Talk:2014 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Campaign
Thought I'd get the ball rolling early on this one. Should we have a campaign section, if so on what basis? Owl In The House (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A campaign section would be good, each party could have its own campaign section, to document what the positions the parties took during the election campaign i.e. UKIP might make immigration and the EU itself its central theme. As well as any controversies that arose during the campaign, it still seems too early as the campaigns are really only going to get started in early-mid April, maybe give it a month? Guyb123321 (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a tad concerned by part of your comment and that it could be an excuse to include attacking articles from opposing Newspapers. The way you phrase the comment: "i.e. UKIP might make immigration and the EU itself its central theme. As well as any controversies that arose during the campaign", is particularly alarming in the sense it implies that you think "controversies" should be added if they can be sourced, whether they are in context or not. May I remind you that Wikipedia is not a Newspaper, it is an encyclopaedia, to cover something just because a Newspaper has is not necessarily appropriate. For example the inclusion of the alleged affair between Farage and his assistant, made by Nikki Sinclaire would be entirely inappropriate as it is an accusation which is unsubstantiated and made via a breach of Parliamentary Privilege. This is what we could call an engineered controversy or indeed a smear, such events have no place in an encyclopaedia. Just to reiterate that's what Wikipedia is, not a Newspaper.
 * My point is, just because a Newspaper reports it and just because it might be labelled a controversy does not mean it should be included in a Wikipedia article. Your comments suggest an intent to look for and include controversies, a partisan approach.
 * I will assume good faith for now but such comments are indeed concerning. I make my comments now, so that a few ground rules are understood before there are attempts by any editor to add whatever they deem to be "controversial", even if manufactured.
 * Your comments give me second thoughts about a campaign section, on the basis that such a section could be abused. For this reason I suggest that any "controversies" as you put it are discussed before added to the article.
 * All in all perhaps it is best that the campaign section sticks to policy as opposed to the media frenzy. Again Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet. Owl In The House (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but that does not mean that every media controversy should be excluded as not encyclopaedic. Clearly, there is more to a campaign than just policy. There are controversies that warrant coverage: e.g. United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010. I sympathise with your concern, Owl, that a campaign section can attract too much partisan editing and we shouldn't be chasing controversies. However, I think you go far too far the other way in suggesting that a campaign is merely a list of policy announcements. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying Bondegezou but you've misunderstood what I meant. I am not against genuine campaign controversies being included. I am however concerned by Guy's comments, specifically suggesting UKIP when it comes to including controversies. This leaves his approach open to looking highly partisan, for now I will assume good faith but to openly state that there will be controversies before an event has happened suggests that "recycled controversies" should be used. The example of the so called "Bigotgate" incident, actually happened within the election campaign. In recent elections we have seen "recycled controversies" (that did not take place during the campaign) used in the media to sway the debate. I put to you that unless the incident took place during the campaign it is not a genuine campaign controversy, merely a media "smear" (as some would put it) (eg The Farage/Fuller allegations which date back to/have been public since 2006. Or the Harriet Harman PIE controversy...the Daily Mail and other papers reported on this years ago, that would also be a recycled controversy). If a genuine controversy, that is significantly note worthy, that actually occurs during the campaign, then lets include it but Wikipedia should not be used to publish recycled controversies that the media choose to make part of a campaign. Wikipedia should not join in any media band wagons, we are an encyclopaedia. I hope this makes my position clear that I am not against including genuine controversies that occur in the campaign but I am against what seems to be Guy's approach of looking for controversies. For this reason, I suggest that Guy (or indeed anyone) should not be able to be "bold" and add a controversy without bringing it to the talk page first, so that it can be scrutinised to see if it is a genuine controversy that occurred during the campaign. Policy, however is different, something is either policy or it isn't, its really that simple, that is the point I was trying to make. Owl In The House (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think, Owl, you may be worrying about nothing! Guyb123321 did not specifically suggest UKIP when it comes to including controversies. He mentioned UKIP as a party that might focus on certain themes. He mentioned controversies in the next sentence. I don't see any need at this point to enforce a rule where people have to bring material to Talk first: that approach is only usually taken after clear evidence of troubled editing. Perhaps we can all chill and not rush to tackle problems that aren't there! Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Owl! Please, my initial short, three line point was this, I think you have really misunderstood my point. 1) That a campaign section could take the form of a) what policies political parties stressed during the campaign so for exmaple Lib Dems- Party of "IN", UKIP - Immigration and EU (Party of "OUT"), Conservatives - Future EU Reform and their work in government, Labour - Cost of Living crisis. Again all of these are just examples and I am just using them to illustrate what a campaign section could look like. b) The Campaign section could also cover any serious controversies that may occur, I'm talking about something akin to "Bigot Gate" that happened during the 2010 general campaign.
 * I think you may off misconstrued my point to mean controversies surrounding UKIP in general, just to clarify that was two separate points and had you asked rather than just starting attacking me as partisan you would have realised this, Owl I don't know what you have against me but you really seem to have a problem with everything that I suggest, can you please just calm down so we can discuss this constructively, thanks Guyb123321 (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

TV Debates
It seems these debates are going to be a key part of this campaign and I feel the section could do with being elaborated upon. When I initially wrote the section it had a lot more detail in it. I did not want to edit war, so I left it but a paragraph really doesn't seem enough. Owl In The House (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * More text will be appropriate when the debate's have actually happened. For now, I can't see much need for the detail of how they were arranged. Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to have a separate article for the TV debates, similar to the 2010 general election debates. The section in this article should be similar to the section in the article United Kingdom general election, 2010, merely a summary with locations and links. These debates don't include all four party leaders and OfCom recognise this as an election with 4 major parties (which is also why we should include the Cameron and Miliband notes). Secondly, the number of sources and material for this debate seems to be growing. A second article would prevent these debates from dominating this article. Owl In The House (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Polling Notes
Added Notes to the polling section (copied over where relevant from the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election|general election polling article]]). These particular notes are clearly relevant to the polling and campaign but I understand the need not to go over board on adding notes.
