you to those who pointed this out.

:::My sincere and somewhat sheepish apologise. Pugpa2 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Can this discussion now be archived? It would be good to bring back a certain discussion that was archived. Some editors are making it extremely difficult to assume good faith, especially when they criticise IP editors for no fair reason… I have an edit history just the same as anyone else, many who have an account are just as anonymous as me. I think what I’m asking for is reasonable 92.20.135.189 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@92.20.135.189 I don't see a problem with archiving it. I've also noticed the accusations against IP users on this talk page, which I agree are unfair. People need to remember that IP editors are human too. —Profzed! 23:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sorry but it is a very straightforward process to create a wiki account and difficult to see why some folk might not do so, it raises a reasonable doubt as IP address can be faked and to my mind it is perfectly reasonable to perhaps allow less weight to there contributions. That is not an accusation merely a reflection of the reality of situation.

::::::As to archiving, yes please if only to save my blushes Pugpa2 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I’m sorry but that’s unreasonable. Again, I have an edit history, I am just as real as you. I like to try and show respect to the views of others but the view expressed is particularly objectionable. I don’t understand why you seem to have recently asserted such dominance over this page. I am alarmed 92.20.135.189 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Please forgive me if I have "alarmed" you it would not be my intention to do so. My position is not personal rather it highlights an issue that may come along with anonymous editors, them the facts. Ergo it is not unreasonable to consider giving less weight to folk who cant be bothered to sign up. My interest in this page stems from a significant history of interest in political polling, frankly I was shocked at the appalling state this article has gotten into, what was once a reliable consistent source of information has descended into a bit of a mess, I hope to be able to help to reverse that fall. Pugpa2 (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Said without the slightest sense of irony! 92.20.135.189 (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::why would it need irony? Pugpa2 (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the most active talk pages right now. Too many discussions make it hard to follow what is currently being worked on. Per WP:TALKSIZE a page should consider archiving when it has exceeded 75k, and this page is almost double that.

Topics that have concluded or gone stale can be referred to with links such as Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election/Archive_1#BPC Polls. It is better to start a fresh topic when revisiting an old area of discussion. Wizmut (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:The issue here seems to have been that archiving was happening too quickly which has resulted in some topics being rediscussed in a very sort time. I notice wiki guidance re unarchiving but it assumes that editors have checked a fairly lengthy archive before creating a new talk topic. Pugpa2 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::I would suggest having the bot there but adjusting the settings as needed. Based on the traffic here, I would suggest an archiving time of weeks rather than months, and perhaps a minthreadsleft of 10, later adjusted down to 5 or so. Wizmut (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Is there anyway, even temporarily, to extend the archiving timescale? Given that the very short timescale may have been creating issues especially around consensus being overturned after a very short time, this has led to some editors feeling aggrieved which is unhealthy and counter productive.

:::On a broader note there may be need for a more disciplined approach by some editors such as allowing a reasonable timescale for discussion before making changes, again in some instances I have been left with feeling that as soon as even minimal consensus has been agreed there is a tendency, by some, to dive right in. Which in turn leaves other editors feeling this is too rushed.

:::Perhaps we need to introduce some house rules of allowing talk to run for a few weeks and confirm consensus before editing Pugpa2 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The timescale can be anything, although I rarely see it set longer than 365 days. If it's changed the bot notices about 24 hours afterward. Wizmut (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::May I therefore suggest that we have, for the moment, a fairly lengthy period say 6 months which may be useful in taking some of the heat out of the talk pages and allow a period of calmer reflection. This can be changed be reduced later as required. Pugpa2 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Possibly but then it might be advisable to manually archive some of the topics that seem to be stale. If there's 30 topics on the page then people won't check to see what they're about anyways. Wizmut (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Or we could archive the pointless discussions like the one above and keep the most relevant.

::::::::had certain discussions not been archived, newer discussions would not have been started and further spiralled. I am not in favour of the bot idea, in this case it is the very cause of the problem it is trying to solve

:::::::92.20.135.189 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, I agree. A longer archiving period is necessary to stop retreading old ground but manually archiving discussions that are of no consequence seems to be the best middle ground.

:::::::I worry this might be done over zealously and then we end up in the same situation but I trust people to use their wisdom. Kirky03 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::As long as it is done sensibly then it is IMHO a good starting point, hopefully things might quieten down a bit and a more bot driven solution could be used then. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The talk topics can get long and mixed up, so thought might be an idea to write down what we have agreed in last few days

1 That ordering of parties in header is complete reliant on % of popular vote gained at last election

2 That polling companies decide on what parties are included in the table ie if the polling companies regularly poll a party then it should be included

3 That lead column was too cluttered, reverted to simpler layout with addition of Text for the benefit of those using a reader

4 BPC exclusively or not is a discussion still happening, although indications seem to be for exclusivity. We should wait a few more days before considering actioning, so for present let things be as they are.

I hope I got this correct and am not looking to kick off further discussion, comments should be made in the appropriate talk topic. Pugpa2 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, summarising this is a good idea! Kirky03 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:I do not agree with this summary. Nor do I think it helpful to start yet another thread. 92.20.135.189 (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::Other editors appear to disagree with you, each of these points have gained consensus which is why they were changed. I appreciate that you may not agree however would ask that you respect the process and the consensus. Pugpa2 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It’s more that I dislike your approach and manner. I’m clearly not the only one that finds you objectionable. You expect respect but are unwilling to give any. It’s not unreasonable for some of us to find that objectionable 92.20.135.189 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::So nothing to add that would actually help inform the discussion rather trying to bring it down to personal level. I don't play that game. Pugpa2 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::My position on the various issues have already been set out. Unfortunately, my views are archived and dismissed. 92.20.135.189 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Archives are available, I know as I havechecked them, the recent changes introduced have concensus, I ask that you respect that and the process. Pugpa2 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

From what I am seeing, in the last few days, a selected few users (some new), whose editing histories show that their only (or most) contributions are in this article and this talk page, have swarmed this talk page with some kind of concerted effort to depict some "consensus?" and subsequently likewise swarmed the article with edits and changes from previously-established consensus, which go even against established Wiki policy (most notably, WP:EL). They seem to have also prevented discussions from being archived in this talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1278838951&oldid=1278838421] ??) or issued some kind of "threat" to have this have some impact elsewhere ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1278766280&oldid=1278766064] ??). Seriously, what's going on here? This looks anything but natural, especially considering that no election is in place right now and that this is quite beyond the normal activity that one of these articles gets at this point in the parliamentary term. Impru20^talk 21:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think me primarily using and engaging with this page has much to do with anything but I do ask, what do you think should have happened?

:Take the BPC Poll situation. It's clear there's a big push against including them but certain parties - yourself included - are refusing to allow that.

:I've openly stopped engaging in edit warring so I'm not exactly bullying my way through, that is the method of other parties.

:What precisely would you expect me to do differently in this situation? Kirky03 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'd also add there has been no attempt to remove archiving but rather reduce how quickly it happens. There's been a lot of confusion about what's been said and decided and that's likely what's been causing all the issues here.

:So, to reassure you, no one is arguing for the end of archiving Kirky03 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hmm where to start

:Firstly it is concerning when such an experienced editor appears to have rushed in and taken a very high handed approach, completely ignoring consensus on a number of matters that have been reached, and undoing what I regarded as work that made this article consistent with its predecessors and other UK polling.

:Yes I took out the archiving as it was set to a ridiculously low level of 21 days, IMHO this was helping to fuel the edit/counter edit as many did not seem to be aware of previous discussions, as stated I would see this as a temporary measure to hopefully bring talk and editing back to some lower level.

:I note you have chosen to remove changes that had been agreed by fellow editors, if you had read the talk pages and edit summary you would have seen that, again I am surprised that such an experienced editor has behaved in such a manner.

:Again if you had actually looked you would have seen that this article has strayed significantly from previous incarnations not the least of which is merging what had previously been 2 separate articles that operated different criteria, this has led to many of the contentious issues being discussed at present.

:I note you removed the hyperlinks I had put in the main table, were you in your rush aware that everyone of these links went directly to the pollsters data tables? The references you left are a mixed bag, some to data tables, some to analysis pieces and some to newspaper articles, please explain to me how this improved the article that by removing what is long established as the gold standard in these sort of articles has been deleted by you, this has precedence going back many election cycles but it would appear as if you place yourself and your view above that and in fact above consensus reached by editors.

:I am sorry to say but your behaviour reeks of you pushing your preferred option and ignoring any other voices, and reads more like a rant than the considered view I would hope that such an experienced editor would have.

:One last thing what exactly is a SPA you used it in one of your edits, the one where you removed the text from the lead column, I would like to understand what you meant by that.

:I intend to change at least some of your changes back as I do not believe you have consensus to do so, these will include the hyperlinks to data tables (accepted by almost every other UK polling article as gold standard) this has been acceptable to Wikipeadia for many election cycles. I also intend to reintroduce the Text in Lead column, as explained this was at the request of a fellow editor that felt this would be of assistance to those who use a reader.

:I would ask fellow editors to indicate if the AGREE or DISAGREE with my proposed action. Pugpa2 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::The quote from your edit summary includes " A bunch of (SPA?) editors seem to have hijacked the article " please advise what a SPA is? Pugpa2 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::A Single-Purpose Account - see WP:SPA. (Wikipedia does have a lot of jargon - you'll often find that if you hit some you haven't heard before, going to the page WP:[acronym] will explain it.) TSP (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'd say hold off for now because there's no point engaging in constantly flip-flopping the page between two versions.

::Once this discussion has run its course, I do agree. Kirky03 (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree. This page has been overtaken by political activists mascarading as academics. Some are so dogmatic they can’t engage with arguments from the original consensus, what can be done about this problem? The page has been politically compromised 92.20.135.189 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::There have been a lot of new editors coming into this article to push their own viewpoint and treat everything as if it's a vote, rather than trying to engage in constructive dialogue to find agreement. I do always appreciate new people getting involved but I feel like it would be useful if firstly anyone who wants to contribute regularly makes an account (it is much easier to recognize accounts rather than similar-looking IP addresses), and secondly if we could focus on discussing the actual merits of different layouts rather than meta-discussion on the level of consensus that a previous discussion a few months back achieved. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Could you expand on what you mean by "political activists"? Kirky03 (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree on the “political activist” - the only possible rational of including non-BPC members for some - is that it’s currently giving the view they desire - no other possible explaination for anyone remotely interested in polling reliance, accuracy and yes maybe even integrity NewGuy2024 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have detected at least one major attempt at WP:INAPPNOTE to this article in recent days ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWestminsterWhistleblower&diff=1277885422&oldid=1234718928] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWavehunter&diff=1277885507&oldid=1273659500] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:30E1:6FE:69B2:76F4&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIcantthinkofausernames&diff=1277885678&oldid=1271488942] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LarryJayCee&action=history]). The large number of seemingly random IPs and new users coming here does not seem casual, and I do not know whether some form of off-wiki canvassing or meatpuppetry may be ongoing as well. Impru20^talk 10:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Would say the shoe horning of non-BPC polls, against the longstanding convention to just include BPC members is a clear example of bias! Yes Ashcroft isn’t a member but they publish tables and approach openly - Freshwater doesn’t…. NewGuy2024 (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Some answers here:

::*{{tq|Firstly it is concerning when such an experienced editor appears to have rushed in and taken a very high handed approach, completely ignoring consensus on a number of matters that have been reached}} I would advice you to check WP:VOTESTACKING and WP:VOTE. What you are doing is not "consensus" but, rather, the imposition of a number of random decisions seemingly agreed for by a limited number of users who unilaterally are chosing to modify ling-existing consensus without properly structuring discussions.

::*{{tq|Yes I took out the archiving as it was set to a ridiculously low level of 21 days}} Excuse me, but: who are you to do that?

::*{{tq|I note you have chosen to remove changes that had been agreed by fellow editors}} See point 1, and yes, we may all be aware that you are all "fellow editors".

::*{{tq|this article has strayed significantly from previous incarnations}} Yes, it has: because of you. I have been here for over 13 years and have been involved in opinion polling articles for all that time; and this is the first time I'm seeing such an effort to unilaterally modify existing consensus by a small number of users acting in this manner, pushing their viewpoints and treating everything as a vote without any constructive dialogue.

::*{{tq|were you in your rush aware that everyone of these links went directly to the pollsters data tables}} No, what I'm aware is that your edits are in violation of WP:EL, of which there is a template note at the head of the article, which you basically seem to ignore. External links should not be used in such a massive way, and yes, this is one of the things in which this article (and other UK polling ones) deviated from Wiki policy.

::*{{tq|what exactly is a SPA}} WP:SPA = single-purpose accounts. For example: NewGuy2024 is a SPA (only contributions to Wikipedia are in this article and its talk page, except three edits in the 2024 UK opinion polling article); Kirky03 is a SPA same reasons); you are a SPA (371 edits focused mostly on this topic), etc. And we could enter on the multiple IPs editing this article as well.

::I guess this issue should be brought to WP:ANI so that admins can actually check what's going on here. Impru20^talk 10:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::So, we have a new IP at home to conduct reverts on behalf of other users now without even caring to provide an edit summary? ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1279075197&oldid=1279074568]) Impru20^talk 10:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your response If I may respond

::::This is an article I rarely pop into my interests in wiki are in the political polling field and my engagements are usually elsewhere on wiki.

::::While I can appreciate annoyance not to say frustration at what has happened to this page and in many ways share concern as to the state of the article, do not in anyway cast aspersions on my motivation, which remains to try to make the article as helpful to readers as possible.

::::WP:EL is not an absolute and to present it as such is misleading, if editors agree this can be dispensed with for evidence look at the previous incarnations of this article, and other UK political polling, stuffed full of EL and functioning well and judging by page visits very much appreciated by readers. I am sure you are well aware but that in political polling the Data Tables are the best data we can present, we should always be aspiring to that.

::::What we need right now is analysis of what has happened, how it has happened and what we might do to sort it.

::::In my opinion this article had gotten off to a poor start with the merging of what had previously been 2 articles. So early in the election cycle it has perhaps been prone to being used by some with an axe to grind, it then began to wonder off in directions not previously seen and include innovative if perhaps not overly helpful features such as Latest Polls by Pollster and second place naming in lead column. At the same time the quality of links to verifiable data has dropped markedly, rarely now do you find links to the Data Tables. talk page is overly busy as a result of these early missteps and so a circle of doubt and accusations emerges to take the place of sound convention and an established framework in which to operate. This has gotten to such an extent that even an attempt to improve access for colour blind or visually impaired readers is dismissed out of hand.

::::So how do we break this circle of suspicion and doubt. For a start I notice we have many editors but it is only a small handful that post in talk page, how do we harness a broader group of editors. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Maybe we could "break this circle of suspicion and doubt" if random accounts stopped appearing out of nowhere to engage in edit warring and/or attempt to influence opinions in this talk page by vote stacking. We have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bear3424 another new account appearing out of nowhere] with only four edits, of which three have been to intervene in an edit war in this article in support of other random IPs and/or new accounts.

:::::On the issue of garnering for editor attention, the WP:RFC system could be used, provided that the canvassing/meatpuppetry issue is dealt with first. Impru20^talk 11:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean the view isn’t valid - there’s plenty of longstanding contributors who agree with the notion of BPC only polling…why are you ignoring these? Is there a poll we can do and run for a few days - seem to be going round circles here NewGuy2024 (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It appears there is a perspective that new users are worthless and old users are priceless. Obviously older users have more experience and knowledge that they can bring to a discussion which will hold more weight that the gut instinct of a new user, but the use of "this is a new user focused on a small number of pages" as justification for completely disregarding and in some instances, overriding the opinions of multiple users is not only ridiculous but against guidance within WP:SPA itself!

:::::::I suggest all involved in the discussion stop attacking each other. Kirky03 (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agree - play the ball and not the man… NewGuy2024 (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agree we need some arms length support to break this circle. Is there a way to freeze the article as it is for a while, giving a breathing space to begin a reflective and hopefully broader consultation as to what to do and have real consensus before unfreezing Pugpa2 (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Worth noting that a rough compromise was made on the improvement for colour blind people which was then undone by Impru because they didn't like it and felt it was a waste if space. Kirky03 (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Worth noting is that you just made up this claim against me, because I never said I "didn't like it or that it was a waste of space". I'm curious as to how set precedent for opinion polling articles is applied for some issues, but then it is entirely ignored and despised when it comes to other issues. Lead columns have never been shown in the way that it was attempted by a few users in this article in the last few days. Impru20^talk 16:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Your words were "What's even the point of this?" in your edit summary which I think says enough.

:::::::Also, your adherence to precedence firstly stops the wiki from improving in any way (although I do agree using precedence is a good argument, it is not all important), and secondly appears quite correlated with how much you agree with it. Kirky03 (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So, there have been a lot of different things under discussion in recent days which is part of why this has been such a mess.

:::::::1) The lead column- this one did seem to reach a broad agreement to use the format "Lab+1" rather than simply "1" thanks to MOS:COLOR

:::::::2) Inclusion of polls by non-BPC-registered companies (Lord Ashcroft and Freshwater). No strong consensus in either direction

:::::::3) Inclusion of separate columns for the SNP and Plaid Cymru versus including them in the "other" column. Again no strong consensus either way

:::::::4) The addition of direct links to data tables in sources- not been discussed enough to come to an agreement.

:::::::There have also been several more discussions in recent weeks which have thankfully died down, namely: the type of graph used, the inclusion of the summary table, the three-letter abbreviation of party names in table headers, and the layout of the Preferred PM table.

:::::::There has also been suggestion of splitting the article but that's been on the backburner lately.

:::::::Overall I think your cleanup of the article was the right thing to do to stay in line with existing practice. I would say the lead column should stay in the Lab+1 format as that's the one discussion which there was a reasonable amount of agreement on, but if necessary to stop edit warring it's okay to keep the current format until things calm down a bit. I'd also mention that whilst the removal of links to data tables per WP:EL was right, in the past there have been plenty of direct links to the data tables so I don't think there's an issue with including them if properly formatted (i.e. reference rather than external link).

