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

United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

@CipherRephic and Chessrat: In the deletion discussion you both stated there is now an opinion poll for the next United Kingdom general election. Can you please provide a link. Thanks --John B123 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the above, its now in the article.--John B123 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a report produced by MoreInCommon and the UCL Policy Lab titled "Change Pending The Path to the 2024 General Election and Beyond" https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/e3in12zd/change-pending.pdf Can someone with more experience of these topics decide whether this would be more appropriate here or in the 2024 election topic.LarryJayCee (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The voting in the 2024 election, as noted in the article, bore little relationship to the polling to the day before. That polling grossly exaggerated the Labour vote in the actual election. It is also the case that the latest poll after the election almost exactly mirrors the incorrect polling before the election. The indication in this article that Labour has improved since the election is utterly wrong: it the same as before the election.

I would suggest that a line giving polling average immediately prior to the election, as well as the result, would increase the understanding of readers to the strange anomalies which we see. RERTwiki (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the turnout on Polling day is the lowest since universal suffrage was introduced, which was not predicted, you cannot expect the pollsters who were assuming a rather higher turnout to get it right. YouGov's final MRP was pretty good, underestimating the Tories by 19 seats and overestimating Labour (not counting the Speaker) by the same number. It was evident to those who followed the polling closely that Labour's lead was falling rapidly in the last week before Polling day, but to see it you have to strip out the pollsters who had not been polling regularly before the election was called (and YouGov, who changed their methodology in the middle of the campaign). LarryJayCee (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the numerous pollsters, a few were bound to get close just by chance. By just keeping an eye on what was going on, I got closer to the result than most of them. If you throw enough darts at a board, some will hit the bullseye. Btljs (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both RERTwiki and Btljs have good points. The polling for the last election really was hit and miss. Mainly miss. Having said that, the general trends were about right, although some would argue that that is stretching the meaning of the word "general". I’ve added a 'See also' wikilink to the last article for easy reference (which for some reason was overlooked) so that people can easily refer to those polls. Oh, and LarryJayCee, predictions of turnout are part of the opinion poll predictions, aren’t they. Boscaswell talk 04:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting how Mr. Starmer has rapidly gone from a popular PM to an intensely hated PM, I wonder if this is because of polling flaws or some other reason.173.79.50.25 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FriendlyDataNerdV2 I notice you manually reverted my addition of shading for second place almost immediately after I added it. It hasn't been used in previous articles as largely speaking the second-place spot hasn't been in contention, but I think such information is useful to highlight because 1) the Leader of the Opposition spot is very important in British politics so the question of which party is likely to achieve that is certainly relevant, 2) in the runup to the 2024 general election there was a lot of media coverage when Reform came second in polls, so the question of who is in second place is clearly notable, and 3) the "Lead" column only displays a number and not which party the lead is over, but the question of who the lead is over is probably at least as important as the raw number.

There are alternative layout options (e.g. here's one) but I think the topic of making the second-placed party clear should be considered in general. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get your thinking on this but in my opinion it's unnecessary clutter. The lead is what's important and one can just look at the table to see the in-depth results. 82.14.16.140 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: pointless addition that would only add unnecessary clutter and take up a lot of wiki markup space (which is unconvenient as we know how large these opinion polling articles can get). Plus, this is not a two-round presidential election where second place actually determines the two top candidates. Impru20^talk 08:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but it's not a one-round presidential election either, and the lead in national vote and the lead in national seats can and have gone to different parties. So would it make sense to go the other way and remove the Lead column entirely, since it doesn't determine who wins and also duplicates other information already in the table? 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:8904:8F1C:1DAC:A4BC (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First party-lead is widely reported by reliable sources when publishing/commeting polls, so no, it shouldn't be removed. Impru20^talk 10:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's also true, but *also* widely reported by RS when publishing/commenting polls is the change in each value since the previous poll by the same polling company, and no-one is suggesting cluttering up the table by including all of that; as with the first party lead it can be calculated from other parts of the table if someone wants to know. I don't object to the lead being there but if the aim is to keep table size down it could go. 2A02:C7C:DAE1:FC00:80ED:9872:6070:74E4 (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting that because you can easily compare the change in values between polls by each pollster with the table format. The lead column is not the cause of the big size, but adding another one "with text" is definitely not going to help either. Impru20^talk 08:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the idea of this suggestion, iff its relevance is born out by more data. So for now, I don't think it adds any value. However, if we see second place flitting between 2 or even 3 parties over a number of weeks and months, then yes this would relevant. It would show the graphical point(s) of inflection within the data tables. This is something that has been done in other non-UK election articles. For now, let's not make the edit but let's keep an eye on the data and be open to revisiting, perhaps this idea in the New Year. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other editors above that this is unnecessary clutter. No other Wikipedia polling article does this. Bondegezou (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the outcome of the 2024 election, we should assess whether we are giving the correct level of weight to political parties. It would appear that this article now gives the SNP undue prominance. Let's recap:

1. The SNP were removed from "Others" and given their own column in the UK wide polling tables following their highly significant general election victory in 2015. Prior to that they were always included within "Others".