 * I will also add the note about Clegg challenging Farage to the EU debate as this is also significant, other then that I can't see any need for any further notes to the polling box but we shall see what develops over time. Also, we don't want the polling box to be mostly notes, so for now 3 notes is quite enough. Owl In The House (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I've just reverted those. I think it's dangerous to put notes in a table of polling results as it strays into original research when we, as editors, are picking what we think is relevant to the polls. I think it would be better if the material in those notes goes instead into a campaign section (as you've also suggested adding). I wouldn't want to specifically connect polling results to key events unless there's clear evidence supporting that. I may be being overly sensitive on this matter; what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bondegezou on this. I think the only note that might be relevant for this section is the Farage vs. Clegg debate, but even that is a bit iffy, we'll see if it actually leads to any meaningful shift in polls. The problem with notes is it kinda suggests why a particular trend line has taken place. For example the first note that was added was regarding the promise by David Cameron of an in-out referendum. After this the opinion polls suggests a decline in Conservative and Labour support and a rise in UKIP support. But all in all that announcement by Cameron will have little to do with that change in support, with the UKIP surge at last years local elections being more responsible for UKIP's poll boost for these elections. Guyb123321 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Im seeing a lot of comments that look like original research here guys. Whether these events lead to any shift in the polls is of irrelevance and would of course be original research. What matters is that our sources acknowledge that these are electorally significant events. I take the point about the debate challenge being less relevant than the actual debates themselves, it would remove the awkward clustering in 2 events between polls. However, our reliable sources absolutely highlight that these debates are relevant as they acknowledge that the LibDems are trying to squeeze the vote between Lib Dems as "the party of in" and UKIP as "the party of out". Reliable sources seem to claim that both parties will be winners in terms of how it will affect their vote share compared to their current polling figures, whether they do or not is of total irrelevance, the fact is that our reliable sources deem them to be electorally relevant.
 * As for the Cameron announcement, even Guyb123321 admits that it had an effect on the poll ratings. Not that this original research approach is relevant but our reliable sources were the ones who were pointing to the electoral significance of such an event and they observed thesignificance as to whether it had an effect (and what the effect might be) on the polls.
 * As for Miliband's position, there is similar reasoning as to Cameron's position but also it would be wrong not to include the PM's announcement without the Leader of the Opposition's announcement. Also reliable source/commentators observe that Miliband made this speech in the run up to the EU elections quite deliberately
 * I shall revert the removal of Cameron and Miliband's speech notes on the basis that this was done without seeking consensus and has in turn been justified to what amounts to original research by editors (namely Guy's comments). Owl In The House (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Owl, that's not how consensus works. The article was in one state. You made a change, inserting these notes. That was a bold addition: that's great, that's what we like to see. However, another editor (me) then felt these were a mistake and reverted the addition. That's fine, edits on Wikipedia can always been challenged. We've now been having a discussion here to resolve this difference. Good: that's the classic bold, revert, discuss model of how Wikipedia works. The initial state, before your bold addition, is the baseline state and we should remain in the baseline state until consensus has been reached on a change.
 * You cannot claim a lack of consensus for the removal of your addition when your addition was the bold, new state.
 * I can appreciate you are eager for things to happen, but there's no rush for any of this. We can all wait a bit while different people chip in. I suggest also that you review some of the Wikipedia policy guidance around what consensus means and things like the BRD cycle. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Owl, you've just completely misquoted me there. What I said was that "For example the first note that was added was regarding the promise by David Cameron of an in-out referendum. After this the opinion polls suggests a decline in Conservative and Labour support and a rise in UKIP support. But all in all that announcement by Cameron will have little to do with that change in support, with the UKIP surge at last years local elections being more responsible for UKIP's poll boost for these elections." - By this I meant that the info was irrelevant however due to the note that you added it could be quite easily misconstrued that the announcement had damaged Conservative support while in fact as we saw from the general election polls it actually helped their support increase. To be clear I agree with Bondegezou that the notes that were added should not be there and the only one in my opinion that should be added is the Farage vs. Clegg Debate taking place next month. Guyb123321 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore could we leave the article as it had been since it has been created (i.e Without Notes) until a consensus can be reached Guyb123321 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, sure I accept whats been said about BRD, fair enough. However, I object to Guyb123321's continual use of what amounts to original research. Guy you have even quoted your own sentence which is original research and your and own analysis, that is not how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou, I object to you referring only me to Wikipedia policy (which I accept as necessary and did act up on), when clearly Guyb123321 could do with being referred to No original research as this is what he is basing his argument on. Owl In The House (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the matter in hand: I accept removal of these specific notes from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election on the basis that they are more relevant to this article and this election, even though there are reliable sources that suggest the note about Cameron's speech has relevance to that article. I'm pleased to see that you both accept that the Clegg/Farage TV and Radio debates require a note in the table in this article. I would be in agreement in saying that they are more relevant to this article then the 2015 article. However, I maintain that the Cameron and Miliband speeches should be required, there are endless reliable sources that Cameron's speech's impact (or non impact) on the opinion polls was being closely watched (here's one of many). I would argue that that was relevant to both EU and UK polls as the sources do actually go on about UKIP's insurgency in the UK polls and often quote their Westminster polling %. That said if it is to be included in this article, I can accept that as it is arguably more relevant to these elections for various reasons (not least the fact that these elections are first). Also it is painfully obvious that Miliband's speech was made in the run up to these elections, it is only right to include his speech as well as the Prime Minister's.