:::::::To stop further edit wars it may be necessary to open an RfC on the most contentious topics- I will open a new section here planning out a possible RfC. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The fact remains you edited them out. Are you seriously suggesting we should not be making what is a minor change to benefit people with visual impairment? seriously. Pugpa2 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am somewhat amused (confused?) that you claim this in this specific case, when your position on many other issues has been the literal opposite: you don't want to remove external links to comply with WP:EL/WP:LINKROT, you want to exclude legit polls based on a particular membership to some organization, you complained about how this article "has strayed significantly from previous incarnations" yet this change is one of the most significant ones that strays from previous incarnations... what gives? Also, don't toy with me: I have not said what I have been accused as saying, so don't try to play dumb with me here. Impru20^talk 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That is an odd summation, holding to established precedence does not necessarily hold for every single issue, it is not contradictory on my part but rather I believe shows a willingness to change if a good enough case is made for the change, that change was miniscule and impact on article would be tiny compared to some of the other changes proposed, most certainly a false comparison.

:::::::::I would remind you that in your haste to change that back you deleted almost all the links that were there for every entry bar one, leaving the table in a considerably poorer state information wise, that is never a good thing to do. Before your hasty edit 45 entries of 46 for 2025 had links direct to data tables. How do I know this because unlike you a looked and checked every single link in all and reference for all 46 entries in 2025 before I made changes, for the majority of the entries that had no data table link I searched and found them before adding. I was careful and methodical to ensure accuracy. That is what I believe all editors should be doing and by doing so show respect to fellow editors and to the article. Pugpa2 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Pugpa2, at 21:16, 6 March 2025: {{tq|"That is an odd summation, holding to established precedence does not necessarily hold for every single issue"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1279152272&oldid=1279150652]

::::::::::Pugpa2, at 21:18, 6 March 2025: {{tq|"Only the precedence of over 20 years of previous articles where links to the data tables or other were always done by hyperlink to the pollsters name"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1279152556&oldid=1279152272]

::::::::::Literally two minutes apart, yet you say that's not contradictory. I think I understand your position: holding to established precedence only holds whenever you say it holds (even if the predecence you defend went against Wiki policies and it wasn't until now that people started caring about enforcing them), I get it.

::::::::::I would remind you once again about WP:EL and WP:LINKROT and that you have provided no reason other than your personal preferences to set them aside. Once again: full citations do not prevent you from adding the data table links (much to the contrary, actually, as you can add them together with other links, something you cannot do with external links). What's the problem with using full citations?

::::::::::Btw: patronizing other users is not being "respectful" to other editors. Impru20^talk 10:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Sorry if you struggle with that concept that judgement be exercised on every issue and weighed accordingly. I see yet again you fail to actual answer the evidence provided and go look at them, they all used hyperlinks and worked just fine. This seems to be a pattern I provide evidence to support your position and you seem unable to do so for yours, I proposed an enhancement for benefit of others and you cling to convention. So we go round again. Pugpa2 (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I actually struggle with the fact that you seem unable to answer to the very simple question of "what's wrong with using full citations", as a full citation does not preclude any of the issues you seem to bring up against them (much to the contrary, they help in solving many of these issues).

::::::::::::{{tq|they all used hyperlinks and worked just fine}} They don't: Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election has over 500 archived links, which shows how easily it is for a link to rot and how needed it is for links to be made into citations that can be archived automatically. They don't work fine, we are just lucky enough that these links were archived and replaced in the article, but this is a manual work that cannot be ensured to be done permanently.

::::::::::::{{tq|This seems to be a pattern I provide evidence to support your position and you seem unable to do so for yours, I proposed an enhancement for benefit of others and you cling to convention}} This is not true; once again, don't patronize me. You have provided no evidence to "support my position"; I'm actually providing that evidence myself and you kept arguing against it without actually replying to the questions being brought forward. What's the issue with full citations? Why you keep insisting on external links even when those go against wiki policy and good practices? Impru20^talk 11:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It was undone because there was no consensus for the change, and did not follow any existing precedent. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Only the precedence of over 20 years of previous articles where links to the data tables or other were always done by hyperlink to the pollsters name, go check them out it really is as plain as the nose on my face, which makes it harder to understand this reluctance to even consider it. Pugpa2 (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::then seek consensus if you have a strong case to make, that's how Wikipedia works. You may think of it as a minor/beneficial change and that's great, but it's for the editors to discuss its inclusion not for one editor to decide on everyone else's behalf. If we all just did what we thought was best, Wikipedia would be a mess. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You are just wrong, there was discussion about the lead column and the change I made was consistent with that discussion Pugpa2 (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::this is incorrect, I count at least 3 opposed to the changes which is not consensus. Consensus means reaching a solution all can agree on, not treating it as a vote. That's the issue, you're treating these issues as votes which isn't how Wikipedia pages should be ran. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Impru20 The edit warring has continued. At this point, almost all edits are now a part of the edit war. I think we need to request protection. —Profzed! 22:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::A non-editor but regular user of this page writes: please stop the edit-warring, it's making the page unreliable & hence unusable. I'm referring primarily to which pollsters are included and excluded; the other issues, while they do need to be settled, are less disruptive to users. Numerous earlier pleas seem to have been ignored, so I would suggest the page should be reverted to the most inclusive recent state (i.e. including both Ashcroft and Freshwater, up to and including 3rd March) and then protected pending the outcome of an RFC. It's a big step, but the page is frankly a mess at the moment, and things don't appear to be getting any better. (Its current state isn't a mess, I hasten to add - it looks fine - but the list of recent polls can't be relied on to remain unchanged from one day to the next.) 95.172.230.133 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Think it becomes more of a mess with footnotes and caveats if we go down to the route of including non BPC polls - keep it consistent and clean NewGuy2024 (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It seems to have calmed a wee bit, lets hope that continues.

:::Given behaviour in talk page we would then have a situation where they would disagree about the freeze date and at least some would likely be partisan about it. I think we freeze it as it presently is at least then everyone would be a bit miffed that there preference is frozen out. Pugpa2 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm happy with it being frozen either way but it's a bit disappointing if it is frozen including those polls considering the previous decision had been to not include them. It feels as though that being seen as the "default" even though it is not is just justifying the bullish behavior of people who consider their view correct. Kirky03 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Don’t think they are currently included NewGuy2024 (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::As I write Ashcroft is in & Freshwater out, apparently not because they're non-BPC but because they don't supply data tables. I don't really mind either way - I can certainly see the argument for excluding a company that won't 'show their workings' - but I would really like the inclusions/exclusions to be uncontroversial enough to stay the same for more than a day at a time! 95.172.230.133 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think you hit the nail on the head, we either only use BPC or we don't. I have come to the position where the anomaly has to be addressed, it appears to have come about because he was a BPC member that left during an election cycle and an accommodation was made, this is now, understandably, creating an issue as to why other non BPC polls can not be included. To my mind it is unarguable to allow Ashcorft but no others that flies in the face of any logic or fairness. However BPC offers a consistency we can not be sure of with other non BPC pollsters, that is a dangerous direction to go and with the high risk of once that door is open then we can not be sure what else might come through it.

::::::I would suggest we alter the criteria that we include polls from Pollsters that were members of BPC at the time of polling, that would mean losing Ashcroft but so be it. Pugpa2 (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'd prefer hard BPC rule but I'm happy to compromise and allow former members - like Ashcroft - but not pollsters who have never been members, such as Freshwater Kirky03 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1279141962&oldid=1279119584 it was you who removed them] so I'd think you should know whether they are currently included... also, definitely not a {{tq|clear majority consensus this should remain the case}}, as we can see. Impru20^talk 14:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Btw, I agree with {{u|Profzed}} that we should request page protection for this article. And probably some admin should look into the issue of multiple users and IPs coming out of nowhere to conduct the exact same reverts. Impru20^talk 14:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Generally I am agreeable to this, but think some of the heat maybe lessening. It is clear that some editors do not have high confidence in motivation of some others and your suggestion of an Admin review might help to re-establish that all editors are acting in good faith, which would be a good thing.

:::::::To some extent we seem to have reached consensus on Ordering of parties and which Parties to report on, at least in respect that no one has changed them so that may be a New Consensus.

:::::::I also believe we have agreement on what is the best data source - data tables, but perhaps have work to do on how to link to them. The lead column I can live with but think we missed an opportunity. The matters outstanding for me are BPC exclusivity or not, the most recent polling by pollster and splitting the article.

:::::::Came across an interesting talk from 2024 article that discussed and agreed splitting article into three have a look and see what you think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Splitting_proposal Pugpa2 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Lead should definitely not be forgotten because agreement was reached on a compromise solution that was then undone for no good reason other than one individual believing there's no point in having it, or "whats even the point of this" in their words. Lead should be reverted and the only reason it wouldn't be is because the edit was done while everyone was distracted with other discussions and allowed it to fly under the radar. Kirky03 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Polling is not a substitute for discussion. There was only a mention to the lead column being changed in the format you propose, which was here, which basically was 1) a discussion started by a user complaining that the lead column had become too cluttered due to some unconsensuated changes; 2) some users actually voicing their support for the previous (current) version, i.e. only the lead and the colour, no text, 3) then two users (you being one of them) unilaterally deciding that the "(party)+1" format was a "new consensus" without hardly any discussion on the issue. This is actually one of the issues I complained about when I told that some users were hijacking the article (and not just on that issue). Impru20^talk 17:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

If it’s insisted that we want to dilute the quality of the table of polls with their inclusion - surely it needs to be in own section - no logical argument can be had to include them - don’t agree that a footnote, which can be easily missed is sufficient to allow this in NewGuy2024 (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree we shouldn't be including BPC Polls but there's already a discussion open and active about this so I suggest writing this in there because it is already confusing trying to keep up with what's what.

:But yes, I also don't like the footnote. Kirky03 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is not helpful, we already have a discussion on this topic, use it. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:In the context of a push to archive less engaged discussions, I suggest archiving this one as it is a duplicate. Kirky03 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Opening this section to hopefully collect and collate current topics of dispute, for the purpose of a future RfC. Starting things off I would say

• Question 1) Include polls by non-BPC members? Options A) Yes, B) Yes with a footnote noting their non-BPC status, C) No
• Question 2) How to display SNP and Plaid Cymru? Options A) Both have their own columns, B) Only the SNP has their own column, Plaid Cymru in the Other column, C) both in the Other column
• Question 3) What sources should be used? Options A) Reference to article, B) reference to PDF/direct data table, C) both
• Question 4) How to display the lead column in the main table (rather than summary table)? Options A) "1", B) "Lab +1", C) "Lab +1 over Ref"
• Question 5) Should the article be split, and if so how? Options- I don't know, any suggestions?

I'd propose that to avoid further edit warring, we keep the article in the condition Impru20 has left it in- i.e. as similar as possible to the situation it was in previous years (Option A for all) until an RfC runs its course.

Are there any other controversial topics related to this article that would need discussing in an RfC? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Good effort but have to comment

:Question 2 is perhaps already moot as current layout is compliant with previous articles and based solely on pollsters prompting, I sense this is not the issue it perhaps was previously.

:Question 3 is just wrong, there is no question that Data table links is the best and long established, it has been like that since at least 2010, the question should be about including a second link through references to other reliable but lesser source.

:Q4 has been partially agreed already with the notion of second place having been rejected, the only Q remaining is what format to record the lead

:Q5 we should be complying with the format used since at least 2010 and have a Leadership article that captures much material as previously Pugpa2 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{ec}} The whole "Most recent polling by pollster" table should be put into question as well; that's a notable deviation from previous articles and does nothing but to needlessly duplicate content already in the article.

:On question 1, I don't know, since that basically means opening the door to overruling WP:RS specifically for this article only because of a few users' particular views.

:Question 3 is basically mandated by WP:EL and WP:LINKROT, it's not a personal whimp by any particular editor, so a reference to these should be included in the question. Impru20^talk 17:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, include all these. Ignore everyone else who has seemingly decided consensus has been found or there is an objective truth on all issues and it agrees with them. I personally believe many of these have reached enough of a decision - such as 4 - but honestly we can't keep debating this as we have, we're just going in circles. Include everything you've mentioned.

:I don't suggest including "Most Recent Polling" as an issue as Impru suggests because its not currently mixed in this edit warring drama and can be dealt with later in a more civilised matter as it was previously (and previously decided to keep). Bringing it up now just creates another front for everyone to be arguing on and we already have enough. Kirky03 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::For the record, that's not to say I don't think consensus ever was found - it was on many of the issues mentioned. It is just that some people have more recently refused to allow them to pass and now we are unable to reach agreement. Kirky03 (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Even if there was some agreement on some of those topics for a period, it's clear that such agreement does not exist at the moment.

:::I am inclined towards inclusion of as many possibly-controversial topics as possible in an RfC to avoid future issues. I'll start it in a few days to give room for anyone to mention more topics that should be included first. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Agree Kirky03 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|Bringing it up now just creates another front for everyone to be arguing on and we already have enough}} So, it's you who gets to decide which topics should be discussed? Chessrat asked for proposals of topic of dispute, and I proposed one. It is a topic which did not have consensus and which did garner opposition in discussions and editing, even if it was not part of the latest wave of edit warring (which, btw, should be dealt with ASAP, as this thing of a number of users acting in concertation to avoid WP:3RR is quite suspicious and annoying). You yourself have acknowledged that it does not have consensus, so I don't get what the point was of your first reply to me other than just opposing me for the sake of it. Thanks. Impru20^talk 10:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am not the person to decide which topics get discussed, I was merely suggesting we only stick to topics *currently* being discussed. If you really want to open up a new front of arguing and debate, you can but don't be shocked when it ends as toxic as everything else has become. Kirky03 (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was answering to Chessrat's question of {{tq|Are there any other controversial topics related to this article that would need discussing in an RfC?}} I proposed a topic which has been controversial in discussions in this very same talk page and which can benefit from being included in the RfC because it does not have a consensus. That's it, that's all. This issue became toxic because you chose to tell me that I shouldn't be proposing it because of some unrelated edit warring drama, because somehow this article's talk page has become the playground of a particular set of users who seemingly think they can get to decide which topics should be put up to discussion and which ones shouldn't. Impru20^talk 14:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:My views on this.

:Q1: B. I don't see the harm in adding non-BPC pollsters providing context is given to the reader. Also providing the poll is published by a reliable source. The only issue is around wether to include them in the graph, as they would affect the average there. This however I believe should be a separate debate.

:Q2: B. This is how it was done in the article for the last parliamentary period. I assumed that SNP was dropped due to their poor general election showing, however I think they should be included still as they still poll around 2-4%. Plaid shouldn't be included and should be in Other.

:Q3: C or B. If the poll has a client the article from the client should be the reference for that box while the table should be the main reference. If the poll doesn't have a client, than an article reference can be used until the tables are released, which can replace the reference.

:Q4: B. C is too cluttered. A is too simplistic and it's not immidately obvious.

:Q5: Keep as is for now. ShotoKye (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:I understand why you have started this topic however on reflection I think we need to go back a bit and agree on topics before we trying to define questions having said that the risk is we drag up every topic again, for my part I think we need clarity on

:BPC only or not.If not then is it unrestricted or with some expectations as to standard

:Most recent polling by pollster

:How to capture Sources Hyperlink, reference or both

:A pecking order for sources Ie Data Tables, Pollster analyse or other

:Split articleprecedence from previous articles, this one is anomalous by merging them

:Lead Column may already be resolved as i sense with better understanding people are more relaxed at % + Party ID

:Actually as I write these down I begin to wonder what all the fuss is about as individually they seem fairly straightforward Pugpa2 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Personally -

:Q1 - I'd say option B, but probably agree with the above sentiment that they should only be included where there are data tables available.

:Q2 - I'd say A here, since having the "show more" in the Others tab actually makes the table far more cluttered than including SNP and PC does, and pollsters aren't routinely asking for any more parties.

:Q3 - I'd say C and include both where possible here, for completeness.

:Q4 - No strong opinion but I think Option C looks quite cluttered.

:Q5 - Leadership approval is usually split off when there's enough of it, and for 2024 we did this Sub-national opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election page. Would probably support splitting this at some point once the article is larger Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::In trying to double check my thinking on BPC position did some analysis of 2020-24 article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#

::As can be seen the number of non BPC polls form a very small proportion of the polls captured in this article and involve only 2 Pollsters, Lord Ashcroft had previously been a BPC member and his continued inclusion may be viewed as a historical anomaly , it might be that the same has happened with Number Crunching Politics. BPC have confirmed that Number Cruncher Politics were a member previously and will confirm dates of membership (Secretary was out of office at time) I think this breakdown demonstrates that from the article covering the 2020 – 2024 election cycle, non BPC played a tiny part of the recorded data, however if allowing unfettered access to non BPC might impact on this. The article on Polling for the 2024 UK General Election was one of the most viewed of any Wikipeadia pages being in the top 25 world wide for 3 weeks in June 2024 and mentioned in media. The work we do here has a positive impact and is clearly appreciated by readers, as for those three weeks mentioned it received around 500,000 views every week. Do we really want to risk this busy and valued resource by allowing unfettered access to non BPC Pollsters? How would we administer this? How would we judge if or when a poll should be included or removed? That sounds both a risk that does not need to be taken and a recipe for further wrangling.

::Lets keep it simple and straightforward (KISS) only having BPC polls does that and ensures the continuation of a highly successful model.

