Talk:Bicester and Woodstock (UK Parliament constituency)

=Polling= I didn't add this section, and I'm well aware of issues with applying MRP at constituency level, but I'm not convinced removing it just because many other constituencies don't have such a section. People talk about these polls, including in the local press.Babakathy (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This isn't even polling of the consituency, these are projection based on various national MRP polls. To have such a large table for one election is completely unjustified on a constituency article. I will replace this with the one consituency-level poll actually done for this constituency. LukeSurlt c 20:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have deleted a table of referenced (WP:V) information which clearly has specific relevance to this article. Whilst summaries for all 650 seats are well-documented elsewhere, the MRP projections for this constituency are pieces of information not duplicated in any other article. (Few other constituency articles have collated this information, but I argue they should.)
 * The comprehensive nature of the table is essential for it to comply with WP:NPOV - a key tenet of Wikipedia at any time, but especially pertinent to an article on UK politics during a General Election period. Your selection of the very small subset of data to remain suggests you value your personal opinion over and above presenting information for people to make up their own minds. If you believe you can justify deletion of the entire section, engage in discussion here first (WP:CON). Under WP:STATUSQUO I will reinstate the deleted section for now. LilRedCasanova (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a citizen of this constituency, this table is actually very useful. The parties are each selectively picking from these polls to justify their position as frontrunners. Having all of the information is helpful. Why not wait until after the election to remove/shorten it? Caracoles118 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The policy arguments against inclusion of such a large table are that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and specifically that Wikipedia is not a database. This is why you do not see such tables on other constituency pages, even though these could be plausibly generated for any constiuency in Britain. Having this here would be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against standard UK constituency article formats.
 * To answer a specific point, I did not select a very small subset of data. I added the only constituency-level poll that has been done for this constituency for the 2024 election (which was removed in the reversion). Like the large table, it effectively demonstrates that polling suggests a close three-way contest, but with better data and a lot less space. Arguably, all opinion polling - including this - should be shunted to Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election but this seemed a reasonable compromise. LukeSurlt c 13:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Economist constituency poll is already present in the existing table. Different MRP predictions for this constituency have suggested markedly different things, so I'm pleased that Caracoles118 agrees that it is useful to have all the information in the article.
 * At your suggestion, Luke, I have begun a parallel conversation here about rolling this idea out more widely across constituency articles. The use of MRP polling to generate such constituency-level predictions has only become widespread within the last couple of election cycles, so it is understandable that the article template (which predates the technology) has not previously accommodated them. LilRedCasanova (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)