 * Can editors such as Guyb123321 please please refrain from making your own analysis when commenting on here. Lets reflect our reliable sources, my comments do that. Owl In The House (talk)
 * I have just discussed this at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election. I think the consensus there supports including here only notes for when the debates happen. Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement about not including the announcement of there being debates but I feel we should include the date of the debates themselves, so were all in agreement there. However with specific regard to the EU elections page, I still think the Cameron and Miliband notes should stay as I have already demonstrated they are of polling relevance and they are aimed at the EU elections. It would be quite wrong for us to exclude the Cameron and Miliband positions, when the Clegg/Farage debates have been highlighted. OfCom says the EU elections are a 4 party election, even if the media says it is a 2 party election ("party of in, party of out"). Owl In The House (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * People have gone quiet on here and are not providing sound reasoning or indeed rebuttals as to why not to include the Cameron and Miliband notes. Silence is not consensus, speak up. Owl In The House (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the above discussion and the discussion at the general election page for the reasoning why I still feel such notes would be inappropriate. It comes down to WP:SYNTH. The Cameron and Miliband notes aren't even referring to matters decided by the MEPs elected in this election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "People have gone quiet on here" Owl In The House - I replied to your earlier points on "Campaign" and "Newspaper Endorsements" nearly a month ago and you've completely ignored me hence why I've gone "Quiet" Guyb123321 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Campaign Section
What about including a campaign section which constituted the top box from this infographic http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9292728.ece/alternates/w460/graphicUKIP.jpg It shows the priorities of the main four parties in europe.Guyb123321 (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not adverse to the idea. However, I don't see very much campaigning on policy issues, there seems to be more of a debate about the various debates themselves. Any campaign section should focus on policy issues, I think it's going to be very difficult to find reliable sources that do that well, given the lines this campaign is being fought. In terms of substance the three main parties are giving away very little. Whether it's the Lib Dem position on the Euro, the Labour position on the Labour market and Immigration or the Tory position on who their MEPs will vote for to become President of the Commission. Its all up in the air policy wise. Also I don't really see how it would be relevant to include it if Labour are going to stick to their "cost of living crisis" campaign for these elections as that is their general election platform and it doesn't actually say what Labour MEPs would be doing. The Torys are sticking to the line of an In/Out Referendum after the next election if they win, this is of total and indeed chronological irrelevance, they speak of renegotiation without actually saying what that means or how indeed Tory MEPs would in anyway be a part of that. The Lib Dems are making their campaign about remaining IN the EU, they're not saying much about what it should/shouldn't, will/won't look like in the future or what their MEPs will and won't vote for but they're campaigning line is at least clear and relevant. Equally UKIP's line of OUT and "our MEPs will vote against ALL EU legislation" is also clear. Maybe in the coming weeks Labour and the Torys will say something substantive that actually relates directly to these elections. For now I have no idea what can be put in those two boxes and think it would be wrong to not include them in such a section. So for now at least, I can't see what purpose it would serve. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, for now there is nothing encyclopedically relevant to include. Owl In The House (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Green Party
Removed Greens from Main Polling Table because:
 * 1. Past representation is equal to the BNP and SNP, only 2 seats - big drop from four main parties.
 * 2. Just because

Greens have had bounce in a small number of polls don't mean they should be added. We need to see clear long term trend. Was over a year before UKIP was added to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, don't see why Greens should be treated different.
 * 3. Polling for Greens includes more than one party, Scottish Green Party and Green Party of England and Wales are not same party and shouldn't be treated as if they are. It's like treating SNP, Plaid and Eng Dems as if they're one party, when theyre not.
 * 4. Greens have not been listed as a major party in these elections by Electoral Commission, OfCom or BBC etc, Cons, Lab, Lib Dems and UKIP have.
 * Greens should only be included in London table, as to be fair they do have 1 MEP in London, even though the polls show they are likely to loose it. If you look at how Green share of vote would go round 10 constituencies, it shows they will only have 1 or 0 MEPs. 86.139.40.247 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If the pollsters are including details for the Greens, then I don't see any problem with us including those details. Unlike the infobox (see discussion elsewhere), which is a summary and needs to be concise, these tables can be detailed. Look at the sort of detail included at Opinion_polling_for_the_Italian_general_election,_2013 for a comparison. Bondegezou (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are moving goal posts. Italian General Elections are totally different as anyone who pays attention well knows, they are made up of parties of parties, you have to include the smallest parties for that reason or there'd be no point of taking the polls. Your comparison is irrelevant if I take it in good faith and totally bogus if I don't. I'm going to take it in good faith. Pollsters have only just started highlighting Greens. Pollsters were highlighting UKIP's topline figure for a year before the politically biased editors of wikipedia allowed them to have their own column in Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, to add the Greens now, proves absolutely that Wikipedia treats different parties differently, that is called being biased. A very tall order was set for UKIP to be added to other polling tables and yet people think it's ok to add Greens now on the bavck of a handfull of polls just because its different voting system. By the way, its same voting system as last time elections were held and last time they got same as BNP. Whole argument for adding Greens is based on a handful of polls in run up to election. While UKIP had to jump through hoops for over a year. This is biased. 86.139.40.247 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2014, Opinion polling in the 42nd Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the next Danish general election and several others show the same: we list everyone we have data on, including small parties. None of those articles has the Italian parties of parties complication. I see no reason to exclude parties for whom we regularly have data. (If there's regular polling data on the BNP, I'm all for including them in the table as well.) Your argument seems to be based on dissatisfaction with a past argument on a different article over UKIP: I don't think you entirely remember the debate in that case. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging by the edit history, other editors appear to support including the Greens in this table. Does anyone else object? Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My my my, people have been busy since I was last on here. I agree with the above argument, there is no case for adding the Green Party to the polling table at this stage. Aside from the above argument, I'd say the polling table looked very strange, we don't break tables mid-year for one thing. The case for adding the Greens seems to be solely on the strength of a few polls. In exceptional circumstances I am all for making changes where needed but this is an incredibly weak case, especially considering how high the bar was set for adding UKIP to the general election polling tables. That said, I am open to the idea of retrospectively adding the Greens depending on the actual election results. If the Greens do significantly well, perhaps get 11 MEPs like the Lib Dems last time, then that would be a strong case for inclusion. As things stand now, even the seat projections from the polls that the argument for adding them is based on show that they are not a significant force in these elections in these recent polls. Sorry to those who will be disappointed but we have to be consistant and non partisan. Owl In The House (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally some sense. But I still don't see why Greens should get in polling table, even if they get more seats then Lib Dems because they're not included in most of polling data and when they are its tiny, until you get to recent polls. Polling is polling, election results are election results. I don't see why you're mixing the two. 86.139.40.247 (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See European_Parliament_election,_2014_(France): plenty of small parties again listed in polling tables. I see no policy-based reason to exclude parties for whom we have data. It's non-partisan to do that. The objections given appear to have more to do with past arguments over UKIP, not over what's best for this article. Bondegezou (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree with much of what the IP editor says, I have also made the point that we do not split opinion polling tables in the way that had been done. Bondegezou you should know this, also it would be quite wrong to look at the last few polls and change our coverage of the election on that basis alone.