::Looking at number of polls and if BPC member or not I got this first table

::File:2020 to 24 Polling.png

::As can be seen of the 1508 polls recorded in the article only 24 were from non BPC

::Further breakdown of those identified as Non BPC produced this table

::File:Non BPC Breakdown.png Pugpa2 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It should be noted that the purpose of this thread, as underlined by Chessrat, is to plan a possible RfC. It is not the RfC itself. Impru20^talk 16:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Interestingly I had been thinking about that very topic, Chessrat has done us all a great service as this topic has allowed an exploration of various matters and for some allowed thinking to clarify on a range of matters.

::::Most of the matters are really just matters of layout or formatting the one that most seem to see as most important is the matter of BPC, I would suggest that for the purpose of any initial RfC that should be the sole topic. I think having too many matters will not be helpful, we can always raise other RfC. I would suggest we agree a brief introduction to the topic and ask a very straightforward question.

::::I believe we are at the point where we could go for a RfC and include in it 'pinging' in the 20 top editors of this Article and the top 20 of its immediate predecessor.

::::The preamble to RfC could read something like

::::" Reviewing this articles position on being members of BPC to be included in article or not.

::::For background: the last article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election " Included data on 1508 polls all but 24 were from Polling Organisations that were members of the British Polling Council (BPC), these 24 came from 2 polling organisations, 12 from a company that had been a BPC member and left and the other being Lord Ashcroft who produced 12 (11 in the few months before the General Election)

::::The issue in question is do we see these small number of non BPC polls as an anomaly or do we see them as a precedence to open up capturing of polling data from organisations that are not members of BPC."

::::Question could be

::::1 BPC members only (at time of poll)

::::2 Open to all polls

::::And ask editors to indicate their preference

::::This is only a suggestion but hopefully it will move us on to next stage of resolving this impasse Pugpa2 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Oh forgot to say this is a useful RfC from the 2024 article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Splitting_proposal Pugpa2 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Was it really necessary to post a 2K text (repeating topics that you already made abundantly clear throughout this talk page) in response to a minor comment of mine that just reminded that this thread was about planning for the RfC and not the RfC itself? I have counted at least ten comments of yours across four threads repeating the same. You even posted two pics in this very same thread explaining this very same info the other day. You should really stop bludgeoning the process. Impru20^talk 17:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I was sharing my thinking and making what I hope would be a positive suggestion as to how we move forward. Really don't want to get into this but try to engage with the suggestions rather than some unrelated take on them.

::::::What's important is moving on to a resolution. Pugpa2 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Some people really make any sort of engagement needlessly confrontational and not a pleasant experience…totally uncalled for NewGuy2024 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What is confrontational is that every edit done by any user, no matter how constructive it be (be it proposing a discussion topic for a RfC or highlighting that this is not a RfC but the planning of a RfC) is bludgeoned to death by the same trio of editors over and over and over again. Wikipedia is not a forum and you have all shared your thinking abundantly already. Keeping flooding the zone with edits is disruptive and not helping to move towards a resolution. Impru20^talk 18:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Neither are yours. Kirky03 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I worry your suggestion has a slight framing bias towards our side which, while I am obviously hopeful people do agree with us, reframing it might make it slightly more fair.

:::::Perhaps a very slight rewording to

:::::" Reviewing this articles position on being members of BPC to be included in article or not.

:::::For background: The article currently states, as does previous articles of this type, that 'Most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abide by its disclosure rules.' which specifies BPC polls as the predominant source, but does not discount other sources The last article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election " Included data on 1508 polls all but 24 were from Polling Organisations that were members of the British Polling Council (BPC), these 24 came from 2 polling organisations for which the decision had been made to include, 12 from a company that had previously been a BPC member and left and the other being Lord Ashcroft who produced 12 (11 in the few months before the General Election)

:::::The issue in question is do we see these small number of non BPC polls as an anomaly or do we see them as a precedence to allow capturing of polling data from organisations that are not members of BPC."

:::::Just slight rewordings and I added a little bit of context at the start that means we aren’t jumping straight into the stats.

:::::I personally am okay with your wording but I am concerned some people might call it unfair becauss it leads into statistics which arguably back up our side of the argument. Kirky03 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I welcome your amendment and think it is an improvement Pugpa2 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I had thought the stats added context Pugpa2 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The stats do add very important context and if it was up to me alone, I'd be fine with it. I'm just worried (perhaps unnecessarily) others may think it is framed slightly wrong. Just moving it to a bit later makes it harder for people to make that complaint. Kirky03 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think the issue here is- until recently, in all previous articles, polls from the (small number of) pollsters who don't have BPC membership were included with no complaints from anyone. We are now at a point where some editors are so insistent on starting to remove polls from pollsters who aren't BPC members that the page had to be fully protected to stop edit wars from people trying to remove this content and it looks like an RfC may be necessary to resolve the problem. So I have to ask those editors trying to remove this content a simple question- why? And wouldn't it be inconsistent to treat Freshwater Strategy as a reliable source in Opinion polling for the 2025 Australian federal election but not in this article? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The issue is about anomaly or precedence , let's not go round again. Argument for or against is fully rehearsed already Pugpa2 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Not sure what you mean by "anomaly or precedence"? The discussion is about whether to introduce a criterion of excluding BPC members, as some editors wish to do. Until recently, all polls which are reported by reliable sources have always been included in these articles and BPC membership has never been even discussed.

::::::::I can definitely understand the arguments for introducing such a criterion given the BPC is the most widely-recognized authority in determining poll reliability- if a proper discussion ended up with a consensus to apply such an exclusion criterion I'd happily go along with it (albeit I don't personally think it's necessary). What I'm confused about is why so many editors are so insistent on unilaterally applying such a criterion before consensus has been reached that the article has ended up fully locked over it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I was trying to paraphrase what in essence the discussion, is about does previous practice of one non BPC pollsters inclusion (12 of 1508 polls), set a precedence or is it an anomaly. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I personally think having a consistent line is important which is why I'm in favour of the BPC rule and the reason I didn't voice this on earlier articles is because I'm relatively new and wasn't involved with those, although I'd argue the tiny proportion of polls being non-BPC and the line in the introduction indicates this has always been a general rule anyway, even if some exceptions are made, which is something I'm fine with.

:::::::But yes, I agree, the edit warring is ridiculous. As soon as it became obvious we weren't getting anywhere, I stopped making those edits and I was disappointed to see them continue. Kirky03 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Could I suggest you make your view known in the RfC as voting is happening Pugpa2 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Please note that there is no such thing as "voting" in Wikipedia, and that attempting to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who you think have a predetermined point of view or opinion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1280088244&oldid=1280088007] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1280093279&oldid=1280092564]) is an inappropriate way of notification. Impru20^talk 13:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Merely assisting a fellow editor who perhaps because of the length of some topics including the actual RfC may not have realised his expression was in the wrong place, you really are a disruptive influence Pugpa2 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You should remain civil and not call "a disruptive influence" to a fellow editor who is merely reminding you in good will on Wikipedia guidelines on how to notify other editors of an ongoing discussion (you have only individually "assisted" fellow editors whose positions could match your own, instead of the more generic pinging that has been done in the RfC itself by both others and yourself, and which is a more appropiate way of notifying). Rules and guidelines are the same for everyone here. Cheers. Impru20^talk 15:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Q1) B. That would be the best option

:A2) A. That would make things clearer.

:Q3) B (if unavailable, A). Most helpful for the readers.

:Q4) C. Most informative.

:Q5) No. Best to keep it simple. Gordonlty (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

I've just fully protected this article for a week. The amount of edit warring that has been going on for quite a while is absolutely absurd. Nobody wins by edit warring. This ends. NOW. If, by some miracle, a consensus is reached before this week is up on how to move forward, I may be willing to reduce/eliminate the protection. If after the protection is removed or expired ANYone resumes edit warring, I will be blocking them from editing this article. Either figure out how to get along on this article or you won't have to worry about getting along on this article because you won't be able to edit it anymore. I hope I've been clear. If not, ASK questions. Resuming the behavior is NOT the way forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Disappointing it came to that but alas I think you’re right to try let things cool down and principles going forward are agreed NewGuy2024 (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Shame it reached this point but necessary. I thought it might have stopped but picked up again yesterday.

:Come on everyone, lets hit a consensus Kirky03 (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hope next weeks polls get updated still? Only BPC of course 🙂 NewGuy2024 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Looks like someone isn't getting the hint of why the article was protected. Impru20^talk 13:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok - see it went over your head there… have a good day NewGuy2024 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Might be worth making a note of any polls released so we have an easier job of adding them once the week is over. Kirky03 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Kirky03 We can always make edit requests. If the edit is uncontroversial (AKA pollster is a member of the BPC), an admin will do it. —Profzed! 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you! Kirky03 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

And please don't think we're too stupid to realize there's sockpuppetry going on. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Guessing that means having multiple accounts? Hope that’s not aimed at myself - not a frequent contributor but regular user and can assure you I’ve just this one account - just feel very passionate about this particular point and have students who use this page as part of their course and wanting the high quality not to be watered down NewGuy2024 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta. Have a good day. Impru20^talk 16:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Back atcha NewGuy2024 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit fully-protected|Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election|answered=yes}} To add the new Opinium poll to the article (starting from the opdrts template) to the top of the 2025 section of polls

DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Also for Most recent polling by pollster section:

Move Opinium to the top and change as:

Also for Preferred prime minister section:

Also for Leadership approval section:

—Billytanghh (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

: Protection has expired. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

please feel free to add to this table so it can be reinstated into the article later Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 08:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Chessrat YouGov sample is 2,291. —Profzed! 10:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::And SNP is at 3 and PC at 1. Other is at 3. —Profzed! 11:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::thanks Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Also for Most recent polling by pollster section:

Move Opinium, JL Partners, More in Common, YouGov and Find Out Now to the top and change as:

Also for Preferred prime minister section:

Also for Leadership approval section:

—-Billytanghh (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:A poll for the upcoming Runcorn and Helsby by-election, which got 702 respondents in the constituency. Why is Lord Ashcroft Polling not considered reliable?

:https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2025/03/runcorn-by-election-reform-uk-in-pole-position/ James Tweedie (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

The latest Opinium and YouGov polls haven't been added. Has all the argument over the (now very wiggly) graph and "weighting" put the editors off? James Tweedie (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:What happened is that the article was protected for one week to prevent further edit warring, as some editors were persistently trying to remove non-BPC polls on their own right. Impru20^talk 16:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::coaction some editors were adding non BPC polls against convention and without consensus Pugpa2 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::This statement is simply not true. Non-BPC polls have been present in UK polling articles for many years (and still are in others). Some editors have come here insisting on removing them, but that does not preclude that existing consensus did allow for non-BPC polls to be present, and a RfC is currently pending on the issue which clearly evidences that no such consensus as you claim exist. Stop turning every thread and comment into a battleground, please. Impru20^talk 16:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Neutral answer - the article was subject to edit warring and has been locked for a week while we discuss a way forward. Kirky03 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:In fact, an extra voice might be useful to help break stalemate in "Possible RFC Planning" and "BPC Only Polls Included".

:To save you the time reading it all, this is whats happened:

:Should we include all polls or only those done by the BPC - a group of major pollsters such as YouGov and Techne and all the polls currently on the article - that stick to certain standards such as releasing polling tables and so are seen as "reliable", or should we include other pollsters as well that are potentially also reliable.

:Main arguments from memory is that BPC polls are by definition high standard and including others risks watering down the quality of information in this article however we could vet pollsters ourselves using standard wikipedia practices. This is backed up by the fact not every country has the benefit of something like BPC and have to use their own judgement so its not like that can't be done and we don't need to rely on BPC.

:The top of the article states most polls in the article are BPC and there's debate over whether that is just stating a fact that most articles are from BPC or whether that is stating BPC as a standard rule with some wiggle room for exceptions.

:Previous articles have included non-BPC so there's precedent although these make up a very small portion, with the last article featuring only 12 non-BPC articles total from only 2 pollsters, one of which was a former member themselves.

:If you have any thoughts, that would be great because it would be nice to get more insight so we may have a chance of moving forward. Kirky03 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::I've changed my mind, personally, and think it should be BPC only. The chaos above basically shows what happens when there isn't a clear rule. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That reflects part of my thinking as well, at present we seem to be unable to reach agreement on even basic stuff let alone more complex and potentially nuanced issues. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@FriendlyDataNerdV2may i suggest you record your view in the RfC, yes or no seems to be the format that has emerged Pugpa2 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1744761692}}

Should opinion polls by pollsters which are not members of the British Polling Council be excluded from this article? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:For context/elaboration: polls by companies which are not members of the British Polling Council are unusual- at the moment the only ones are by Lord Ashcroft Polls (a company which was previously a BPC member and left) and Freshwater Strategy (an Australian polling company which has only recently started conducting polls in the UK). This article (and all similar ones for previous elections) state at the start that "Most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council"; there was disagreement between editors on whether this means the status quo was an effective ban on non-BPC member polls unless decided otherwise, or no such exclusion criterion at all with the status quo being that any reliable source is enough for inclusion. As a result, the disagreement led to enough edit warring that this page had to be fully protected. Freshwater Strategy polls are conducted for a reliable source, City AM, but are not included in [https://www.markpack.org.uk/155623/voting-intention-opinion-poll-scorecard/ Mark Pack's poll aggregator]; their Australian polls are included in relevant Wikipedia articles such as Opinion polling for the 2025 Australian federal election and there have been no disputes there. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Just to clarify your summation, last article had over 1500 polls captured, the only exception to non BPC(at time of polling) was Lord Ashcroft which had been a BPC member but left due to a technical reason ie BPC requiring pollsters to be active in a broader range of activities than just Political polling. Is this an anomaly or a precedence is the core of the debate. If the former do we remove the anomaly if the latter what is the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of any poll? Pugpa2 (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The way I have always read the article is that the statement "most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council" was always just an informative description of the fact that most UK pollsters decide to join the BPC- until recently I have never heard the argument that BPC membership should be a basis for inclusion/exclusion from the article.

:::The criteria always used by Wikipedia for determining reliable sources is WP:RS by default. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 08:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Most pollsters that are members of BPC are multi national. The history and reasons for BPC existing is well worth a bit of research. Pugpa2 (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Should a poll be included? Is it used by WP:RS; this is how Wiki works. Halbared (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::see history of this article going back 20+ years, like most things in life very little is absolute. Again look at reasons BPC exists and explain how inclusion of non BPC polls will enhance it? Pugpa2 (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::See the history of wiki; wiki rules are not absolute, they're best practise as agreed on by the community.Halbared (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. I think non-BPC pollsters should be included, but provided that they are backed by reliable, published sources in accordance with WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SOURCE. Firstly, no system such as the BPC exists in many other countries, yet this does not preclude polls being regarded as reliable there (precisely because Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines on how to determine source reliability). BPC can be a helpful guide for determining reliability (and this is important because it easens the job!), but {{underline|it does not preclude reliable pollsters existing beyond it, as BPC membership is not a requisite for conducting polls in the UK}} (it is an association of polling companies established only in 2004; pollsters conducted reliable polls well before that). A few examples of current non-BPC members:
• Lord Ashcroft is a recognized pollster whose polls have been included for many years in opinion polling articles.
• Freshwater Strategy is an Australian company (which would explain why it is not a BPC member, as of yet at least) which is recognized as a reliable pollster in Opinion polling for the 2025 Australian federal election: I agree it makes little sense we consider them as reliable for Australian elections but not reliable for UK elections based just on an association membership.
• For Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election, Qriously was included as well despite it not being a BPC member, with an explicit consensus in favour of including this non-BPC poll.

:There is also a fun fact: I have made some research on past UK opinion polling articles, and there has been way more discussion and controversy about including particular polls from BPC members considered as potentially unreliable (YouGov (1), YouGov (2), PeoplePolling, JL Partners (1), JL Partners (2), JL Partners (3), Kantar Public, ComRes, party-commissioned polls from BPC pollsters, polls commissioned by The Sun...) than about excluding non-BPC members. So, {{underline|BPC membership does not preclude a particular poll/pollster from being questioned as unreliable}}. In fact, looking at the 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2024 talk pages, one can check that there has never been an explicit consensus for excluding non-BPC polls, and these have been frequently included when they have been published, so no "anomaly" there. As of currently, there are very few pollsters that are not BPC members, so this poses no major issue: these pollsters can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they may be regarded as reliable or not (in fact, this is what has happened for many years in UK polling articles without major issues). BPC members publishing potentially unreliable polls may be a larger issue, especially if BPC membership becomes an excuse and/or pretext for not questioning a source's reliability under Wikipedia standards, which is dangerous. Impru20^talk 09:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! Looks like some interesting reading, most useful.Halbared (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Your claim that non-BPC has reached a clear consensus before is backed up by a link I can only imagine we wouldn't click through as it leads to a detailed conversation about a specific non-BPC pollster whose methods are brought into constant question and faces the same fate at this discussion here of "including this poll devalues the quality of the article" followed by bickering which I think we could all do without. Not to mention, the fact it isn't BPC is brought up in that very discussion.

::As for your proof that most complaints are about BPC pollsters (which is already a misleading argument because most polls are by them so it would follow most discussion is about them), I clicked and read through the first four before spotting the pattern that none of them actually argue the pollster should be excluded but are instead about specific polls with relevance ranging from "this specific poll was done using a different method and YouGov themselves advertises and warns about that" all the way to "the links in the reference don't work".

::Why not just have BPC polling be the standard, with perhaps former members included as well, and then whenever someone wants to add a non-BPC poll, they can't just add it willy nilly but must justify its inclusion in the talk pages. BPC is the standard but there's wiggle room is someone makes a compelling enough case for it. Alternatively, you could throw your hat in the ring of the discussion about many different compromises if you're willing to accept you might not get your way here. Kirky03 (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for your reply, let me address your points:

:::*{{tq|"Your claim that non-BPC has reached a clear consensus before (...)"}} I never claimed that. What I said is that there was an explicit consensus in favour of including a non-BPC poll (as an example, though more could be brought), that there "has never been an explicit consensus for excluding non-BPC polls" and that these "have been frequently included when they have been published". I never said there was a "clear" consensus (in general) for non-BPC polls (though a tacit one did seem to exist), just as there was no "clear" consensus to the contrary (which is something which has been—wrongfully—claimed across this talk page). Let's keep this RfC on track and do not try to re-interpret others' words, please.