2. While the SNP have retained 9 MPs, they are no longer a UK-wide nationally significant party, whether that be in terms of seats, vote share or their status in Parliament. Not only did they They have lost their higher share of PMQ's and representation on select committees etc. The SNP did not even manage to get 750,000, UKIP and the Greens had to surpass 1 million votes each before they were no longer deemed "Others"

3. The SNP only contest the 57 Scottish seats and so we should assess how they compare to other seperatist parties. If you compare the populations of Scotland and Wales, the SNP have a per capita number of MPs similar to Plaid Cymru (who are included in 'others'). Indeed, the SNP only have 2 more seats than Sinn Fein and a similar share of the vote in their constituent countries (again, Sinn Fein are included within "Others").

It is clear that there are 5 nationwide GB parties: Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Reform and Green. Everyone else is "others". SNP remain nationally significant in Scotland (no doubt about that) but not in the UK as a whole. We need to change the table to reflect this and not give the SNP undue prominance. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this edit following Wikipedia:Be bold  Done WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can’t have been going by number of MPs as Reform had none and Green had one before the 2024 GE. I do think for parties that only stand in an individual nation, it is meaningless putting their share of GB or UK vote as a separate column. So I agree, just pedantically not for the reasons above. Btljs (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Makes sense. Gotta drawer a line somewhere and do it consistently. 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:30E1:6FE:69B2:76F4 (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the SNP are permanently removed from the GB/UK table (that is, removed until things change at a future General Election), I suggest they should also be removed from the GB/UK graph. --Wavehunter (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:21D3:EB04:2A46:F003 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I guess should the SNP have a resurgence they could always be added back, but for now they definitely don't meet the criteria. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SNP should be included in its own column. The party has more MPs than Reform and the Greens who are both included. It just stands out as an outlier being the only party with more MPs than both these parties to not be included. I don't think the point stands in regards to its polling level, given its was included in its own column for the opinion polling for the last UK general election when it was typically polling similar to its 2024 result and what its polling at now at between 2 to 4%. Helper201 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of seats is not the only grounds of inclusion. They are back to their pre-2015 status in terms of support in GEs - we have to be consistent. They no longer meet the clear criteria that secured them their own column. 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:DD69:8ED7:AF23:7214 (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong views on this, but I think there is space in the table for an SNP column and RS mostly report the SNP in their topline results. We should follow RS. Bondegezou (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we included SNP for this Parliament we would have to include Plaid and also make that retrospective. SNP have clearly gone back to their pre2015 levels of support/representation. I suggest we stick with the clear perspective established above. 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:D8E:8338:3688:77EA (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we included SNP, we would not have to include Plaid. We've long had polling articles with the SNP included without Plaid. The SNP are currently faring poorly in voting and polls, but we don't know whether that's temporary, whether they'll improve again, or whether they'll fall further. We can't just draw those sorts of conclusions: it's WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL! Their national polling is often reported by RS. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not true. It is only since 2015 (when the SNP had quite an astounding result) that Wiki has included a column for the SNP in General Election polling - to suggest otherwise is just incorrect. For 3 Parliaments (2015-2024) they were the 3rd largest party (more than 4 times more seats than the Lib Dems) in the House of Commons; unquestionably this made them a UK wide significant party, despite them only standing in 57 of the 650 seats.

The reality is that since the 2024 election, the SNP have been reduced back to similar levels of support (votes and seats per capita) as Plaid - the difference is very marginal. And there is no argument that says that election result renders the SNP a nationally significant party for the purposes of UK polling.

I agree that we really need to avoid violating WP:CRYSTALBALL and we therefore need to use the most recent election result as the marker of where things are (as Wiki always has done) e.g. it is on the basis of % of votes received in the previous election result that we order the parties in the table. I completely acknowlage the possibility that the SNP may have a resurgence before the next election but to simply leave their column in gives them undue prominance on the basis of something that has not yet happened - so the Crystallball argument works more against your point than for it.