 * But yes, I do agree with the point about UKIP on the general election polling page. Indeed the pollsters showed headline figures for UKIP for a whole year before they gained their own column on Wikipedia, so it is not as simple as you make out. Here, the Greens appeared with their own column without discussion after about a week of appearing in some headline polls, note; not most. Indeed there are still instances where we don't have firm figures for the Greens in many of these polls. Also if I'm not mistaken, a clear precedent of all or nothing was set on the general election polling page, in that if UKIP was to be added to one years polling table then they get added to all of them. What is being proposed here is that we brake/fracture the 2014 table in order to add the Greens for part of it, this is worse than only including them in one polling table. If we are to add the Greens it will show thst we hold different parties to different standards: UKIP a year of consistent polling, the Greens a week. I strongly disagree with adding the Greens to this table on the strength of just a few poles. Your argument is to add the Greens on the basis that the media and pollsters have suddenly started showing their headline figures, well we have set a precedent for not doing that therefore we shouldn't.
 * Now I know you're going to say "oh but this is under a form of PR, its different", well it was under the same system as last time, the Greens were showing strongly in the polls last time as well, indeed one poll put them at 15% in 2009 (that 15% includes the Scottish Green Party, who are not one and the same thing), no poll has placed them that high this year. Also if you look at seat projections, even among the highest polls it shows no gains, indeed it shows losses. Even the evidence presented to us, suggests that the Greens are in a weaker electoral state than they were in the build up to the 2009 elections. To add them now and to fracture the opinion polling tables ignores evidence and indeed breaks precedents, this could be seen to be partisan.
 * I think this argument has been done to death now. By all means if after the results have come in and the evidence tells us differently...say the Greens get 7 seats or more then this would be worth another look. Until such point I see no sound argument to make a change. Owl In The House (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Owl, I don't remember you being involved in the discussions around including UKIP in polling tables. Either way, I don't think this feeling that UKIP was badly treated in the past is at all relevant. European Parliament election, 2014 (Germany) again has polling including small parties. Why should the UK article be different? Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also wondering about this, the other EP election pages seem to include all parties that have the potentional to gain seats and often several more that don't. This seems to be the case for most national election pages as well. Could someone explain why the UK page should not follow the norm? The greens have polled above the libdems in at least 2 polls now, and have been tied in a few too. They have also polled above the previous result of 8% a few times. Øln (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this edit has been made against consensus, we are seeing repeated vandalism from those apparently supporting the Greens. The basic argument has already been thrashed out but you ignore the point. One swallow does not a Summer make. Owl In The House (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Owl, your language is coming across as rather aggressive. Remember WP:AGF. Nor do I think it is accurate to say you are defending a clear consensus. I don't see a consensus for your position. In terms of non-IP editors, Oln and I both support this edit, while you oppose it. Articles with polling data for other countries in these European Parliament elections include smaller parties. I see no policy reason for your opposition. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bondegezou but are you saying that edit was made with consensus? I do not intend to be aggressive but as you know it is deeply frustrating when editors make big bold changes when something has already been discussed without so much as attempting to reopen the discussion. Surely you will agree that that in its self is not on, it certainly isn't acceptable when it comes to other pages (most notably info boxes), is it?
 * The matter in hand: Wikipedia is not a democracy, so say you're right and that it is 3 to 2, that is not consensus. Consensus must be built around sound reasoning. I can't believe I am having to do this but I am now having to restate part of the argument written by myself and the IP editor which is written only a few inches above.
 * No one has responded to the fact that polling for the Greens actually includes both the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party. They are not one and the same party, indeed they both support being separate countries. Do we include SNP, Plaid and English Democrats as having a shared party column? No, we don't and this is exactly the same thing. Lets just assume for a minute we are just talking about the Green Party of England and Wales: In order just to have the Green Party of England and Wales we would have to amend the figure to no longer include the Scottish Green Party's %, this would require amending the headline poll figure to no longer include the Scottish Greens, this would not be reporting the polls as reported as you suggest. Also its worth noting that for most of the data the Greens are not reported as having a headline percentage, indeed this is the case in the most recent poll out by ICM. This is not the only example of the people who actually pay for and publish the polls not including the Greens in their headline figure, look at The Mirror's coverage (can't seem to access a more recent link), most Newspapers don't include the Green's figures as part of their headline poll. I could go on but I see no point in restating arguments that are written above that no one has made any attempt to address. Owl In The House (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bold editing is a fairly strong part of Wikipedia. It is not always apparent to an editor that there has been prior discussion of an issue. Accusing an editor of ignoring prior discussion is not assuming good faith and accusations of vandalism should only be made with great caution.