:::*{{tq|"As for your proof that most complaints are about BPC pollsters (which is already a misleading argument because most polls are by them so it would follow most discussion is about them)"}} It's not misleading. Under your reasoning, BPC membership would be somehow infallible in casting off reliability concerns, but these are not and have not been in the past. Indeed, most polls are by BPC pollsters, but the fact that such discussions even take place clearly shows that this BPC-exclusive inclusion criterion is one that has its issues (and not minor ones, in some cases).

:::*{{tq|"none of them actually argue the pollster should be excluded but are instead about specific polls"}} Yes, that is exactly what I said. I never said that it was discussed to exclude these pollsters in general, but particular polls from these pollsters (some of them ended up not being removed). The whole point was evidencing that there have been far more discussions and controversies about polls from BPC members than about non-BPC members, which means that automatically assuming that a BPC poll is reliable or should be included by default is not necessarily the way to go, actually (notwithstanding the fact that BPC membership can be helpful in determining reliability, which I also said). Let's stick to what was actually said.

:::*{{tq|"Why not just have BPC polling be the standard, with perhaps former members included as well, and then whenever someone wants to add a non-BPC poll, they can't just add it willy nilly but must justify its inclusion in the talk pages."}} And why should we do that? With "they can't just add it willy nilly" you mean to actually limit editors from editing this article and to force them to know beforehand whether a particular pollster is a BPC member or not? Just let anyone to add polls, and whenever one of them raises controversy just bring it to the talk page to discuss it and decide whether it merits inclusion or not; this is what has been done for decades everywhere throughout Wikipedia and this is the spirit of WP:BRD. Forcing editors to justify a poll's inclusion beforehand in some act of self-censorship for no reason seems like going against WP:BOLD, WP:WINC and WP:AGF.

:::On your last sentence, I don't think I understand it: this is a RfC. Input is sought, I gave mine. I am not enforcing anything, and just as I do so, I hope no one else attempts to force anything on others since they "may not get their way here" either. Let us all respect the process. Impru20^talk 11:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::For clarity, you are now saying not all BPC polls/pollsters should necessarily be considered reliable even though they, by definition, use reliable and transparent methods? Kirky03 (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am saying that BPC membership can be a guide for helping determine reliability, but that it by itself does not exclude a particular BPC poll from being unreliable under Wikipedia guidelines (which is, ultimately, what matters), as BPC membership does not equal to infallibility. The "they, by definition, use reliable and transparent methods" is misleading, as this is not necessarily automatic: they are assumed to do so, but it is not something that should be taken for granted (also, what does "reliable" mean in this context? In Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election and Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election most polls failed miserably despite having a BPC membership. Is that "reliable"?). Impru20^talk 13:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Reliable does not mean correct but means it uses methods that maximise their accuracy and/or transparency. If reliable ever equated success then, as you mention, all the 2015/17 polls would be unreliable and thus not fit wikipedias reliable source guidelines. Kirky03 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It seems to me that membership of the British polling council should be a prerequisite for inclusion in the main table of polling, precisely to avoid the edit wars that this article has seen. There needs to be firm agreement as to what polls should and should not be included, otherwise further edit wars will ensue. UK political opinion polling has a professional body that ensures members abide by certain standards, and this is the obvious criteria for a polls inclusion. The BPC exists and sets industry standards, so why would you not use it as the criteria for inclusion here?

:::I know that Lord Ashcroft polls have been, and are included, but that should not be used as a reason to dilute the quality of the main data table here. Possibly Lord Ashcroft polls should not be included in this main data table, but if deemed necessary included in a further table of non BPC polls (who still publish their tables). I can see no reason for the inclusion of any poll where tables are not produced, as this is a slippery slope, if this site is to be useful and reliable. Happytiger00 (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The edit wars have been staged by a handful of accounts in this particular article; no such situation like this for this specific matter has happened for 20+ years. Precisely, the editors who caused the edit warring are among the ones who are pressing for this BPC-only requirement, so it would seem illogical to enforce a change to address a problem that has been created by those aiming to enforce such change. That alone cannot be a reason for it. Impru20^talk 13:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I feel it takes two sides to make an edit war, but a clear criteria on pollster inclusion would hopefully prevent it reoccurring. Happytiger00 (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::You would then have likely edit wars from users who want to add non-BPC pollsters—but which nonetheless come from reliable sources—and who do not understand why they are not allowed to, especially when no other opinion polling articles abide to that criteria. This is a particular problem that happened here during the last week, not one that has plagued these articles for many years (as some of these claims would seem to hint). Particular instances of edit warring can be addressed in venues such as WP:AN/3RR and WP:ANI or, in cases where sockpuppetry is suspected, WP:SPI. Impru20^talk 13:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"You would then have likely edit wars from users who want to add non-BPC pollsters"

:::::::- Though if clear precise criteria for inclusion exist, those who persist in such behaviour can be be more easily dealt with. I feel the current RFC has had to be called because the criteria for inclusion was not clearly set out (ie the woolly statement in the article body about most pollsters being BPC members) which has allowed different interpretations to develop. Happytiger00 (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"Dealt with"? They would be good faithed editors who do not have to know of the discussions in this talk page beforehand. On the statement about "most" pollsters being BPC members: that statement is and has been present in all UK opinion polling articles since 2015 and never before has it caused such issues, so it is clearly not the cause of the problem here. Impru20^talk 14:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Hmmm, in danger of omitting key information, only Lord Ashcoft being the exception accounting for 12 out of 1508 polls in 2024 article. It is others trying to broaden that out this is the bone of contention. Pugpa2 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Precisely, that argument can be easily turned the other way around: 12 out of 1,508 in the 2024 article is a very manageable number. If any of those polls raises any reliability concerns, wouldn't it be more appropriate to discuss it in the talk page to see whether they meet WP:RS and WP:V? Just as we would do for any BPC poll which poses any such issues. Impru20^talk 15:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• No, WP:RS and WP:V should (as always they should be) be the guiding principles. @Impru20 is absolutely right in this regard. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 10:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Polling for voting intention, which is what this article is purely about, is always a political question and will be politicised. Impru20 has already pointed out above the attempts to discredit sources like YouGov, which was founded by former Conservative MP and party chairman Nadhim Zahawi but which is also one of the most reliable pollsters.

:Another example is the ongoing attempt in the media to discredit Find Out Now on the pretext that it uses a different methodology from other polling firms - but also finds much higher support for Reform UK which is threatening the dominance of the established parties. But no pollster publishes raw data in their headline figures. They are 'weighted' based on a set of assumptions.

:I think you must give credit to readers of this article that they are aware of which polls tend to favour which parties. the sample size column in the table also facilitates judgements about reliability. James Tweedie (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::A fair point, however do you not think the likelihood of this behaviour means we should have a clear simple definition using a mechanism that may be unique to the UK, I would suggest BPC is that mechanism, it removes a huge part of the contentious matters, whereas opening up will likely increase that. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Any system that allows too much subjectivity will result in politicisation. Using clear guidelines such as BPC protects against individual agenda as it cannot be twisted to fit an individuals wishes Kirky03 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::No, what I meant was it that you shouldn't discriminate between polls. Trust the reader to make their own judgment. Don't try to censor or filter anything. James Tweedie (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::We will be discriminating regardless though. Including non-BPC polls does not equate to including all non-BPC polls, even those done on twitter. "No" means that there is no clear guideline for inclusion and inclusion is therefore up to the editor's own judgement of reliability, which is much more open to "I think this is unreliable because it disagrees with me" than a clear rule with few - but maybe not no - exceptions. Kirky03 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Twitter is not a reliable source, so there's not much danger of someone getting to post a twitter poll here. See WP:RSP. Wizmut (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying that voting to include non-BPC polls does not mean that everything that isn't BPC will be included, i.e. yes twitter polls will likely not find their way onto the article.

::::::The point then is that blurred lines (which for clarity is what will be the result of including non-BPC polls) are able to be abused for personal agendas because people will be able to draw that line wherever best suits them and can be very vague and wiggly with how that line is drawn.

::::::Hence, including non-BPC polls does not rule out discriminating between polls but actually enables it by creating an ability to discriminate.

::::::Twitter polls was just an easy example of something that WON'T be included because even though I think allowing others polls may water down the quality of the article, I'm not imagining just yet that it will reach that point :) Kirky03 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::People can't just say that something is or isn't a reliable source in contrast to what WP:RSP says. Using reliable sources is a fine way to discriminate between polls we should include and polls we shouldn't, and has the benefit of being a well-worn guideline. Wizmut (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The beauty of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that these already provide for Twitter/X being regarded as a {{tq|generally unreliable}} source that {{tq|should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description}}. Random, unscientific polls (mostly online polls) are also generally swiftly removed from any opinion polling article (if these ever get added, which is not even frequent), and that does not require BPC membership but just common sense. Impru20^talk 21:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Pinging those from the chat who may not be aware of the current RFC.

:{{Ping|NewGuy2024}} {{Ping|Happytiger00}} {{Ping|Nicholas13t}} {{Ping|EnglishPoliticalPerson}} {{Ping|WestminsterWhistleblower}} {{Ping|Macdaddy}} {{Ping|Benocalla2}} {{Ping|Profzed!}} {{Ping|Dr Arsenal}} {{Ping|Clyde1998}} {{Ping|Gordonlty}} {{Ping|DimensionalFusion}} {{Ping|Bondegezou}} {{Ping|Dajasj}} {{Ping|Rwendland}} {{Ping|Billytanghh}} {{Ping|GravyOnToast}} {{Ping|Wizmut}} {{Ping|TSP}} {{Ping|ShotoKye}} {{Ping|Eastwood Park and strabane}} {{Ping|SmittenGalaxy}} Halbared (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for pinging me in. I don't very often log into Wikipedia these days but I was part of previous consensus development and getting this page to a good place. I am dismayed to see the farce that has unfolded and I do not wish to spend hours and hours on here. However, I would not like to be cut out of the loop on important decisions because I have gone quiet (as some seem to suggest). It is entirely appropriate that you contacted me and that I got an email about this. Thank you for doing so. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Pinging in the 15 editors with the most contributions to this article and the 15 editors from previous article, who may not be aware of RfC

:@CipherRephic: @CoaxAndBotany: @Clyde1998: @DimensionalFusion: @Ralbegen: @Smart51: @jcbo5: @brexitzzz: @utiliisateur:: @LukeSurl: @sd604: @Cutler: @Phinbart:@Herimi23: @Unreal7: @keyking666 Pugpa2 (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes - just BPC only NewGuy2024 (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You might want to put your stance in bold so it stands out easier and is easier to notice on a quick check of how things are standing. Kirky03 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes - (as above request) need to have some minimum standards applied - maybe perfectly valid and robust - however the lack of transparency from non BPC members leads to much of an unknown and risk to wider data pool - not a fan of footnote either as can be easily missed NewGuy2024 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes article should be for BPC polls only Pugpa2 (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• No polls should be included based on standard wikipedia policies like reliability which is determined per each source DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• No BPC guidelines and principles provide a good basis for whether a poll is reliable/transparent but does not preclude the reliability of a poll; in instances BPC member pollsters have produced unreliable polls regardless. As stated in other opinions, assuming the poll is backed by reliable sources and isn't well regarded as an unreliable pollster their should be no reason for non-inclusion. EnglishPoliticalPerson (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• YES non BPC polls should be excluded. Happytiger00 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - although I daresay a yes/no is too strict. BPC polling should be the default assumption and allowing any old poll to be added risks watering down the quality of the article. However, in certain cases where a strong enough argument is made for including a pollster - such as Lord Ashcroft - some exceptions can be made. But they are just that - exceptions. Kirky03 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• No - Providing the source is reliable or data tables exist.

:However a note should be added to non-BPC members in the table. ShotoKye (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::That’s the issue - we don’t know and can’t judge if they’re reliable as they don’t publish the tables and their methodology is not transparent NewGuy2024 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Polls are primary sources and pollsters aren't specifically assessed on the list of perennial sources. But the news sources which quote these pollsters are (or aren't) considered reliable. Any primary source which is cited by a reliable secondary source is good enough for a wiki article and good enough for this collection. This is not to say each individual poll must appear in a news article - only that the particular pollster's results should have been habitually treated as an unexceptionable news item. Wizmut (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for explaining my point. ShotoKye (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• No Others have already noted that the only relevant guideline is WP:RS. But this guideline could help in other ways that address quality concerns. Polls are primary sources, so we could instead adopt the standard that only polls which are quoted by a reliable secondary source (news articles) should be included. This would be a method of ruling out any potentially fringe polls. And finally, I looked at how polling aggregation is done by reliable sources.[https://www.politico.eu/article/how-politico-poll-of-polls-tracks-polling-trends-across-europe/][https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-election-what-is-mrp-method-modelling-opinion-polls-2024-07-02/] These pages discuss inclusion criteria, but there's no mention of the BPC, only past accuracy. Wizmut (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• No - While BPC is helpful in verifying the validity of a source, it is not a panacea. It should not be used as a means of excluding reputable pollsters. Some reputable pollsters make a conscious choice not to be BPC registered e.g. Lord Ashcroft. If there is a consensus for adding a note to say "not BPC registered", I would go along with that as a compromise. However, first and foremost we must stick with the reliable source policy. Not RPC does not mean not reliable source.

::: Please can we also address the questionable happenings around the re-addition of the SNP, and the addition of Plaid to have their own column in the data tables? I am genuinely appalled by how this was done (especially when you consider the archiving issue). I do not accept that there has been a substantive change of any description since the previous consensus was arrived at. I note that my arguments - which have since been archived - have not been in any way addresses or unpicked in what some claim to be the new consensus.

:::I wish to express my strongest disapproval over how the SNP/Plaid matter has been handled, and it is this that should be the subject of the RfC. I would go as far to say that some editors should be officially warned that they are not to conduct themselves, or treat articles in the manner in which a minority have.

:::I note that warnings have been handed out to a few edit warriors and a few IPs but I am far more concerned about a small number of those that seem to speak with authority and get away with improper conduct. This needs to be addressed and the columns need to be put back how they were. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::That was discussed above in the #Possible RfC planning section. I prioritized this topic because it was the one which was the subject of the most edit wars leading to full page protection, and therefore the most urgent to solve- but another RfC on the inclusion of SNP/Plaid columns is certainly possible if there is sufficient demand. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Personally, I see the conduct that has occurred over the SNP/PC issue as more serious. Obviously, edit warring should not be occurring but I feel very uncomfortable with a blind-eye being turned to that behaviour.

:::On the substance, I think the new columns are wrong (and I have explained very clearly why in the previous consensus) but on principle, I also think those that conduct themselves in the fashion of how the SNP/PC issue was handled, just should not expect to have their opinion treated with the weight they seem to expect - I think formal warnings need to be issued.

:::But yes, it seems clear we need an RfC on it to move forwards - I think it is reasonable to expect that the archived arguments to be prominently placed, and not buried as they have been.

:::That's the last I'll say on this for now. I just don't have the time to get into lengthy tit-for-tats (not saying you do that at all) but there appears to be a lot of that on this page. I hope we can move forwards with an SNP/PC RfC WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Perhaps there could be some use of Template:Frequently asked questions or similar to keep a directory of important discussions easily accessible. Wizmut (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's an idea, perhaps a simplified guide would be in order as well, how polling works, margin of error, variety between pollsters etc Pugpa2 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. Instead, I would suggest using [https://www.politico.eu/article/how-politico-poll-of-polls-tracks-polling-trends-across-europe/ similar criteria to Politco's Poll of Polls].

:I have selected some key points:

:A poll must include "when the fieldwork was done; who conducted it; who commissioned it and paid for it; and the sample size" and be based on "a sample of people that is under the polling firm’s control", i.e. "surveys on social media or on websites" are not polls. Good polls should have "at least 800 people"; Poll of Polls includes polls with smaller samples but weights them down. Poll of Polls include "almost all polls" as long as "minimum thresholds of transparency" are met and the pollster has a "track record of published polls". Leaked internal polls are not included. —Profzed! 16:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• No (but close to Yes) The editwarring that took place was unnecessary and some editors should be ashamed of themselves. I think BPC membership is a good rule of thumb and we should generally adhere to a policy of including BPC members and excluding non-BPC members. However, I think exceptions to that should be allowed. We should be able to include non-BPC members, while treading carefully! WP:RS has to trump any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Where it is clear that polling satisfies WP:RS, but they are not a BPC member, if that is made clear in a Talk page discussion and people agree, then I think such polling should be included. We should continue to note that in explanatory text. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with @Bondegezou. It should mainly be BPC members only to prevent any biased polls, but there should be exceptions to reliable pollster who are non-BPC members. However, before posting those polls, there should be a quick discussion on the Talk section first. 86.179.80.252 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This isn't a leading question but a genuine curiosity. Would you say your stance is similar to mine but you've fallen on the "no" side while I've fallen on "yes" only because we've been forced to pick a yes/no by nature of rfc?
• :It seems our opinions are similar but the nature of the question kind of forces you to say no even if you think non-BPC should only be rare. Kirky03 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. There needs to be a standard, if only to exclude polls run on newspaper websites or twitter polls etc. The pollster being a member of the BPC seems like a good standard to keep. Smart51 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Comment: Most of the yes arguments seem to be simple statements of opinion rather than arguments based on any policy. Might it be worth putting up a {{notvote}} notice to remind people to elaborate their arguments? CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::Pause for reflection 18 editors have commented on this RfC which is a great response. 17 have made a statement of preference 5 Yes and 12 No (if 2 soft NOs) It is fair to say that the consensus emerging is that we do not exclusively have BPC only.