You also state that "Their national polling is often reported by RS" - only 3 pollsters (BMG, We Think and Stonehaven) have published polls since the election. If you follow the links to the articles that show the headline voting intetions e.g. The i, there is no mention of the SNP. Similarly, if you go into the tables, you will see that Plaid and the SNP are included on the same basis of each other (as they are prompted for in Wales and Scotland respectively). I accept that we are working with very little data here but the data we do have does more to disprove your point than prove it. WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said We've long had polling articles with the SNP included without Plaid. You said That's just not true. It is only since 2015. Forgive me, but since 2015 is 9 years and I think 9 years does count as us long having something! Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not have stand alone opinion polling articles for UK GEs that go as far back as 1974? As in over 50 years? Not sure I agree with your definition of “long time” in this instance. Especially when you consider that 2 of the 3 parliaments covered are among the shortest on record! 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:AC8C:A89D:CDA8:1DC9 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not want to spend too long on this minor point, but I was talking about real time, not what history we cover. That Opinion polling for the 1974 United Kingdom general elections article has only existed for 3 years! Bondegezou (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument against including the SNP VI as a column in the main table is that due to standing only in Scotland, their VI for GB or UK as a whole will be in the low single figures which makes changes of +/- 1% fairly meaningless. I would argue for returning them to the "Others" column, but ensuring that when UK General Election polling in Scotland is reported this appears in a separate table, which will give a meaningful indication of SNP support there (and the same for Plaid Cymru in Wales and the parties in Northern Ireland). LarryJayCee (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This reflects the status quo. Good to see consensus broadening. 31.14.250.83 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add this new poll by More In Common to the article? https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-keir-starmer-lead-one-point-conservatives-new-poll-more-in-common/

It doesn't seem to have been added yet. JPowellOBrien (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by User:FriendlyDataNerdV2 in this edit. Liu1126 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello it's the person who keeps adding polls while logged out

There's a couple new leadership approval polls but I can't add them obviously:

https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/VI-2024-10-02-Observer-Tables-V3.xlsx Summary V006

https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/5o5l5kfr/october-approval-tracker.xlsx goodjobbadjob

https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/October-2024-omni-tables-for-the-i.xlsx tables 31-34

Thanks :) 129.234.0.181 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new Techne UK poll out today (15th). https://www.techneuk.com/tracker/ LarryJayCee (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership approval polling:
https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/VI-2024-10-02-Observer-Tables-V3.xlsx Summary V006
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/5o5l5kfr/october-approval-tracker.xlsx goodjobbadjob
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/October-2024-omni-tables-for-the-i.xlsx tables 31-34
General election vote polling is on the third link under table 3 too :)

I sent this yesterday but I think that other thing is closed/answered, so I'm reposting here. I'm the person who keeps editing while logged out. 129.234.0.181 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reform UK vote share is 19% not 18%. Please can this be amended.

https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1846627943323521261 2A00:23C5:709A:8C01:4184:8FD0:3B7:B8B1 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page includes the Jenrick commissioned polling with the hypotheticals of him/badenoch as leader. Whilst it should definitely be on the page I don't think it should be included as regular polling since it is a hypothetical poll. It should instead be moved to an 'other polling' section of this page. Benocalla2 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, I think this can be handled with a footnote^[a] indicating the disclaimer, as has been previously done in similar instances such as a constituency poll of Clacton back in January which asked voters how they would vote if Nigel Farage was Reform candidate vs. if it was someone else.

If it was asking people how they would vote under some completely different potential leader I would be more in favour of placing it in an 'other polling' section, but this poll in particular is asking how people would vote under the two final candidates in the Con leadership contest rather than some wild outlandish hypothesis. Even if it's agreed to place these polls somewhere else, I strongly oppose putting them under a whole new heading as polls like these are rare and there will likely be very few conducted between now and the next GE.

Another option I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to is placing the poll based on the eventual winning candidate in the regular section, while putting the one based on the runner-up somewhere else. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I don't think polls for scenarios that are prompted should be added as they are conducted differently to the other polls, so having them in a hypothetical section is best. CoaxAndBotany (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly look at this on my phone which uses dark mode therefore the background is black. The current black used to show the highest polling party in each poll makes it difficult to read. May I suggest the colour used is changed so it highlights the highest poll in a colour that stands out against dark mode background 81.40.180.180 (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouGov poll mentioned in this one (https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_241111_RBwujCj.pdf) at the Denyer/Ramsay section isn't included in the article Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Preferred PM polling sections, this makes sense as the second includes both Conservative Party leadership candidates. However should there be a distinction between them in the title? For example: Preferred Prime Minister polling Preferred Prime Minister polling (including Conservative Party leadership candidates) Jack.harris88 (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

have changed the latter to hypothetical PPM, to distinguish. CipherRephic (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new MRP poll that's recently been added seems to have a large error, the total number of seats if you add up all the parties exceed 650. Does anyone know why this is and how to fix it? N1TH Music (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just check and it appears the conservative figure is off, I'll fix that immediately. N1TH Music (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recently a non-BPC poll has been included amongst all the standard BPC polls…surely, for consistency and reliability only BPC polls should be included here? Otherwise the slippery slope will lead to Twitter and newspaper site polls being included too….