 * I'm not saying that the edit to add in the Greens to those tables was made with consensus, but nor do I see a clear consensus for the current position. What I see is a lack of consensus over this issue. I agree that we should try to establish a consensus through Talk page discussion rather than back & forth edits to the article, basing our discussions on Wikipedia practice and policy.
 * With respect to the two points you raise, the Green Party of England & Wales and the Scottish Greens are in electoral alliance. If polling companies are happy to treat them together, then we should follow their lead and do the same. Not all polls give a figure for the Greens, but most of the European election polls do. The absence of details in a minority of polls has not stopped details being given where they are available in tables of poll results in articles relating to UK elections or in articles relating to other European elections.
 * For me, the big question is: articles for the European elections in other countries include parties like the Greens and smaller, so why should the UK article be different? Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget about the whole consensus argument for the moment as it is clear no sound and reasoned argument has been put to meet the objections, that said consensus has clearly not been reached as you admit yourself.
 * Ok, at least you seem to accept that we should not have a Green Party of England and Wales column because as I say that would involve changing the reported figures ourselves, as the cumulative/total figures reported include the Scottish Green Party. This would completely invalidate your argument of reporting the polls as reported because in actual fact it would be us doctoring the figures to fit a table, this would be quite wrong. Ok, so thats one nonsense put to bed, we can forget about that idea.
 * The Greens are in "electoral alliance": Yes, at European level they are, which is why the main article treats them as one but it also does the same with Conservatives and UUP who are also in electoral alliance, indeed there was a time when they were in a domestic electoral alliance which is much more then the two Green Parties ever were, the two parties want to be separate countries for goodness sake. What we have here is a similar case to Plaid Cymru, the SNP and Mebyon Kernow (Cornish Nationalists) who are all full members of European Free Alliance, do we treat them  as one, of course not. The only difference between the two cases is that both Green parties have "Green" in their party name, that is the one single and only difference. Indeed if you look more closely at the European Parliament formal grouping you will see that Plaid Cymru, the SNP, Mebyon Kernow, the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party are ALL in electoral alliance with each other as part of The Greens–European Free Alliance. As far as the European Parliament is concerned, there is no separation between the European Free Alliance and the European Green Party, since this is an election to the European Parliament we should work on this basis. I see no point in having a separate column for this Parliamentary group when all but 1% (sometimes less) of the Others column belongs to them.
 * May I also point out that you haven't addressed any of the other points that have been mentioned above, you refer to only 2 points, if you look above there is much more then that and you haven't addressed any of them.
 * As far as reporting the polls as reported goes, if you actually look at our reliable sources, especially the ones publishing the polls (I have already provided examples) they don't make as bigger thing of the Greens as they do the 4 main parties for these elections. I have provided sources showing the 4 main parties featured and the Green Party figure is at best mentioned. I am prepared to accept that in the closing week or two of these elections the Green Party's coverage/profile has upped slightly but in terms of highlighting them in the newspapers where the polls are actually reported it is about 50/50 as to whether they get any form of significant mentioning or not, generally in the only 3 instances where they have polled ahead of the Lib Dems and the other 2 where they have matched their polling figure. We're talking 5 out of the 25 polls since the last Clegg/Farage debate, thats 20%.
 * You mention polling in other countries for the European elections but you are indeed comparing Apples with Oranges, their grounds of inclusion are totally different, if you want me to give a detailed comparison to prove why, I can do but you have still to give any form of meaningful answer to any of the other points. Owl In The House (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the question with the Scottish and UK greens being separate, you could change the header to read Greens(E&W)/Greens(Scotland) or something similar, given that this is how they are treated in the polls. German polls to do this kind of thing with CDU and CSU, even though they are separate parties, and this is reflected on Wikipedia pages covering German elections. Also worth noting, this page on french and german wikipedia include the polling for the Greens, and even for SNP, PC and BNP. Øln (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No because the arrangement between the CDU and CSU is very different to the arrangement between the Scottish Greens and the Green Party of England and Wales; The CDU/CSU is a formal domestic alliance, there is no such formal domestic alliance among the Greens in the UK, indeed they are in agreement that they should belong to separate countries/EU member states. So that puts that comparison to bed.
 * To compare the French and German cases with the UK case is comparing apples and oranges, heres why:
 * France has 7 constituencies and a larger population, the UK has 12 constituencies, this makes it more likely that the Greens and other smaller parties get more seats in the European Parliament in France then they do the UK in any case. If you look at the 2009 results in France there are 4 small parties with significant representation, indeed the French Greens can be considered to be a major party at EU level with 15seats, note this is more than the socialists with 13 seats. Also the French Greens scored more than double what the Greens in the UK scored in 2009. Indeed the French Greens are the electoral equivalent of UKIP in France as they actually beat one of the two main parties last time. There is no way the same case can be made for the Green Party of England and Wales with 2seats (notice they won their seats in the easiest possible regions as well), never mind the Scottish Greens with zero seats. However there are further differences in France, notice how the party that came 6th (Le Front Nationale), only winning 3seats is now topping all the opinion polls? This completely changes things in the French EP election, the same is not the case in the UK as there is no insurgency from a party that hadn't already gained significant representation last time around.