::Perhaps the conversation has to move forward as to how we implement this? I personally am drawn to something like what @Profzed stated above "A poll must include "when the fieldwork was done; who conducted it; who commissioned it and paid for it; and the sample size" and be based on "a sample of people that is under the polling firm’s control", i.e. "surveys on social media or on websites" are not polls. Good polls should have "at least 800 people"

::Should we set some ground rules re transparency and publishing Data Tables based on BPC standard? Pugpa2 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, NO is emerging the clear leader but a huge chunk of the NOs have caveats in their answer such as the one you suggested. Most people aren't on board with a hard ban on non-BPC but there are nuances within them. What we now need to do is accept there is room for non-BPC and work out which nuances works best.

:::There doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus for not having these nuances. Kirky03 (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Wait a bit for the RfC to close, I reckon. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 14:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::To work out if that sort of thing is needed- could you provide some examples of pollsters which might not pass that test? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::We need to have some criteria for inclusion, don't we? some standard. It is really the responsibility of those proposing the change to expand their position. It is not to my mind about specific pollsters, rather about what standard we would accept @profzed gave some useful and succinct suggestions about dates of field work, etc I would add an expectation of quick publishing of methodology and data tables (say 2 weeks from first publishing of data) surely you would agree that failure on any of these measures would be reason to exclude or remove a poll. In other words that they operate to BPC standards. Pugpa2 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Right- I'm asking the editors who support excluding some pollsters to provide examples of polls which should be excluded from the article, as having some examples would help with making a rule. I'm not currently convinced that any rule for exclusion is needed at all; I would have thought just following WP:RS would work. But I could be convinced of the need for additional standards if there are pollsters which are clearly unreliable sources.

:::::The only non-BPA-member active pollsters I'm aware of are Ashcroft and Freshwater- do others exist? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::See above, it is really for advocates of all pollsters to examine what that means and how they would impliment it, surely you did so before coming to your conclusion Pugpa2 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The criteria I would use are very simple- if a poll is published by a WP:RS, that means it should be included in the article. The result of this would be the version of the article which includes Lord Ashcroft and Freshwater polls. Do you disagree with that, and if you do then could you suggest an alternative and describe how your idea would work? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We already have criteria: the reliable sources guideline and verifiability policy. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::As said, we already have criteria: WP:RS and WP:V. Nonetheless, it is concerning that a simple question regarding which pollsters would raise unreliability concerns cannot be properly answered even after several requests. This RfC started because some editors claimed (in multiple threads in this talk page) that the presence of non-BPC polls was a major issue for the article's quality and reliability; however, those non-BPC pollsters that have been mentioned throughout this page have been addressed as acceptable for inclusion and/or used as reliable sources in other articles, and no example of unreliable non-BPC pollster has been brought, only generic hypotheses. Even one or two pollsters would be too few to come even close to justify overriding RS and V in this particular article, as these could be easily dealt with individually, but none at all... Impru20^talk 09:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:YES Non-BPC polls should definitely be excluded, since the BPC has set standards for pollsters to follow with regards to transparency amongst other things! CoaxAndBotany (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• No - There has been a precedent for including non-BPC pollsters in the past, and I don't see a reason for that to change, as even though BPC polls are reliable sources, they aren't the exclusive reliable sources. In my opinion, if a pollster follows traditional industry practices and if data tables are accurately sourced, then not being a member of the council alone should not qualify as grounds for exclusion. Myself and others have previously suggested that we could compromise by including notes for polls produced by organisations outside of the council, and I think this would be a good solution if we cannot come to a binary consensus on this matter. Nicholas13t (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• No, WP:RS and WP:V do the job.Halbared (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Not an editor, but: neither WP:RS nor WP:V interprets or implements itself! The proposed BPC rule is a response to a seemingly unresolvable disagreement as to what those principles mean in practice. Voting No doesn't just signify that you think those principles are valid (hopefully everyone here does), but that you think everyone editing this page can be trusted to agree on what those principles mean, without the artificial aid of drawing a bright line around BPC membership. 95.172.230.133 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Comment Lord Ashcroft is considered a high-quality pollster by The Guardian.

: [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/mar/14/rachel-reeves-welfare-disability-cuts-labour-keir-starmer-uk-politics-live-news?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-67d402a28f08357799750f9c#block-67d402a28f08357799750f9c Source] —Profzed! 12:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::‘’’No’’’ it’s wrong for some editors to be so self important that they think it is there place to set “criteria” and “standards”. No wikipedia already has this. Yes not all polls should be included e.g. a newspaper Twitter feed is obviously not reliable but ruling out Freshwater and Ashcroft because “they’re not BPC” is a joke. Sorry but just saying it as I see it! 92.20.135.189 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Tbf, saying "we don't need standards for reliable sources because Wikipedia already has that in the form of saying we need to use reliable sources" isn't a huge argument.

:::We are just trying to find a way of sticking to that. Kirky03 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:RS and WP:RSP are quite detailed. Wizmut (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The "way to stick to that" is as simple as, whenever one poll is added that may raise suspicions of unreliability, bringing the concerned poll(s) to the talk page to assess whether it/they may merit exclusion. This is how it has worked for many years with great success and is how it is handled elsewhere. It may be just me, but I do not see what the difficulty is, really; it is just sticking to WP:BRD. Impru20^talk 09:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think Impru has discovered the answer; to use the same system as used on every other page for the past 20 years. It seems novel, but it might just work.Halbared (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Agree, this is painfully obvious. 92.20.135.189 (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't know, maybe it's best we wait another 20 to see if it works.{{sarcasm}} CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 11:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Is it time to close this RFC? I ask as someone who had advocated only BPC but believe consensus has been reached that Non BPC polls can be included provided they comply with wiki standards. To my mind that appears to be similar to BPC standards in terms of openness and speedy publishing of data tables.

::::::::If agreeable can we close this RfC and move on to other issues that judging by talk page are bubbling away and need addressed to try to return this article to some degree of 'normality' Pugpa2 (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yeah there doesn't seem to be much more left to get out of this.

:::::::::I will say however, most people said no but if you read their comments, no every NO vote is clear cut.

:::::::::Just now, I did a quick skim and found at least one example of a NO vote saying an almost identical thing to I've been saying which is BPC should be standard with the occasional exception made and at least three NO votes which mention including footnotes on non BPC.

:::::::::From this, I suggest we allow non-BPC polls but with the footnote solution. I was never hugely on board with this specific compromise but it seems to me that this covers the most opinions in a middle ground.

:::::::::I propose we close this RFC with the idea that non BPC pollsters can be added wherever an editor deems acceptable but with a footnote highlighting them as non BPC. Kirky03 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yeah, agree there needs to be a quick way for readers to identify the non bpc Pugpa2 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Think this is a mistake but this does need concluding - not sure footnote though is clear enough - maybe a different colour text to really draw out these polls so they can easily be ignored (by those who care for quality in our polling trends) NewGuy2024 (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Something that is immediately obvious to reader, how about the Pollsters name in italics and amending intro to highlight that, or shade the cell. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I agree with your analysis but it may be a necessary compromise considering all opinions within the RFC unfortunately. Kirky03 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Had a thought perhaps a way to do this is with minimal change to article

:::::::::Existing text "displayed in this article. Most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abide by its disclosure rules. "

:::::::::Suggest a minor amendment as we don't need to re run the discussion displayed in this article.

:::::::::Suggestion Most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council (BPC) all abide by the BPC standard on rules of [https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/rules-of-disclosure/ Disclosure and Reporting]. (the non BPC polls in the tables are identified by the Pollsters name being in Italics) Pugpa2 (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::In article table it would look like this

::::::::::thumb Pugpa2 (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::This is another good suggestion. That phrase at the top could do with rewording anyway considering there's very different interpretations of it.

::::::::::How do people on the NO side feel about this? Kirky03 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thinking making it bold or better still in a different colour - preferably RED (for danger!!) - would make it clearer perhaps? NewGuy2024 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that the RfC can be closed and consensus assessed (and hope that it can allow some people to let it go). Impru20^talk 17:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Keep me right here but to close RfC someone has to briefly summarise decision, preferably an independent editor, but failing that we could do it.
• :I think the consensus is fairly clear, that Non BPC polls are included but expected to follow BPC guidance on transparency and disclosure. Gawd I hope that doesn't kick it all off again Pugpa2 (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Afraid it might…. Seems another layer of adding such pools we have to go through in that we need to check for transparency of data and methodology to include… NewGuy2024 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::‘’’Comment’’’ I’m not in favour of closing RfC if it means issue of SNP and Plaid columns is brushed under the carpet. I’m happy for a new RfC to be opened to cover that but that should happen before this one is closed. I really don’t like how that’s been handled and I think there is serious damage to credibility - it’s time to repair that. 152.37.92.153 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::This RfC is not for the issue of SNP and Plaid columns and will never be, because it was proposed for the specific issue of non-BPC polls only. Another RfC would have to be opened on that issue if required, but this RfC is not the place for it. Impru20^talk 22:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::May be not, sense that almost all pollsters will continue to be BPC members. Confidence is high that they follow there protocol which in turn allows us to operate those as before, [https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/rules-of-disclosure/ Disclosure and Reporting]. likewise with Lord Ashcroft. It is really for those wishing to add data from other than those to show they are complaint at least with that standard. Pugpa2 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think it has to be just a case of following WP:RS. Following WP:RS means that the two pollsters in contention- Lord Ashcroft and Freshwater- have no reason to be excluded. Introducing additional standards only makes room for further argument on the topic. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:No All reliable polls by reliable pollsters are welcome. Pollsters who are members of the BPC are likely to be reliable. Others can also be reliable when their polls are seen as reliable newspapers or academic journals. Rolluik (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::and they publish methodology, questions and data tables just as BPC members do otherwise we have a 2 tier system where some have a very high and verifiable process and others are less so. Pugpa2 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Their questions, methodology and data tables should be available, yes, but this can be after a paywall. The editor who adds them should defend their reliability when questioned. Rolluik (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I would expect very similar to bpc transparency and access for any poll to be included, reported about is not good enough on its own it has to be verifiable Pugpa2 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think you are mistaking concepts here: Verifiability means {{tq|"that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source".}} What Wikipedia requires us is to ensure that the information included in articles is not made up. Wikipedia is not an organization for transparency and/or good practice promotion (which, btw, can become very subjective concepts; beware of WP:NPOV breaches here), nor a manual, a style guide, textbook, cookbook or scientific journal. Factually, if an unreliable source publishes an opinion poll that follows BPC transparency and access criteria, we would still have to reject that source (and, thus, not publish the poll, unless it is published by a different, reliable source). Impru20^talk 20:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Aye you may well be right, at the moment the discussion is largely hypothetical it is only when 'other' polls are added that I suspect the issue may well boil up again, probably in the definition of reliable source. key for me is readers being able to access data tables that is the best verifiable source we can have for polls. Lets see how it plays out. Pugpa2 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:No, they should not be excluded. The criterion for exclusion should be a lack of reliability, not membership on a council. Cortador (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Currently we use the word "Tie" for instances where more than one party has the highest value of support, but this has the downside of not sorting correctly in the wikitable sort tool, which has to be manually fixed by assigning "Tie" to a value of 0. Should this be changed so that the "Lead" column is all numbers, in that Tie is replaced with the value of 0 DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ~~

:I don't have a strong opinion on this. "Tie" seems to have been traditionally used in many opinion polling articles, but Opinion polling for the 2025 Canadian federal election for example uses "0" instead. Impru20^talk 16:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. I kind of prefer "tie" but I'm not hugely fussed. Kirky03 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:@DimensionalFusion I prefer "Tie" since I think it looks better. —Profzed! 16:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:while Tie has the aesthetic advantage, 0 makes the table more imminently sortable and therefore more accessible - i'd err on the side of 0. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::@CipherRephic Not really an issue as it's not hard to manually set the sort value as long as it's done when the poll is added, rather than letting them build up. —Profzed! 16:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe so but that requires the person to activly add the sort value which honestly probably won't happen unless there's some kind of clear instruction DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@DimensionalFusion We could add a comment. —Profzed! 21:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be changed as:

Billytanghh (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Editing is frozen, the SNP and Plaid activists have won. Freezing the article in this state proves which side the wiki establishment are on. Why must some people make it impossible to assume good faith? 92.20.135.189 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:ie cymrawd! Cennin Pedr am byth!Halbared (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm really confused as to why some editors seem to think it's "biased towards the SNP and Plaid Cymru" to have this table layout- would you say the same about the inclusion of them in 2024 United Kingdom general election#Full results?

:The SNP have been included in every polling article since pollsters started prompting them regularly a decade ago. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::It took a long time after UKIP were being prompted to get their own column. So precedent shows that prompting is not a sole ground for inclusion. SNP just do not have the same status they once did - giving them their own column gives then too much weight and appears preferential 92.20.135.189 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That is demonstratably not correct, once the pollsters started prompting for UKIP on a regular basis they were quickly added to the table with their own column, prior to 2010 GE little prompting for UKIP after it very quickly became every pollster. Again UKIP polling prior to 2010 GE and after was in the very low single digits 2/3/4% so polling % had little if anything to do with their inclusion it was pollster prompting and that alone that led to their inclusion (see polling in 2010). Please feel free to check out the data available in previous copies of this article. Pugpa2 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"SNP just do not have the same status they once did"}}

:::"The party holds 62 of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament, and holds 9 out of the 57 Scottish seats in the House of Commons. It has 453 local councillors of the 1,227 available."

:::They seem significant in Scottish politics. If you mean on the national level (like this article) then I don't see why they wouldn't get their own column. They are at the centre of the Scottish independence "controversy" and I think readers would want to know how well they performed as a gauge of national sentiment towards Scottish independence. At the peak of SNPs popularity Scotland came closest to voting yes on the independence referendum. I think it is WP:CRYSTAL to suggest SNP will never be relevant again and therefore don't deserve to be prominently listed on tables of national polling results.

:::Just my input as a non-British editor who doesn't have skin in the UK political game. I'm not a P(l)aid editor. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It is not a matter of whether they will ever be relevant again as they near certainly will be, but a matter of they aren't currently and so the data we are currently showing isn’t hugely relevant.

::::The SNP are of course very relevant in Scottish Politics so their inclusion in polling for the Scottish Parliament would be vital and within the subnational polling. SNP polling will therefore still be available in this article but in a section where they are more relevant (Scotland).

::::On a national level, they poll only 2-3% ish and are capped at not much higher due to only standing in Scotland, while only having a small footprint in Parliament.

::::Of course, if this does change and the SNP reach parliamentary levels they were at a few years ago, I would expect them to be readded. Kirky03 (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:?? why shouldn't those parties be represented? they represent a pretty major separatist bloc across their respective nations. KLazyLass (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Across their respective nations, yes. It’s right they have their own column in the Scotland and wales tables.

:::But this is a GB (sometimes UK) wide table and they just are not significant enough on a UK wide basis

:::SNP use to be when the third largest party in parliament, so an exception was made and the justification for that was very clear. That has now changed - SNP are not nationally (UK wide) significant anymore, and Plaid never were.

::92.20.135.189 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::i dont think the size of a party in the commons currently should define its "significance". reform was on zero seats, currently still on less seats than the SNP, yet it has been consistently included in polls since it was still known as the brexit party. same with plaid, although plaid won one less seat than reform, it has representation in the commons for longer than reform even existed.

:::applying your correlation of seat count to relevance means that the columns for the greens and others should be removed too. KLazyLass (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The difference is that the SNP figure on a nationwide level is not hugely important. They only stand in Scotland so their polling numbers in Scotland are what matters.

::::Because of this, they are currently polling only 2-3% a lot of the time and can't grow much further. This information doesn’t say a lot and isn't hugely important because it's only a small fraction of the vote. For actual informative data, you can go to the subnational polls section and read there.

::::Ultimately, when they were 3rd place in Parliament, none of this really mattered because they were an incredibly relevant party on the national scale so their small vote count didn't matter.

::::I'd argue a party should either have a large footprint in Parliament or a significant vote share to be included. Otherwise, you will get a very large table.

::::P.s. everything I've said above goes triple for PC. While I can live with the SNP, please can we consider getting rid of them very strongly, they aren't even asked about on many of the polls included. Kirky03 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::I would suggest their political objectives are neither here nor there, we deal with polling data, if pollsters prompt we should be capturing that data. Pugpa2 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Both of you have misrepresented the argument. People on here keep doing this and it’s not reasonable.

::::It’s not just about no of seats in the commons and it never has been. It’s about national vote share - which is what headline voting intention is!

::::An exception was made for SNP given that they had become the third largest party (which has practical parliamentary implications) and that they had almost every single seat in Scotland - neither of those things are true.

::::On prompting, that argument is fundamentally flawed.

:::::a) UKIP were prompted for for a long time in the 2010-2015 Parliament before they were given a column on Wikipedia.

:::::b) Plaid have been prompted for for a very long time and they have never had their own column in the UK wide table until now. So your argument does not relate to precedent or reality.

::::I know you’re a big fan of creating criteria and standards but it’s not your place to. Just because what your saying makes sense in your own head, does not mean we must all accept your logic.

::::Let's stop rewriting history to suit your arguments. Precedent matters and misrepresenting it is not reasonable.

:::92.20.135.189 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::UKIP had there own column right back to 2010. Thems the facts, which if you look at was very closely tied to there being prompted regularly by pollsters. The polling for 2010 GE supports my view where you can see UKIP recorded in others behind the 'show' button, very infrequently were they prompted for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election Pugpa2 (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::That’s not true.

::::::It was retrospectively added from 2013. It is simply not true to say that in 2010 there was a UKIP column. Nor is it true in 2011 or 2012. They were retrospectively added. You go back and check!

::::::You saying “thems the facts” is another example of you misrepresenting what happened when. This is not reasonable.