Happy to be corrected but I know when previously, non BPC polls, had been included eg for the 2019-2024 Parliament, these were swiftly removed - we shouldn’t let our standards drop now surely? NewGuy2024 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the practice of reliable sources. Freshwater Strategy isn't a BPC member but they are an experienced and respected pollster in Australia and their poll has been reported by a reliable newspaper, City AM. I don't think that's at all comparable to twitter polls? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point is it’s a slippery slope and we’ve never included non-BPC member polls before - not sure what Australia polling has to do with polling here? NewGuy2024 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition just because it’s been reported in a newspaper should carry any additional weight - which goes back to the point of the slippery slope of Newspaper click bait polls being included too if this is the argument….Simple just BPC only NewGuy2024 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any newspapers which are recognized as reliable sources attempt to pass off nonscientific clickbait polls as correct. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Non-BPC polling should either be in its own section or omitted completely. This page should be able to quickly and reliably show the opinion of the nation. Benocalla2 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that we only include polls from reliable sources and with proper methodologies BUT that doesn’t mean we only include polls from BPC members.

In previous articles polls from were included from firms that were not BPC members at the time of the poll - however they did later become BPC members.

For all we know, Freshwater might be going through the process of becoming a BPC member.

In any case, the freshwater poll was published by what Wikipedia expressly defines as a reliable source, and the poll has been weighted and the methodology explained.

It is therefore unreasonable to compare the freshwater poll to say a Twitter poll or imply that this is the start of a slippery slope.

BPC is not the be all and end all and it never has been. We should follow wiki policies and include all polls published by reliable sources that demonstrate a methodology has been followed to attempt to make it representative of GB as a whole.

If, we get polls from reliable sources that do not follow a methodology to attempt to make it representative of GB, then obviously those polls don’t belong in the main table - they may however belong elsewhere in the article (we previously had sections for “Red Wall”, “ethnic minorities” etc.

Let’s try and be consistent and follow wiki policies. The freshwater poll should be included 143.58.161.84 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of BPC is that their methodology and tables are released at publication…as far as we can see they don’t do this so we can’t judge them on accuracy…. It’s a simple approach - include BPC only polls and of course if/when they become members they can be included…. Seems the sensible and agreed consensus NewGuy2024 (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your argument is flawed here. Not all BPC members have always published all their data tables. Agreed this is a more common practice but it does not always happen. Outside of an election period, it’s normal to give the client a day or so’s exclusivity, so many BPC pollsters actively hold the data tables back a few days.

Also there is a methodology note within the article consistent with other articles and well regarded pollsters - sample size, date range, margin of error, how it’s weighted etc. so you’re just wrong in what you say.

The article describes this as an “inaugural poll”, meaning that there will be more to come. I note from Freshwater’s website that they have set up a UK office. It looks very much like they are in the process of becoming a BPC member (which is moot point anyway). By not including this poll we also risk messing up the graph.

This article's USP is that it includes all scientific polls, from all reliable sources… all of them. The nationwide table is currently missing a poll, underlining the articles USP. 143.58.161.84 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third sentence of the article even says “Most of the polling companies listed are members of the British Polling Council (BPC) and abide by its disclosure rules.” It says “Most”, not “All” - the deletion of this reliably sourced and properly weighted poll must be reversed. 143.58.161.57 (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This phrasing is in all previous articles too! We can’t change the approach to exclusively only include BPC polls - that would make this article inconsistent with it’s predecessors for no good reason.

Wiki policies already act as a safeguard preventing unscientific polls from being included. Let’s stick with the policy that has worked for over 20years! 143.58.161.57 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership and party approval has been on this page since it was created - and whilst it made sense at the time to include it due to the low number of polls I feel it would be better on its own page as done previously to reduce clutter and follow precedent Benocalla2 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- though I would use a different title format; Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election is not correct as those polls are not explicitly for the next general election. I would go for a title like Opinion polling on United Kingdom party leadership (2024–present). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article will get out of hand very quickly (tonnes of data).

On the article title point, I don’t have a strong view on this. Both names suggested work.

However, I do think the article title should be consistent with previous articles. This may mean that we need to retrospectively amend the previous article titles.

Open to other suggestions but I’m inclined to agree with Chessrat’s suggested name as I think it covers all bases and will work for previous articles (if I’m not mistaken) 143.58.161.84 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).