 * Germany is a single constituency at EU level, compared to the UKs 12. This is an even more exaggerated comparison. As is the nature of a "consensual" political system, Germany has 5 parties with meaningful representation at national level anyway (or it did until the FDP were wiped out last year, its now 4). Look at the 2009 results Greens got 14, the FDP 12 and the Left 8 seats. Again, since the Greens beat the FDP (who are the German electoral equivalent of the Lib Dems), I would argue that the Greens are also the electoral equivalent of UKIP in Germany. Again the Greens in the UK come nowhere meaningful, indeed in Germany the Greens got a significantly larger percentage then the Greens in the UK, despite the favourable way Germany allocates seats to smaller parties. Again may I restate that the comparison between the Greens in the UK and the CDU/CSU does not hold because the German centre-right are in electoral alliance domestically, again this is not the case with Greens in the UK. There is an insurgency in Germany (all be it a minor one) from a party called the AfD and they are rightly given their own column in the table for that reason, the Greens in the UK can not claim to in anyway be an insurgency, indeed they haven't even hit the highest opinion poll rating they got in 2009 Which was 15%, the highest they've reached in this campaign was 10% (or 12% depending on whether you count certain to vote - most don't and whether you include Scots but that is of course another matter of controversy).
 * I hope this puts such comparisons to bed as we really are not comparing like with like here and yet again no one is coming up with sufficient answers to warrant a change. Owl In The House (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Germany, France and the UK do have somewhat different electoral systems for choosing their MEPs, but Greens have previously won MEPs in the UK. The European Parliament election, 2014 (France) article gives polling data even for parties too small to have won seats, yet we're not giving polling data for a party that has consistently won seats. This article is out of step in imposing a high threshold for what polling data we report.
 * While the Scottish Greens and the Green Party of England and Wales are distinct parties, the pollsters treat them the same and we should always follow what reliable sources do. Indeed, given reliable sources are usually giving a result for the Greens, that is a very clear indication that we should to.
 * You have not responded to the valid point made that the French-language Wikipedia article matching this one at and the German-language one at  give polling details for the Greens and, indeed, others. If our fellow editors consider that information warrants inclusion, why are excluding it?
 * Policy, it seems to me, is clear. We follow what reliable sources do. Reliable sources give polling data for the Greens (Scottish and E&W combined), so we should do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the above argument and have and not addressed any of the points. Again, going back to the initial argument at the top of this section, the Greens got the same number of elected representatives as the BNP and SNP in 2009, so that invalidates the point you have just tried to make re Germany and France. Indeed I have demonstrated how the German and French cases differ in detail, to which you ignotre every point and simply meet it with "I disagree", sorry but that isn't a sound and reasoned argument.
 * As for reflecting reliable sources, you have once again ignored my point about what those reliable sources show. I have given you examples of Newspapers where these polls are published (to which there are endless others) and the majority of which show the four main EP parties headline figures and do not highlight the Greens. I don't know how many times I need to repeat that point before you acknowledge it. I agree, we should reflect reliable sources, in doing so that would place the Greens in the "others" column for national opinion polling. You make the point about reflecting reliable sources but you're ignoring them when they're presented to you. I really can't see any point in you giving any more responses to this dialogue because you simply are not addressing any of the points. The fact that I have had to repeat the same argument over and over again, only for them to not be addressed or simply be met with "I disagree" is deeply frustrating. If you think I am coming across as aggressive then please don't this is not aggression, it is frustration, as I am having to repeat the same thing over and over again, then further elaborate only to not have any of these points addressed. How on earth is this discussion meant to progress without points being addressed/answered? I'm sorry but this is deeply frustrating. Can you either drop it or answer my points effectively. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way this discussion has got unnecessarily long and will probably need splitting. Largely because I am having to repeat everything that is not being answered. Owl In The House (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

To answer your point re the French and German versions of this article, this is the first time you or anyone has presented them to me, so I have ignored nothing, thank you very much. You have presented uncomparable things like Opinion polling for the Italian General election but never this before and yes I have actually just double checked. To answer your point directly: it seems to be the case that the French and German articles are covering the UK elections in a way that they would cover their own domestic elections, reflecting the proportional nature of their own domestic politics, something the UK lacks. Or you could say they are covering them from French and German perspectives, when the UK reality is somewhat different to their perspective and indeed the perspective of UK reliable sources UK (such as the ones I've provided for you). Now I know you are trying to argue that with it being a European election that all are the same etc but you're simply wrong and its deeply frustrating that I have already told you why. I gave you the examples of France and Germany and demonstrated how and why their systems are more proportional and how and why their smaller parties are more significant. The general rule of thumb in countries like France and Germany is to include as many as possible in the polling table (due to the proportional and consensual nature of their political systems/chambers), that is not and has not been the case in the UK. You are arguing that this article is the exception as opposed to the rule when in reality it is the other way round. Most of the substance that relates to this argument is already above which I am not going to type out again for a 3rd or 4th time (I'm loosing count and frankly the will to live). In short the reason the French and German versions of this article are written and laid out like that is because they are written from French and German perspective. This is written from a British perspective and in accordance with the actual reality on the ground. I've given you UK reliable sources (too which there are endless others) that highlight the polling of the four main parties, not 5. Yes they do sometimes reference polling for the Greens in a more significant way then the "other" parties but not as a rule of thumb. I have addressed all the points you've put to me and I have made other points relating to previous representation, pre2009 polling compared to current polling, "grouping" and the fact that the different Green parties should not be treated as one and the same thing, the FreeAlliance-Green point and so much more which I simply refuse to rehash over and over again. Please, if you can't address the points above then there's no point in replying. I don't want to come across as rude, I actually respect you for the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia and handle editing and your approach in general but on this occasion and in this discussion alone I have found this exchange and the fact you have repeatedly not answered my points deeply frustrating. I maintain good faith and non of these comments are intended as or should be interpreted as aggression, merely frustration, frustration which I feel is justified for reasons I have already explained. With the greatest of respect I do not have all day to constantly repeat myself onthis talk page to little or no avail. Many Thanks Owl In The House (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the Greens get three seats can it come back? --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a nationally significant figure. It is difficult to put a specific number but if the Greens get a seat in half of the regions its standing ie 5 we might, (just might) be able to consider it. Owl In The House (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No it is then there heading for about 3 seats, with lib dems 0 --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ The decision not to include has been vindicated by the election results. Owl In The House (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request Semi-protect article
Hi can an admin person look at case for semi protecting this article, some people seem to be getting excited and carried away about election season and adding what they like. Above is a strong argument for removing Greens from main polling table, which I have acted on as person who did it sneaked it in without good reason or discussion. It also spoiled format by breaking up 2014 table, it just looked right daft and there were no reason for it. I had a look back and it seems this isn't first instance of someone getting excited about election and making biased edits. One month semi protect seems sensible as election results wont be due until 28th, so tonight seems right time to act. Anyway thanks. I might set up an account actually, when I can be bothered. 86.139.40.247 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I am in favour of this also. I am very concerned about edits from rogue IP editors. I am not saying you are one of them, that said I do think it would be an idea if you got an account and edited solely from there. Thats up to you but you will probably get taken more seriously as an editor if you do.