:::::92.20.135.189 (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The evidence from 2010 and 2015 is very clear, it is only after 2010 GE that pollsters began prompting for UKIP on a regular basis, further evidenced by the very small number of times they were prompted prior to 2010 GE. It remains my contention that it is prompting on a regular basis that makes the data available to be captured in these articles, not the % or the number of MPs Pugpa2 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Again you misrepresent! Who placed any real importance on the no of MPs in the last few messages? Your argument also ignores Plaid always being prompted but never having its own column until now. I’m afraid you are being dogmatic and manipulating the past to suit your way of thinking and insisting your argument is accepted. There is less of a reason for Plaid and SnP to have their own columns than previously 92.20.135.189 (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Tbf we are also (if not creating then justifying) a set of criteria that doesn't need to exist.

::::That said, I think our one of high votes or high seats is better. I just don't see an issue in the idea of trying to find a set of criteria in of itself. Kirky03 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is a slightly overdramatic analysis Kirky03 (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:@92.20.135.189 M:THEWRONGVERSION CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 11:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Just commenting here to say I supported the addition of separate columns for SNP/PC on the basis that they are getting prompted for by pollsters, and that I think it's a much cleaner table if we include the two of them as separate columns, rather than having them hidden in a [show] box. There is room, after all.

: If a number of other smaller parties start to get prompted for widely (e.g. Workers Party/UKIP etc), and there isn't room I'd support changing back. Essentially every poll is currently prompting for SNP, and the vast majority for PC, and I'd say it's better to have those on the table (given the pollsters themselves clearly think they are relevant enough to poll for specifically). Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think this is true. We're just tabling what the polling companies are saying... If the polling companies stopped including SNP+PC in their responses then they would not get a column in the table any more. What even is an SNP+Plaid Activist, anyway?!? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::It’s so blatantly pro-SNP and Paid bias to drag them out of “others”. Even more so when you silence the reasons it was done and spin a load of rubbish about them being prompted - Plaid and SNP have always been prompted but not always had their own column. Applying that argument is inconsistent. Anyone that uses it must be personally willing to spend their time unpicking the last 30years or so of data to update the previous articles. Any takers?

:::Can we just get to a neutral position where SNP and Plaid have their own column for the Scotland and Wales polling but are included in the “others” for UK wide polls? Or perhaps we need to consider getting rid of the “Others” column

::152.37.116.171 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry to see another IP commentary emerge, however as we should always assume editors act in good faith, so I went and checked my understanding against the available information using previous versions of this article. Prior to 2011 GE only 3 parties were recorded Lab, Con and LDs, Following 2011 GE Ukip & Green were added (supported by regular prompting from pollsters) This continued until until 2015 GE when SNP were added. Following 2017 GE PC were added, we now had 7 parties represented. During 2019 Brexit and Change were added(we had 9 parties until GE) Following 2019 GE the number of parties dropped to 6 with the dropping of Change, UKIP and PC. Following 2024 GE PC were added.

:::The pattern is largely that GE prompt a change in polling and every example of a party being added or removed has followed Pollsters prompting in polls.

:::There seems a very clear correlation between parties captured in the table as a result of polling information, no other reason or rationale seems to have been applied. I hope you found this helpful and use the available data to check out my thinking. Pugpa2 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I’m shocked! I’ve just checked those previous articles and those have been retrospectively been changed to add columns too!

:::::I have not investigated who has done this but there’s no point because of all these phantom accounts!

:::::the point is someone has changed those pages retrospectively and it suits your argument I notice.

:::::I’ve also looked through your edit history (you made me suspicious) and I can see you have created this page and edit it frequently! Most odd! :Given your behaviour on this talk page and your edits to the main page, I do not see how it’s possible to assume good faith. I feel fair in saying that, especially as you had a little dig at me for being an IP!

::::152.37.116.171 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm slightly uncertain, what is the link with them creating the page? Kirky03 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::They’re clearly from Scotland (an honour not a crime) and they clearly seem to be heavily pro SNP coverage (again, not a crime but not appropriate neutrality for wiki). It’s a very relevant example whereby their suggested article has failed to make the cut for wiki. Their judgement is therefore in question 152.37.116.171 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh I see, I understand you point entirely.

:::::::Obviously we all have our opinions and those are going to subconsciously alter our views within this inherently political article. I don't get the impression from my interactions with Pugpa that they would make bad faith decisions as a result of them. Perhaps IF they do support the SNP, they may put more weight on them but I don't think there is bad faith.

:::::::While I'm thinking about it, the article you have found itself shows the importance of separating Scottish-only polling from UK-wide. There is a point to be made that that article exists to show the unique political situation within Scotland and the SNP is not as big a player on the UK Wide stage currently as it was and likely as it will be again. I'd argue including them in Scottish only polls is incredibly necessary but that is not necessarily the case for the UK as a collective. Kirky03 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Genuine question, how would you know they have been changed retrospectively without checking the edit history? Pugpa2 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Because I am old, an anorak and remember these articles in live time because I checked them frequently. I really am worried about how some editors have attempted to rewrite history - quite worrying really, especially if they’re politically involved! 152.37.116.171 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I have admittedly not done a deep dive on this and can do so if you'd prefer but I have just done a quick check of the last 10ish polls from before the 2010 election to see what is happening there and (excluding the couple dead links I came across) I found very little evidence that pollsters were not asking about third parties such as UKIP, Greens or SNP There were definitely a couple that did not (so has that advantage over the SNP at the very least) but most of them did ask about them; even if they were not published in headline results, you can find them in the data tables. Only the big three have columns on that article.

::::I'd argue this shows at the very least precedence for excluding Plaid which sits on a practically identical level with where UKIP and Greens were pre-2010 in terms of polling. I genuinely think there is no need for debate on this one, especially considering they were not in the 2024 polling article

::::In terms of the SNP, I would say that they were asked about on the last polls before the 2010 elections for YouGov, ComRes, Angus Reid and Poplus to name a few examples that you can check and so there is some precedence for excluding them. At the very least, it shows there is room for debate and no strong precedence for including them if not one for excluding them either.

::::I'm happy to continue to discuss the SNP but please, please, please can we come to an agreement that Plaid should go. Kirky03 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Plaid and SNP are back on to the same footing they were pre2010 - both should be in the others. I’m worried about the pro-SNP bias in this page, it all flies in the face of evidence 152.37.116.171 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Pre-2010, pollsters didn't tend to report SNP/Plaid voting intention separately, so they were not mentioned in the table. Nowadays, pollsters do report them separately, so the data is reported.

::::::It's quite simple and not even remotely partisan. It is not biased to report that a pollster is finding Plaid Cymru on 1% of the national vote, in seventh place. Could you explain why you think it's biased to report facts like that? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is not true.

:::::::I have had a look just now at three 2010 polls to check this, all of which report PC and SNP. Only one of the join them together (YouGov).

:::::::All three also report on UKIP, BNP, and Green individually.

:::::::None of these five parties have a column. Kirky03 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Kirky03}} What I'm really confused about here is- why is anyone proposing removing this information from the article at all? It's not like the table is cluttered and difficult to read. Compare with Opinion polling for the next Israeli legislative election, in which the polling results for 14 parties are mentioned, including the obscure minority-interests party Balad which always polls around 1-2%. That table is much wider than this one, but there is no push to remove information from that table; it serves no purpose to do so.

:::::So I ask everyone who wants to hideinformation in this article- in what way would that benefit the reader in any way? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not remove but more to clear the table.

::::::The table may not be cluttered by other nations standards but we are not other nations. There are many reasons these might differ, one such reason is electoral system (Israel uses PR for example) and the argument is being well made (imo) that the UK standard has been to not include these parties.

::::::You also say the table is not cluttered but we have had useful, relevant information removed in the form of detail in the lead column with the justification given that it reduces the size of the table. Obscuring information in order to reduce the table by half a columns width is fine but doing so to reduce it by two columns is not? I understand it was not you who made that argument and am not accusing you personally of hypocrisy; the table might well be fine by your standards, but it clearly isn't by everyones.

::::::Ultimately the information isn’t that important and reducing the size of the table makes it easier to read, especially when you are scrolling down the table where you can no longer see the headers, and more accessible via the mobile version.

::::::There are benefits to moving the data into the others column (the data is still easily accessible for those who want it) and I personally think the benefits of including it - especially for PC - do not outweigh the benefits of removing the columns. Kirky03 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I actually first suggested the expanded lead format and support it, but given the numerous simultaneous lengthy discussions I can understand reverting to the previous stable status quo until more discussion happens. On the other hand, the decision to display information in a hidden column is quite unusual. A lot of people are making the claim that reporting this data in a more visible manner is somehow bias towards the minor parties- which is an argument I can't see as having basis to it. The last time I remember a serious discussion about removing Plaid Cymru from the table in these articles was several years ago, when a lot of pollsters either weren't reporting data for Plaid Cymru or were only reporting a combined SNP+Plaid figure- this is not the case now.

:::::::As for reducing the table size, more effective ways of doing that would be combining the pollster/client columns into one (with e.g. "Opinium/The Observer" rather than two separate columns- I believe it was done like that in the past), and reducing column widths from 50px to e.g. 40px. The usage of hidden text in the "Other" column actually increases the width of rows, making the table take up more vertical space.

:::::::Removing party data columns also removes data sortability- it's not possible to easily look down a table to see changes in a party's support over time if you have to manually open every poll by clicking on the "show" button. In the table layout as it is, I can easily click on the yellow bar below "SNP" to sort the table by SNP vote share, and find out that the only three times the SNP polled at 4% since the last general election were in the Deltapoll polls of October, November, and December. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::For the record, I am not on board with the political activism argument. Kirky03 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Also, I have at least made a case for it. You may no agree but I have added a justification for my stance.

::::::::And you can very easily go back and see that in the pre 2010 era you keep saying many pollsters didn't report separately, that a lot did. And if our standard is that high, plaid should not be included.

::::::::In fact, they weren't included in the last article. Do you believe anything has materially changed since the last article was published that justifies adding a PC column?

::::::::If not, can we at least settle on "SNP are asked for every time and are included, Plaid are not and so are in the other column"

::::::::That seems unbelievably reasonable and backed up by heaps of precedence. Kirky03 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I went and looked at the last 10 polls before the 2010 GE (or at least the ones with data tables) many did not report small parties in their analysis and required a dive into Data Tables to see full information. It is very much a mixed bag with 6 of 10 reporting (in data tables) SNP and 4 not, PC it was 5 of 10.In the article only Angus Reid seems to be recorded regularly in the Other [hide] function. It occurs that article editors at the time were only beginning to come to terms with the idea of more than 3 parties and in 2011 added UKIP and Green. Over the years there have been several occasions where parties have been added or removed, I would suggest this is indicative of editors amending their positions as polling changed to capture data from more parties on a regular basis. The question then, to my mind, is today, what would be a sensible, coherent and sustainable method to display which parties. The notion of tables width being a factor does not bear examination as we have had previous examples of 9 parties.

:::::::::What would be best for the readers, what would they expect to see coming to the article? I would suggest they would hope to see a full recording of what the pollsters have been polling about, not a truncated partial view.

:::::::::I think if the pollsters prompt in more than 50% of polls then that party should be included in its own column. At present I can not find a single recent example where the pollsters have not prompted for SNP, with PC the response is close to 70% (in recent polls) Pugpa2 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::As mentioned, there are far more effective ways of reducing table width without the downsides of making some content more inconvenient to access.

:::::::::Looking into it, it seems like Plaid Cymru was removed from the last article in 2020 thanks to one particularly insistent editor despite the removal not having any widespread support- see Talk:Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3. I find it quite concerning how much people are pushing for hiding information, making it less accessible, for no discernible merit Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::100% agree, the argument to remove columns to save the table width appears to me to largely be a strawman argument. This article has in recent past had up to 9 party columns and functioned just fine. Pugpa2 (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::More misrepresentation of other people’s arguments. Table width isn’t unimportant but it isn’t close to being the top of anyone’s objections to the SNP and Plaid columns. Spin spin and more spin. Precedents matter and the table in its current form does not even attempt to respect them. 152.37.116.171 (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Honestly, I stand by what I've been saying, especially about PC and I wish there'd been room to meet in the middle on that one but honestly I'm not fussed enough about this to keep debating so I'm happy to accept the L on this one and say I'm gine with the columns staying. Kirky03 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That’s a shame, you’re promoting bad behaviour by giving in 152.37.116.141 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::At least Plaid should certainly be removed. Their support percentage is always either 0% or 1% which doesn't give any valuable information it's just looking at noise from the error in polling Wikiboi177 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit fully-protected|Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election|answered=yes}}

This is a very interesting page, but it has not been updated with new data for a week now.

https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3lk65ibfizk23 89.242.133.9 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is not a specific request to change something x to y. Further, the reason that the article was protected remains. While there is an ongoing discussion above at the RfC about the best path forward, there is no consensus as yet. I consider it highly likely that edit warring is going to break out again the moment the protection is lifted. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::But what about editing uncontroversial parts such as putting the newest data of BPC polls as mentioned above? Billytanghh (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The article is fully protected until 03:22, 16 March 2025, about one day from now. There is no way to unprotect portions of the article. I see your requests above, but given that I lack the knowledge base for this subject I am reluctant to act on them. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

(Pings to anyone who has edited the article in the last two weeks: {{ping|Mikeblas}} {{ping|NewGuy2024}} {{ping|Halbared}} {{ping|Profzed}} {{ping|Davide Bolandrina}} {{ping|Nicholas13t}} {{ping|DimensionalFusion}} {{ping|Ekky1995}} {{ping|Kirky03}} {{ping|Chessrat}} {{ping|Billytanghh}} {{ping|Bear3424}} {{ping|Impru20}} {{ping|Macdaddy}} {{ping|ShotoKye}} {{ping|Pugpa2}} {{ping|Thatguythere223}} {{ping|User09213809374}} {{ping|BritishArmyPARAS}} {{ping|Benocalla2}} {{ping|CipherRephic}} {{ping|FriendlyDataNerdV2}} {{ping|ItsNotGoingToHappen}} {{ping|CoaxAndBotany}} {{ping|Eastwood Park and strabane}} {{ping|BlankSpace19892024!}} {{ping|Mwbaxter}})'

The full protection that was placed by me on this article is going to expire in about 24 hours. I want to be perfectly clear; if there is ANY resumption of the prior edit warring that happened on this article, the editors in question will be blocked swiftly and likely indefinitely from this article until such time as they can demonstrate their willingness to work towards WP:CONSENSUS. Anyone considering a reversion who has not already read Wikipedia:Edit warring needs to do so now, before considering such a reversion.

Further, it is blatantly obvious there is some serious sockpuppeting going on. Any attempt to skirt around warnings and sanctions on editors in regards to this article by utilizing such anti-policy tactics will be met with swift blocks and possibly requests for sockpuppet investigations.

All of you should consider this a final warning. Any breaches of edit warring or sockpuppeting policies will be met with blocks WITHOUT any additional warning. I hope I've been clear. If I haven't, then by all means ask. Resumption of the edit war is NOT the war forward. It ends now. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Which users are you accusing of sockpuppetry and what evidence are you using to support this? Kirky03 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:If there are any further issues I'd suggest considering WP:ECP protection given most of the edit warring was new users. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Entirely agree; any edits upon the article's unprotection should be limited to adding pending polls, with the most "controversial" ones (such as Freshwater) being left untouched in either way until a consensus is reached in the RfC above. The sockpuppet suspicions are concerning and should be dealt with immediately whenever those happen again; I agree with {{u|Chessrat}}, though, in that WP:ECP protection could be a way to prevent this, as most of the accounts engaged in the edit warring were either new and/or IP editors. Impru20^talk 09:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::What about dealing with the SNP and Plaid issue. Those columns are quite recent and controversial additions shortly before the freeze. Leaving it as it is does not seem reasonable, especially the sneaky way that it was done. 92.20.135.189 (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If that is going to potentially result in any edit war, then it is better to sort it out in this talk page first, then proceed with whatever change is consensuated. "Any breaches" means "any breaches". Impru20^talk 10:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Agree, we need to be careful not to kick the whole thing off again, there has been a breathing space and consensus reached on BPC, let that settle in while we look at each other issue in a sensible constructive basis through the talk pages, rushing in and being BOLD may only reignite the whole situation.

::::Perhaps the next task might be to have editors share what the issue share for them and sort those into an action plan. Pugpa2 (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed on adding ECP - will lodge an RfPP if such activity continues CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 11:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:No need to worry, I now understand the policy on BPC pollsters and the rationale behind it. There will be no edit warring from me. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:There is consensus on BPC polling, I would suggest we use the RfC method to resolve each and any edits. Lets take it a step at a time otherwise I am concerned we very quickly lapse into the chaotic behaviour that led to article being frozen, to the detriment of the article.

:Lets try out the new consensus on BPC, let it settle in while we agree other issues to address through RfC, its slow but it has got presented us with the chance to collectively sort out the article.

:May I suggest a new topic, next issues for resolution Pugpa2 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::While it is true that a clear consensus seems to be emerging, please note that the RfC has not ended. Note on WP:RFCEND to see when and how a RfC ends; no edit involving contentious material should be done before it is formally closed, or else we may risk re-igniting the edit war. Impru20^talk 12:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I resent your implication that I'm editing with a sock puppet account or that I'm engaging in edit warring, and insist that you clarify or retract your statement per WP:CIVIL. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::If you read the ping notice, I pinged everyone who edited the article in the last two weeks (and then some). I didn't ping only the people who edit warred. I made no accusation about you nor anyone else in the list. If I have to hand out blocks for violating the edit warring policy and/or the sockpuppeting policy, then I will be making accusations. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is the "Most Recent Poll" section so out-of-date ???? 195.180.61.252 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Page is locked right now for reasons detailed to extent above that boils down to edit warring. Won't be for long and people have been keeping track of polls so will be only a temporary issue. Kirky03 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hard not to cynical but all this has come about since Reform over took Labour to top most opinion polls. I’m also suspicious of SNP being given their own column the day after the consensus was established.