 * The matter in hand: Yes I am concerned about some recent edits. There is the case above by 86.139.40.247 but also the case of the Scottish polling box whereby the Scottish Green Party were added against consensus, without consulting the talk page. This has lead me to believe that there are a series of IP's who are indeed the same person, perhaps this needs looking into and perhaps semi-protection for this election period would be wise in order to prevent seemingly inevitable reoccurances of such behaviour. Owl In The House (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think things have gotten too bad yet, but as the election approaches, articles like this are prone to problematic editing. We've certainly had problems in the past. Semi-protection may be sensible until, say, 27 May (a couple of days after the results are counted). Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept that things have been worse when it comes to edit warring but we clearly do have a problem here and as the election gets nearer past experiences tell us this will get worse. I agree with your suggestion to semi-protect until the 27th. I think we are expecting the results to come in by the 26th. As far as I'm concerned I see no reason for the protection to continue beyond publication of the results, so if you prefer the 26th over the 27th thats fine by me. Owl In The House (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to go ahead with a request, then go to WP:RFP. Bondegezou (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have requested the protection at [|WP:RFP]. Owl In The House (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ [|WP:RFP]. Protection expires at 03:38, 30 May 2014. Although this is after the results will be in, it will do the job of protecting against IP vandalism, something which may well happen after the elections anyway. Owl In The House (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi-protecting is way overreaction to one rogue green, there really doesn't seem to have been much vandalism at all 92.1.34.203 (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually you will see that it is more than one "rogue editor" favouring the Green party/ies. Indeed we had the multiple attempts by the multiple IP addresses, yes there is sufficient grounds to believe most of those were same person but this is not the only instance. Just in the last week an approved editor has tried to add the Greens again to the opinion polling table, despite the talk page discussion demonstrating a lack of consensus and sound argument. If anything this article doesn't have enough protection. That said I am satisfied by the current protection level as approved editors tend to be more obedient of Wiki rules/policy. Owl In The House (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The addition of the Greens to the opinion polling table should not be used as an example of disruptive editing. Whether they should be added is still under debate and bold edits are not a problem. I am concerned that discussion of one or more supposed "rogue green" editors is misleading and contrary to WP:AGF and unwelcoming to new contributors to this article. We're not seeing significant edit-warring or vandalism -- let's tone down the language. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

IP Edit Request
Hello. I've been adding new polls to this page, and now I cannot edit it. If I create a wikipedia account, will I then be able to add new polls again? (New TNS poll out today.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.12.245 (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry to hear about that, obviously one of the problems with protecting an article is that we loose constructive edits from IP editors. That said it is necessary when there are numerous incidences of Vandalism and people changing the articles format without consensus etc. I don't think you will be able to edit straight away if you get an account, you may need to make a few constructive edits on other pages to build up some standing before you are able to make edits on semi-protected articles such as this one. That said I am more then happy to add this extra poll to the table as it is a constructive edit and very much welcomed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you are unable to add any other polls etc then don't hesitate to make the request on this talk page. Article protection is to protect against Vandalism, not to prevent constructive edits like the one you mention. Thanks Owl In The House (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ranking in infobox
It seems a little strange to me to have a list of rankings for an election that hasn't happened yet. I'm not sure how it was decided to put up the specific order there (Con,UKIP,Lab,Lib) - were the results of the last election? As of now, that ordering is very far from representing incumbent seats, or projected results. I think for now, it would probably be better to remove the ordinals from the descriptions. 137.205.164.156 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have made amendments per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NPOV. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reversed this edit for the very simple reason that for ALL ongoing elections; parties and their leaders appear in order of how they performed the last time these elections were held, first on the basis of seats, secondly on the basis of share of the vote. This is standard practice for all articles with info boxes. There is absolutely no reason why there should be any exception. In certain cases parties can be added or removed from an infobox ahead of time or retrospectively if there is a strong and exceptional case, although for this article it is beyond apparent that no case exists. The only thing that should change the order of parties in an info box is the election its self. We do this for the very simple reason that we do not use a crystal ball. I am shocked that you have tried to justify your edit using WP:CRYSTAL. I am beginning to wonder if the articles level of protection is sufficient. Owl In The House (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated the part of the edit which removed the ranking, because that's only supposed to be for when election results are declared, as documented at Infobox election. As for the order, maybe you're correct about standard practice. However, in the case of a tie (which was apparently the case between UKIP and Labour at the last election), it's also standard practice to list alphabetically. To me, the current ordering decision is unclear and I propose it be corrected in accordance with standard practice. For the record, I've never been a member of any political party and am not fully decided on which way I'll be voting. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Ah, OK... having now looked at European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom), I see that UKIP received more votes than Labour, which explains the current order. It doesn't explain the ranking being shown though. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right to make the point that the election is still ongoing and to have changed that "no" to "yes" in your last edit, so thanks for correcting that.