:I’m sorry but it is hard to assume good faith anymore. You have people saying things like “if pollsters prompt a party they get a column” - that argument completely falls apart when you look at the last 30 years or so of data - Plaid have always been prompted and always been “other”. For consistency you’d have to retrospectively add columns and unpick the data for all the previous articles. Any volunteers? If no, then I suggest you park that argument and stop trying to apply it when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn’t.

152.37.116.171 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:No.

:I mean there's fairly obvious reasons why the freeze happened and what exactly is a one week freeze in the middle of a random March going to achieve for anyones political gains? Kirky03 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::I don’t know how other people’s brains work but I can see some twisted logic on this page - manipulated even. There’s clearly been something weird happening on this page. Clearly some bad behaviour by other editors (not yourself). I don’t understand why they’re aloud to win? Their logic is so easily unpicked but they seem to win. I no longer see this page as part of a credible encyclopaedia and nor will many others. The long term damage the political activists above are having is serious. No doubt they will try and have me blocked next - they’ll only be proving me right about them. 152.37.116.171 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with you about the columns and that this article has fallen into a bit of disorder recently but I personally feel the freeze at the very least is fine.

:::Obviously everyone has their political biases and that cannot be helped but at least the freeze seems to have given us time to talk and work things out.

:::Once the RFC is closed, we can hopefully move onto sorting out the column situation if people feel like raising that again which they seem to be. Kirky03 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:The freeze was implemented by an admin with no connections to or history with this page, and solely because there was an ongoing edit war. So no. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Interesting, and why is it that it was left with the SNP and Plaid columns? The dubious nature of these additions appears to be one of the causes of the edit war. I mean this seems to be a massively one-sided application of the rules. How can anyone have any confidence in there being any neutrality? 152.37.116.171 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive top|result=Personal attack on an editor, not related to improving the article, clearly no productive discussion to be had here Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Anyone else suspicious about this editor? Seems to be a phantom. They focus solely on this page and Draft:Polling in Scotland page they created that didn’t make the cut. Look at their edit history and how much they edit that draft page so frequently. It’s clearly an issue close to their heart and it’s clearly clouding their judgement on this page. I suspect this is a secondary account for someone else - something is not right about it. I have a suspect in mind and that might also be clear to others. How do we address this? 152.37.116.171 (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

How is the above section about a certain editor a personal attack? Where Can I raise an issue about this editor and their behaviour? It seems clear there’s something not right here - came bearing evidence! 152.37.116.171 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Mate, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the SNP column situation but you're getting distracted going down this path and it's going to end up with us losing the battle on the columns.

:It is clear this is a situation close to Pugbas heart but is also clearly close to your heart. At the end of the day, if having a strong political opinion makes you unable to contribute, half the editors might as well leave because I doubt you care enough about opinion polling to edit a page like this if you aren't politically minded. Kirky03 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:If there is behavior by them that you believe violates the rules, raise that issue. There is no rule against only editing 2 pages. meamemg (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Just for clarification, I have edited content on several articles, granted all on a topic I am particularly interested in. Pugpa2 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::What other accounts do you have though 👀 152.37.116.141 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::None, how about you? Pugpa2 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am not convinced! And I don’t have any accounts, just 1 IP address! I know how you hate those, you prefer your multiple accounts 152.37.116.141 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a poll from Lord Ashcroft https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2025/03/runcorn-by-election-reform-uk-in-pole-position/ on the Runcorn by-election. This would usually be added under constituency polling, but I'm not sure which figures would be added, or whether doing so right now would be a good idea when Lord Ashcroft's inclusion in general is in dispute. I'll leave it here instead. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Go to 2025 Runcorn and Helsby by-election, do not pass go, do not collect £200. It's not a general election poll, it's a by-election poll. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 14:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::The poll is already up at 2025 Runcorn and Helsby by-election. We have sometimes included by-election polling on this page in the past, but I am sympathetic to {{u|CipherRephic}}'s point. It's not polling for the next general election. Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Once the constituency polling article is created it should go into that but not on this page. Good question to ask though as it’s on record now. I agree but it should go with other constituency polling (when it exists) 152.37.92.153 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Last time we included everything on this page, splitting off leadership approval and then all sub-national polling when the article got too large. I'll add Lord Ashcroft (using weighting by likelihood to vote) here as including non-BPC seems to be consensus above. If consensus is reached to remove non-BPC that section will have to be removed. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Fortuna imperatrix mundi}} Seriously, this ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1280996075&oldid=1280980600] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1281017796&oldid=1280997409]) would warrant some serious explanation. Firstly, plainly removing over 150K of content two times can be considered as disruptive. Secondly, WP:NOTSTATS relates to "excessive listings of UNEXPLAINED statistics"; it clearly allows for explained stats and encourages to split them into separate articles when they are too long. Thirdly: NOTSTATS uses opinion polling articles as examples allowed under the policy. Fourth: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL_ke&diff=1281018750&oldid=1264917998 this] comment on {{u|L ke}}'s talk page is absurd and also a blatant violation of WP:BRD: the article existed way before you blanked its content. The onus is on you to seek a consensus for your edit, especially when it has been reverted. And finally: you should take note of this warning and the {{tq|"any breaches of edit warring (...) policies will be met with blocks WITHOUT any additional warning"}} part. You have edit warred to have the whole article erased without even caring to come here to discuss it (or even look at that particular talk page discussion). Do you seriously think that something like that would not be contested? Really? Impru20^talk 20:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:You're joking, not another one Kirky03 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed, that is ridiculous.

:::It does however highlight how one sided the enforcement is on here.

:::Those added columns should’ve removed. The fact they haven’t been shows how the page has been hijacked

::152.37.116.141 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've addressed this here with the editor in question. I've given then a final warning regarding this behavior. Hopefully that's the end of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so how this issue came about at best looks dodgy and things can’t be left as they are without it being addressed.

:1. I think we need to bring back the archived arguments and ensure they’re reflected.

:2. We also need to address how the change came about and the conduct of editors that brought this about - things they did they should have done differently and things they should have done that they did not.

:3.I do not see how brushing this under the carpet is sustainable. The distain some editors have shown others (especially towards IPs) is unacceptable. We need to foster a more respectful culture on this page - in both conduct and manner. 152.37.92.153 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes- I don't feel like starting up another RfC myself but I'd invite another editor to do so.

:As a rough guideline which works for both now and the future, I'd suggest including a separate column in situations where at least 25% of polls report a party's results separate to the rest. In my view the Plaid Cymru column needs restoring in the Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election article, but more discussion is needed for consensus. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'd agree with this idea. At the moment the UK are very much outliers in terms of including any party routinely reported under "Other". Australia, Poland, Germany, Israel, Norway, Canada, and France were the first to come up in a search, and they all show many parties (especially Israel, Norway, and France), with no routinely polled for parties/candidates hidden under a [show] box (in fact many of the parties shown are prompted for far less than 25% of the time) Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree we should be looking for comment on this issue. I take the view that if Pollsters prompt on a regular basis (say 50% of occasions) then that data should be clearly and easily viewable to readers by that party having its own column. Lets garner current opinion an don't rake over coals of previous consensus or discussion. We are where we are lets move forward from there. Pugpa2 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Might be a good idea to locate an RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom if we want to consider also getting rid of the common practice of the obscured "Hide" boxes in every row in the previous polling articles too, meaning it doesn't only affect this article specifically. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I feel this RfC request is getting somewhat hijacked. Please can this be at the issue at hand. There is an appearance that some very clever people that are trying to steer this to serve their own interests. I think it’s far more important to address the core issue and how and why this issue came about. I think the arguments made in the original discussion (since archived) should carry far more weight than any new spin. Please can we concentrate on the issue at hand? 152.37.92.168 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Your comment on SNP PC RfC Planning does appear to be responded to by editors who seem not to share your view that this is a big issue and seem relaxed with the idea that we capture what pollsters prompt for, the only issue seems to be establishing a rule of thumb as to what regular prompting is.

::::There may have been a different consensus previously but that is not binding if a new one has now been reached. At the very least I would suggest this is not the pressing issue that you feel it is. Pugpa2 (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think a RfC may be necessary to put the issue to bed- as mentioned above, it is highly unusual to hide widely-polled parties within a hidden "Other" column and there's been an ongoing issue of discussions leading to a few editors coming to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to go against standard practice and hide widely-polled parties in the other column. This happened with the hiding of Plaid Cymru after a 2020 discussion and SNP after a 2024 discussion. An RfC would stop the same sort of thing from happening again in the future.

:::::In many previous articles the data is actually lost- e.g. for Opinion polling for the 2010 United Kingdom general election, most pollsters also polled UKIP, BNP, Green, SNP, and Plaid, but a lot of the data in question is not shown in the article currently. Similarly, in my view SNP and Plaid should be added to Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election, and Plaid to Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election and Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election. But getting consensus for it would probably require an RfC Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

: As an aside as a reader and especially a reader of the historic polling articles, I don't really care if you exclude columns for parties for upcoming elections on the grounds that you don't want to predict which ones might be significant later / you don't want to downplay the Yorkshire Party's votes by averaging out their polling over all the other constituencies / whatever ... but the collapsible Other column (as I said when it was implemented on the 2024 articles) is a usability nightmare. It looks horrible with Javascript disabled, it doesn't copy into Excel or similar at all well, etc. If you do decide in the RFC to only show polling totals for some parties and not others, can you please also find a better way of putting that into the table, and/or at least consider putting them all back in to a normal tabular format after the election has happened and no-one cares any more about "what if our display of the Labour party in the main table makes people take them more seriously and therefore affects the vote itself?". Thanks 2A02:C7C:DA05:1A00:692:26FF:FE59:D09B (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this topic is the most pressing facing this article.

This article is about Polling for next GE yet the actual table with the data is only the third item in the article

This section repeats data available in main table

It gives prominence to data that may be several months old

It insults readers by not only highlighting lead by shading party cell, but then highlights again but includes second placed party in Lead column.

Do we honestly think that readers are incapable of scanning a single line to see for them selves what the details are for that poll.

I would like to hear what other editors think of the idea of Removing this section entirely by indicating Agree or Disagree

• Agree Section should be removed, it adds little if anything to article, gives prominence to data that might be many months old, readers do not require to be spoon fed in this manner and adds additional scrolling to get to main table Pugpa2 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Agree to removing section. It adds nothing to the article and wastes space. If a reader wants to see how things are going, they can have a look through the main table, focusing on more recent polls. On a side note, it cites Mark Pack as the source, but in reality, the section is updated as new polls are added to the main table, so he is, in fact, not the source. —Profzed! 13:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Agree in removing this redundant section. It is an unnecessary duplication of data, which adds nothing to the article, and is particularly counter-intuitive in an article which is quite fluid and with new polls published every few days and updated in the main table. Impru20^talk 14:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Agree should be removed, needless duplication and filtering allows user to sort by company if needed - also applies most recent poll is most valuable and ignores any longer term trends that won’t be captured in this simplistic table NewGuy2024 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree Section treats a pollster who has done only one poll months ago on the same level as regular and more recent pollsters DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Honestly this is getting ridiculous now.

:There has already been a discussion on this, starting on the 8th of January and has comments running as late as the 16th of February. There were lots of arguments made about removing it, but ultimately consensus was reached to keep it. At least you have come on here to discuss it rather than remove it though which seems to have become the norm.

:On the 23rd of August, a discussion was started about merging the SNP column into the others column. This discussion ran until the 15th of November at which point consensus was seemingly reached that the SNP should only be included in their own column in Scottish-only polls. This discussion was eventually archived and shortly after, DimensionalFusion opened a new discussion to undo that decision and then re-added the column on the exact same day despite there being a previously found consensus to the contrary. Upon my attempts to revert to the previous consensus while discussions are ongoing (which I think is a perfectly natural situation to be in - previous consensus should hold until changed), my edits were reverted by Chessrat because "discussion is still ongoing".

:On the 27th of February, a discussion was started about changes made to the lead column. This discussion ran until the 4th of March where a compromise was seemingly reached to remove some of the added text but to keep some along for accessibility reasons. This did not last long however, as the very next day, this decision was completely overridden by Impru20, someone who made absolutely zero effort to engage in the discussion before making this edit and who cited their reason in the edit notes as "What's even the purpose of this?". One man's decision, taking into account no one elses. And since this was right in the middle of the BPC drama, no one hardly noticed this because they were too busy frying bigger fish.

:Speaking of the BPC drama, there had been a previous discussion about that very topic running from the 7th of January to the 9th of January...

:Frankly, it is brave of you to even bother starting this discussion now because surely in a months time, someone else will start a new discussion to override whatever decision is made here. It is understandable that views and consensus change over time and it is important to keep a hold of that but it has been less than nine months since the election and I've just sat down and found four examples of changed consensuses in about 10 minutes.

:This has to stop. Can people just accept when they haven't got their way or else this article will never stop being a mess of bickering and edit wars (because frankly can you blame people for trying to revert an article to a consensus made 3 months ago). Kirky03 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Notifying those involved last time: @FriendlyDataNerdV2, @Gordonlty, @Benocalla2, @Clyde1998, @CipherRephic, @Dr Arsenal, @WestminsterWhistleblower Kirky03 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I am curious as the previous discussion early in January had 12 editors contribute, yet you have only pinged in 7. You demonstrate one of the issues with this talk page, an inability to stay on topic, with long inputs that drag in unrelated matters, please try to be succinct and on topic. It helps everyone to follow discussion and discourages flying off at tangents. Pugpa2 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I pinged as many as I could, had some issues with the IP addresses so I went and replied to the ones who were I didn't ping and I'm hoping they get a notification informing them of that which you can check and verify yourself.

::::Also, I don't believe anything I just said was unrelated, it is clearly necessary to remind people of this. Kirky03 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Disagree - made these points already last time this discussion was had (I look forward to opening this discussion up again next month if I don't get my way) but it is a useful way of quickly capturing a snapshot of things. Different pollsters have different sampling methods which lead to biases and stuff such as the graph are biased by the pollsters that publish more regularly. This is a useful tool for seeing the image as a whole. Additionally, when it comes to after the election (obviously a long time away but forward thinking is not a crime), this section can then become a snapshot of "final call" polls.

:It doesn't take up much space, it's one small table and clearly enough people get something out of it considering it was agreed to be kept last time it was discussed, albeit under a slightly rebranded model. Kirky03 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Just end this already which i suppose corresponds to disagree. Put the stick down and walk away. I'm half of the mind to drag this to ANI in the vain hope that it'll get people to find better uses of their time. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 20:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Comment, just to respond to {{u|Kirky03}}'s baseless accusation on myself: I was not aware of the (short) January discussion so it's very difficult that I could have taken part in it, but from it one can clearly see that it is far from a consensus being reached, with several users having voiced their opposition to it. Kyrky03, just for you to understand this because it seems (from this and other discussions) that you are unable to grasp it: some people agreeing with you doesn't automatically mean that there is a consensus, and much less that you can unilaterally proclaim it. In this thread we are seeing people that did not participate in the January discussion disagreeing with you, which self-evidences such a lack of consensus.

:Also, the fact that here you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1281511150&oldid=1281510342 pinged] only those users participating in that discussion that agreed and/or were sympathetic with your arguments must be one of the most blatant breaches of WP:CANVASS I've seen. Did you have trouble pinging {{u|Macdaddy}} as well, despite them being one of the most active participants in that discussion? What a coincidence. Impru20^talk 08:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Comment, just to respond to your baseless accusation: You can easily find an example of someone I pinged who disagreed with me (FriendlyDataNerd) and an example of an IP address I didn't ping because I had troubles there. As for Macdaddy, I attempted to ping them under their display name which I personally don't thing is beyond the realm of human error. It doesn't matter though because I went through and replied to them in the hopes it would notify them (I'm not sure if that works with IP addresses but I thought I'd try). It's obviously rubbish what you're saying, and I'll take my apology to go please. Kirky03 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking at this reply from you, maybe I should remind that you are expected to not contribute to an uncivil discussion environment. Then, as a point of fact, you have not even answered to my main concern (which is you basically proclaiming consensus in an unilateral way and then now seemingly wishing to "forbid" other users from commenting on the topic). Impru20^talk 12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Comment@Kirky03 @Impru20 Please can we stay on topic, the outbreak of these 'brushfires' can make it difficult for readers to follow as well as perhaps discouraging them from bothering to read. I understand when someone has a dig it is natural to want to respond however I suspect doing so only encourages more. WP:naughtystep (I made that one up) Pugpa2 (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The aspect related to many users not being noted on the January discussion (and thus not having had the opportunity to participate in there before someone decided there was some sort of "consensus") is pretty much on topic (and a core reason for some editors who did intervene considering that it should not be re-opened; well, consensus-building does not work like that). So far, five editors who did not intervene in that discussion have voiced an opinion on the issue. On the other aspect, just commenting that if someone does not want me to reply to an accusation, then please do not make that accusation in the first place. Impru20^talk 13:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::My method for easily judging the outcome of discussions was to see the way the discussions came to an end and the state that the page was left following the end of the discussion (I.e. when it stopped bring active).

::::Furthermore, I am not attempting to forbid conversation but I think you would agree that constantly bringing up old topics every few months if they don't go our way is poor practice and unproductive. If you don't believe that, I will happily drag up the BPC debate again next month but I think it's probably better to let sleeping dogs lie.