 * As for the ranking, I presume you are talking about "First Party", "Second Party", "Third Party and "Fourth Party" appearing above the photographs of the 4 party leaders. You are right the election hasn't taken place yet. You will notice that by changing the "no" to "yes" automatically gets rid of the ranking, so the rankings are gone and will not reappear until the results are in and the election is no longer "ongoing".
 * As for the order, it is absolutely standard practice to have the parties in the order they came in the last election, I don't see how else you could do it without use of a crystal ball. You are right to highlight that UKIP and Labour gained the same number of seats but UKIP gained more votes and therefore a higher percentage of the vote than Labour, so UKIP appear above Labour. Alphabetical order has nothing to do with this unless in the nigh on impossible case of two parties gaining exactly the same number of seats and votes, even then I think we would have to make an edit saying joint 2nd or something.
 * Also it is irrelevant who we as editors vote for unless it is something that is clearly clouding our judgements and affecting the neutrality of our edits. I am satisfied that your edit was a good faith edit and an honest mistake. Thank you for coming to the talk page and thank you for your last edit. Kind Regards Owl In The House (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd spotted later the ambiguity between number of seats/votes. This was because the previous votes aren't included within this infobox for the subsequent election. Your understanding of the ranking is the same as mine, but you could always check with the original poster. As you may see from my edits, this topic isn't an area I'm overly familiar with editing. Those with strong convictions are able to edit with neutrality but obviously caution must be exercised. Because politics is such an emotive issue, I thought it relevant to comment in the run-up to the election. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Original requester here, I am satisfied with the page now the 'ongoing' flags have been appropriately set. Obviously they have to appear in some order - the part that was strange to me was the ordinals ('first', 'second' etc). Thanks. --137.205.164.110 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for returning to comment. Next time, you can consider being bold and making such amendments directly yourself. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 17:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

More Polls

 * http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/chz2nz7x2e/YG%20Archive%20-SunonSunday_Results_140501.pdf
 * http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rabu8qa9d0/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-140502.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.111.121 (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The client of the first 30 April-1 May YouGov poll (1,813 participants) was the Green Party, not The Sun.86.2.12.245 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a Survation EU poll in Wednesday's Daily Mirror. Con 24%, Lab 28%, LD 7%, UKIP 31%.86.2.12.245 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a new Survation/Mail on Sunday (p.14) poll out: Con 21%, UKIP 32%, Lab 28%, LD 9%.86.2.12.245 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * New Opinium poll out: Con 22%, UKIP 30%, Lab 28%, LD 7%86.2.12.245 (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * New ComRes poll (p.12, table 4). Con 22%, UKIP 34%, Lab 24%, LD 8%. 86.2.12.245 (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Scottish poll from Survation table 17, p.20. SNP 37%, Lab 27%, Con 13%, LD 6%, UKIP 10% 86.2.12.245 (talk) 86.2.12.245 (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Something odd seems to be going on with the Survation. The new tables PDF has had the pages that included the EU Parliament VI removed. Poss they were supposed to withhold publication until after the media client had published them? 86.2.12.245 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * YouGov/Sun poll, Con 22%, UKIP 25%, Lab 28%, LD 10% 86.2.12.245 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * New London-only YouGov/Evening Standard poll Con 23%, UKIP 21%, Lab 37%, LD 9%. 86.2.12.245 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * New ComRes/Independent on Sunday poll. Con 20%, UKIP 35%, Lab 24%, LD 6% 86.2.12.245 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * New ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll. Con 26%, UKIP 25%, Lab 29%, LD 7%. 86.2.12.245 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * YouGov/Sunday Times Con 23%, UKIP 26%, Lab 27%, LD 9%, Green 9% 86.2.12.245 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Scotland-only poll. The Survation/Daily Record poll has been published. The fieldwork dates will be the same as the tables published earlier, and linked above: 9-12 may. 86.2.12.245 (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * London-only poll. YouGov have published the tables for their recent Evening Standard poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.12.245 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wales-only, YouGov/ITV poll: Con 16%, Lab 33%, Plaid 15%, UKIP 23%, LD 7% 86.2.12.245 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the Wales YouGov/ITV poll you've used the numbers from February. The May numbers are in the bold type column to the right (in the pdf).86.2.12.245 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an Opinium Poll in today's Daily Mail, but no field work dates are given: "An Opinium poll for the Mail put Ukip on course to win 31 per cent, ahead of Labour on 29 per cent, the Conservatives on 20 per cent and the Lib Dems tied with the Greens on a miserable 5 per cent." 86.2.12.245 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no sample size referenced either. Really we do need both before this poll can be included in the table. Also we always ideally prefer to use data tables as the source. Newspapers are ok as a provisional source provided they have all the info we need. Owl In The House (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinium have published details for the poll now.86.2.12.245 (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Survation have published the tables for the 9-12 May Scotland-only Daily Record poll. (table 17, p.20 of pdf) 86.2.12.245 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Owl In The House (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Survation/Daily Mirror poll. UKIP 32 LAB 27 CON 23 LD 9 GRN 4 86.2.12.245 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2szup6apiz/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200514-EU.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.217.253 (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)