::::Finally, I'd like to remind you about wikipedias guidelines on assuming good faith, which you clearly didn't do when you accused me in a very uncivil matter of the most blatant breaches of canvass guidelines you've seen without any room for ambiguity on your assumption of bad faith. It is not the first time you've done this to someone on this article. Considering I have provided what I believe to be ample evidence that I did not do such a thing, I'd appreciate an apology or at the very least you to admit you were wrong and then we can hopefully move on and be more productive. Kirky03 (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Having spent about an hour ploughing through the edit history I am inclined to agree with @Impru20 that something is not right about how this section was implemented and has continued to be. It is a very recent section first appearing in article on 5th January, and reverted later the same day. So it is far from being an established part of the article. As I understand it in such a situation the default position is the article should be as it was until consensus is reached. I don't believe that happened Talk was opened on 7th January and within a few days section was reintroduced, that seems a remarkably short time for what has proven to be a contentious matter. Furthermore I would suggest that the continues questioning of its inclusion is in fact evidence that consensus has not been reached. It feels that as more editors have gotten involved there have been more voices raised against it. Perhaps I was being naïve in hoping that a talk topic would allow us to move forward however it may well be we need to formalise this in an RfC if only to allow us to ping in all editors of this article and beyond. Pugpa2 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I can easily believe you when you say the introduction of the section was done incorrectly, it has been a recurring problem on this article. That said, just because it's origin was done poorly, that does not devalue the quality of that previous discussion. Kirky03 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::For clarity so no one is confused, I am referring here to the edits on the main page. I believe the discussion itself was perfectly above board and the issue was that the edit was made before the discussion had finished rather than afterwards. That one edit timing aside, the discussion was valid in my mind. Kirky03 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The fact is: this discussion was not re-opened by any of the editors who intervened in the previous one, but by users who did not intervene and, thus, did not have a say. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not a case of users not dropping the stick because they did not "win" the argument, but rather, users who just want to have a say because they were not noted on that discussion (also on the way on how "consensus" was determined(?) last time, as this was not even done properly: it is just you proclaiming it ever since despite there being many conflicting positions).

:::::On good faith: you made a direct accusation to myself (explicitly mentioning my name) to which I replied. On pinging, I have not been the only one noting you how "coincidental" it was that you basically pinged those users that agreed with you and that all of the issues and pinging problems came with editors who had not backed your position in the January discussion. WG:AGF does not mean that we should be naive: that is an important breach of CANVASS (and I do not care whether it was willing or accidental) that you should have solved. And no, just replying back to comments from those users in the January discussion is not enough; either ping them here or, if you cannot for some unknown problem, note them on their talk pages (you did not do this). I am not even going to ask you for an apology (as you seemingly do), just that you treat us as adult people. Impru20^talk 14:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::"all of the issues and pinging problems came with editors who had not backed your position in the January discussion" blatantly not true, as I mentioned.

::::::Also, I will apologise for my accusation of you. I can believe that you did not realise there was an ongoing discussion about the topic when you made the edit and I'm sure not checking the edit page was an honest mistake. I did not realise that describing explicitly an edit you made, supplying the date of that edit and quoting verbatim your edit summary would prove to be as controversial with you as it has been and for that, I am sorry. Kirky03 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1281629610&oldid=1281628963 This is the key of all]. If you yourself acknowledge than {{tq|"the introduction of the section was done incorrectly"}} and that {{tq|"it's origin was done poorly"}}, why did you even question that other users started this thread to complain about it and brought [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1281509775&oldid=1281501796 a wall of text] mixing a lot of topics and throwing random accusations to others? We have lost a lot of time and effort to address the actual topic at hand because of that unnecessary comment in which you feel like it was nice to attack others for no reason, so I just kindly ask you to stay on topic by now, please. Impru20^talk 14:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::this message is a reply to the wrong message Kirky03 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It is not (that is why I linked the diff of your reply to Pugpa2, though I understand you may have missed it in the same way than you seem unable to reply anything constructive or productive). Also, on your reply to that: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&diff=1281632990&oldid=1281632492 you considering the discussion being "valid in your mind"] does not equal to automatic consensus (oh, surprise) nor prevents uninvolved editors in that discussion voicing their disagreement with that. Have a nice day. Impru20^talk 15:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Sorry, I assumed you'd replied there by accident. That was me trying to assume good faith because otherwise it seemed like you were placing a response to a comment in a place where it could easily be taken out of context and where you could also give the appearance of replying to me without actually replying to the content of the message. But idk, maybe you were just unable to reply anything constructive or productive.

::::::::::I'll still assume good faith however and give you yet another chance to reply to what I'd actually said.

::::::::::"all of the issues and pinging problems came with editors who had not backed your position in the January discussion" is blatantly not true, as I mentioned.

::::::::::Would you like to admit you were wrong now please? Kirky03 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Seriously pal, drop the stick already. Impru20^talk 15:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::A false accusation was made in bad faith and even after you were informed the evidence you were using was incorrect, you continued to use it and I would appreciate you retract your accusation. I admitted that I can believe your justification for what I accused you of an apologised and have given you multiple opportunities to do the same.

::::::::::::We all make mistakes, there's no shame in admitting you made one. Kirky03 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I like the inclusion of each last poll by each individual pollster. I do think there is an argument to not have it before the main table. Maybe after the main table? I do wish to see the latest intel first, but each last prominent watermark is also relevant.Halbared (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I think its an abomination but could live with it placed after the Main Table Pugpa2 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Proposala suggestion rom @Halbared That we move Aggregate section to after main table has been made, I could live with that how about others? Pugpa2 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::I could live with that. Kirky03 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Right I think I am going to be BOLD and move the section, those interested in it are only a click away from it and it gets whole article presenting its prime purpose properly Pugpa2 (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::A step in the right direction, but ultimately, I still think it should be removed. —Profzed! 19:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I concur (both with it being a step in the right direction and the thinking that it should be removed). In the end, it is a table which serves no practical purpose, and the fact that it can be moved freely throughout the article does indeed show that its presence is quite inconsequential. Impru20^talk 20:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Disagree.. It is a helpful section, but maybe remove polls that are more than 2-3 months old? 2A00:23C8:8898:EB01:8908:18F:D6BA:6E35 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Agree Seems unnecessary duplication, people can just get the info from the main table. This article will get long enought without duplication. Rolluik (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the pollster FindOutNow's polling should not be included in the polling results, as it is rated D in the pollster ratings by UK Election Data Vault, the company that rates pollsters accuracy, and its polling results are heavily skewed to Reform, out of line with other pollsters, even when Reform were leading consistently, so it is politically biased and not a trusted pollster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.39.15 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:yoo look, it's what happens when there isn't a clear guideline; people can use the grey area to justify their politically motivated desires.

:Yes, FindOutNow has in the past been inaccurate and that indicates they may be inaccurate now but they do use statistically sound methods and release tables, so aren't untrustworthy. All pollsters are flawed and you can quie easily notice which ones favour certain parties but when joined together - e.g. like this article - you can get an idea of the overall trend.

:It's a feature, not a bug. Kirky03 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::While I have doubts myself about Goodwin's polling, I don't see any reason to take UK Election Data Vault as the final word on this. They are BPC registered and quoted by reliable sources, so I think that is reason enough to include them for now. Bondegezou (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::PeoplePolling is Goodwin's outfit, not FoN CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 15:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Agree with all the above but reluctantly! At time of writing all 15 2025 polls from FON have Reform UK either in the lead or tied for first (13 lead, 2 ties), as compared with 12 out of 48 polls from other pollsters (5 lead, 7 ties). It's complicated, though; FON also account for the great majority of polls that put the Greens in double figures (8 of the 10 10% polls, 3 of the 5 >10% - the other two being Lord Ashcroft and Whitestone, two less than regular pollsters). They're an outlier - and their polls produce a lot of silly headlines and noise on social media - but if they meet the criteria the editors have agreed, they need to stay. 95.172.230.133 (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That's really interesting, thanks.

:::I agree that it has to be captured. Generally there are so many polls on this site that it perhaps balances out over time, however it does emphasis that in trying to detect trends it is best to compare polls from the same company.

:::A couple of thoughts, should we perhaps have a table that shows number of polls per pollster over a period, and possibly some sort of graph comparing the (say) top 5 pollsters (numerically) trend lines. Giving readers quick access.

:::We could if it is possible look at having the 'switcher' function to allow several graphs/tables to be displayed at same time. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Article is not about judging accuracy of pollsters, but to record those who comply with standards of methodology, transparency. Reading article and graphs allows readers to make there own conclusions, which is how it should be. Pugpa2 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Agree. Outlier polls are sometimes correct. It would be WP:OR to exclude them. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Think it sets a dangerous prescient in regards removing polls we don’t like - they’re a member of BPC and are open on methodologies and data but yes their results do look out of whack from everyone else - doesn’t mean they are wrong…think we have to record them and they will be judged on results which I think no one company at the moments can be seen as the gold standard NewGuy2024 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Finding the engagement here needlessly aggressive and at times offensive and personal - can we try treat others with respect - we don’t have to agree all the time but just because we don’t, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re your sworn adversary! Let’s all just try treat and engage with others with respect NewGuy2024 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree. One or two of the regular editors on here have a problem they should seek help and treatment for - especially the Scottish one that hates IPs! 152.37.116.156 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Far is tainne an abhain ‘s ann is mò a fuaim Pugpa2 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's a bit of a harsh thing to say about someone relating to something that ended a month ago... Kirky03 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

In the section for subnational opinion polls, there are no links to the articles about the regions or constituencies polled. For constituency polls for the last election, a link to each constituency's page was added by briefly describing the changes to it in the 2023 boundary review in the body of each constituency's subsection, and I was wondering how that could be facilitated on this page, as making each constituency's subheading a link may violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Nicholas13t (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking for clarification on MRP polls. I am far from confident in my understanding so would welcome input from those with better understanding. My understanding is they use a different methodology and therefore I query if they should be listed along with the more numerous polling method.

The last poll added 30-31st Mar by YouGov is stated by YouGov to be an MRP poll so my queries are

1 Should they be included in main article table, if so should we not be indicating to reader that they are MRP polls

2 Should they be confined to there own already existing table. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

: The methodology is different enough that they should be distinguished somehow, certainly, for reader convenience (and if you decide to keep the "most recent polling by pollster" I'd argue that'd maybe be better as "most recent polling by methodology" and distinguishing there, too). For conventional polling the company name in the table provides an indication that e.g. the YouGov poll and the Opinium poll are using different methodologies; having some indication that the YouGov MRPs are from a different data series is probably worthwhile. There was a time a while back when Survation ran alternating phone and online polls and was clear that they shouldn't be directly compared either - unfortunately, while the 2017 polling article notes that Survation's polls were a mix of phone and online ones, it unfortunately doesn't clarify which were which. An entire methodology column would probably be overdoing it (since most pollsters run single-methodology at any time) so some other way to indicate it (footnote on the pollster name, perhaps?) might be better.

: The MRP table lower down seems to be where people are using the results of the MRP to make direct seat projections, so that's a separate thing to any headline national voting figures obtained from the poll; an MRP might show up in both tables (or, for that matter, someone might make a seat projection from a non-MRP poll by some means). Or, an MRP seat projection might be released without releasing a headline vote figure. 2A02:C7C:DA05:1A00:692:26FF:FE59:D09B (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Historically we've just put "(MRP)" after the pollster's name. Probably support this continuing to be in the main article table. Not sure how to work with the most recent polling by pollster though. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think some of the other YouGov polls are also MRP, so someone might want to have a look through all their polls and label them as MRP. —Profzed! 15:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::OKay, I am now getting confused (admittedly not always something that is hard to do)

::I had added MRP to latest YouGov poll as Yougov call it MRP and specifically say in tables that "[Headline voting intention projected by YouGov MRP model] However my change was reverted by @FriendlyDataNerdV2 stating in change summary "YouGov's latest poll is not an "MRP", they use their MRP methodology to arrive at their headline voting figures. All their poll use this method, this one is no different"

::So when is an MRP poll actually an MRP poll and when is it not. Pugpa2 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::YouGov's new polls use their MRP methodology to estimate headline voting intention. It is not an "MRP" because it does not produce seat estimates by constituency, which is what an MRP is conventionally understood to mean. YouGov does not release any other kind of poll at the moment, they all state "[Headline voting intention projected by YouGov MRP model]" FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Looking at the Data Tables I notice they have 'weighting per party by region' I assume that would be part of using this data for MRPs. It leaves me thinking they may use this data for that purpose retrospectively, if they did would it then be an MRP and would we retrospectively have to mark as such or remove from main table? Pugpa2 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Weighting by region isn't unique to MRP. It is possible they are using MRP techniques to break down voting by categories but I find it hard to say the headline figure is MRP.

:::::Typically the MRP process is what produces the seat projections rather than the headline figure. Kirky03 (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with this sentiment Kirky03 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:I believe all of (at the very least a lot of) the YouGov polls since the election have been labelled MRP.

:MRP is a slightly different technique than most pollsters use day-to-day but not that different that it is shocking. All pollsters will use slightly different methods.

:In general, where the distinction should be sought, is when MRPs are used for seat projections. I genuinely don't know why YouGov are labelling their polls as MRP other than perhaps its a nice buzzword. Normally, they require a large sample size and work by breaking voting intention down by demographics which can then be mapped onto local areas to produce seat projections which isn't done here.

:I'd argue the (MRP) addition is necessary where the headline figure comes from a seat projection poll (to indicate it has come from a different methodology than mormal) but for standard headline voting intention, it should not be included because it could mislead people into thinking this is attached to a seat projection.

:Like i say, I think YouGov are mainly using MRP as a buzzword because their methodology presumably is similar to those with MRPs but I find it hard to justify that it is truly an MRP. Kirky03 (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would contest that it's a buzzword. YouGov does put their data through an MRP model to get their final figures. However, this is distinguished from an MRP which includes a seat projection and is large-scale. It is difficult to differentiate between these, but I would say a note for YouGov's methodology at the top, and then MRP labels for all but YouGov in the main table would be fine. Quinby (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Notice you added More in Common MRP poll however data states this is implied VI rather than VI. Not convinced it is the same thing as other polls even Yougov don't qualify their VI like this. Pugpa2 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Look if people want to add (MRP) to YouGov, whatever it's not a big deal, but REMOVING YouGov polls from the table because you don't understand how they calculate their figures would be a histrionic overreaction , so please do not do that, ok? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::It was certainly never my intent to remove MRP polls.

::From what several editors have said it does seem as if it is acceptable for them to be recorded in the main table, as in essence they produce VI figures are a legitimate source and fully publish their data tables.

::Thank you for all who responded. Pugpa2 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Has someone tried to remove them? Kirky03 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Pugpa said: "would we retrospectively have to mark as such or remove from main table?" So I felt the need to very firmly explain how patently absurd that would be. As I say, it would be a histrionic overreaction to something that isn't an issue at all. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::"remove from main table" I had suggested their own table. However as I said editors have expressed views to keep as long as they follow credible sources etc and produce VI. You really should try and follow the discussion, all parts of it, rather than taking a small quote out of context. Pugpa2 (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I understood exactly what you said, that's why I was saying it was a ridiculous overreaction. Removing a longtime pollster from the main table because you don't understand how they conduct their polls would be an absurd reaction. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Demonstrably you didn't, I asked for clarification got it and have accepted that. Pugpa2 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I propose we change the "Preferred prime minister" section so that "None" is highlighted and in bold when it is the highest value, like so:

Highlighting people as the preferred prime minister when they are receiving less than a quarter of preferences while "None" is receiving over double of any listed candidate is just ridiculous. Helper201 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Good idea Kirky03 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:That is not a sound idea as it appears to be based on the outcome of a single poll. The articles job is to present the data as produced by the pollsters, it really is that simple.

:This is only the third poll in this hypothetical, lets just record the data and allow readers to decide to interpret and apply the weight they think it deserves. Pugpa2 (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{U|Pugpa2}} We have plenty where no candidate has a third or more of the vote and plenty more again where "None" beats every candidate. It appears from a scan of results we are coming up to half of listed polls where "None" beats all the listed candidates.

::The problem is, by highlighting and placing in bold the percentage scores it's not "allow[ing] readers to decide to interpret and apply the weight they think it deserves", it is doing it for them. Especially when its highlighting options that weren’t the highest chosen option. Helper201 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Every poll after 17 December 2024 listed on the page where a "None" option was given it beats every listed candidate; so this is about far more than one poll. Helper201 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Still a very poor idea, you can only vote for a person and the person with most votes wins, therefore you can only really highlight an entity as a possible winner. Follow your thinking would be to create a column for those not registered to vote or don't turn out and highlight that as a winner. Pugpa2 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::But you can choose "None" in the poll and that's what this is about. Also, in the UK you don't vote for a PM anyway, you vote for your local MP, so that argument holds no weight whatsoever. Your latter point is a strawman argument, as I never said that. We highlight the highest option listed, that's all. Helper201 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Alternative proposal - include both when none is highest?

May be a compromise suggestion. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{U|Eastwood Park and strabane}} that's better than the way it's currently done but I'd still 100% advocate for just highlighting the highest option (which in this case and many other listed polls is "None"). Helper201 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I like this solution Kirky03 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a page for council election polls, is that a thing?Halbared (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think there is a dedicated page but I believe there is a section within the local elections page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_Kingdom_local_elections#Opinion_polls Kirky03 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I notice the Bare URL Template has appeared again.

Think editors had previously agreed on links and have been implementing this consistently, I get the sense this is an automatic bot doing this.

My view is that I am content with the format of links we are currently using, it is consistent with long established practice. Reading up on this my understanding is that Editors can agree to remove the template if they believe it does not apply to the article.

Could editors indicate if they are in agreement with removing the template. Pugpa2 (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Freshwater Strategy is now applying to join BPC and applying their rules, so is it time to add them back? Billytanghh (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:there had been multiple detailed discussions on pollsters to include a few weeks ago, my recollection was that as long as pollster had disclosure of methodology and published data tables they should be included provided they match Wiki for reliable sources. It is really for an editor to provide those details on there inclusion Pugpa2 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:If they already follow the rules of the BPC, they are good enough for most editors of this article, and if they're in the process of joining then very soon they'll be good enough for everyone so I struggle to see why not. Kirky03 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, should also backdate inclusion of polls that were abruptly deleted by some editors. 152.37.116.156 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)