Talk:July 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election

Untitled
Okay, just to elaborate on a few things:
 * All of the data in that table was recalculated. What that means is that most pollsters offer options like Party A B C, Won't vote, None of the above all in the same question. To make that answer comparable to election results you have to recalculate it. There are no government-mandated standards for opinion polls and if you're feeling like enforcing that specific ruleset in this instance, that poll should be explicitly removed rather than leaving it there. To note, the same was done in the previous article as far as recalculations.
 * The more common and used abbreviation is simply VMRO, as can be seen here and here.
 * Where are the specific design requirements for tables such as this one. If we're going off of 'it's always been done like this', then I'd say it's a matter of preference, rather than rules?

I'd be happy for feedback through the Talk page next time, as a courtesy before rolling back my changes, thanks :) --Yupyuphello (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Answering your points:
 * I know what data recalculation is, but this is not what you did for the Gallup poll. You basically assumed that, since you could not interpret if the numbers included undecideds/abstainers or not, you basically took the offered numbers, added them up and them translated them to 100 under a rule of three, i.e. assuming there would be 0 votes for any other party aside of those six, which seems quite daring. That was my criticism. In the April election there was over 17% (!!) of votes cast for parties other than the six shown in Gallup. In the Market Links poll, the amount of votes cast for parties other than those six is 6.6%. Without your calculation, the % for "Others" in the Gallup poll amounts to 9.1%. Seems legit to assume that, since the source does not explicitly mention abstainers and/or undecideds separately, those have been already accounted for and no recalculation is required for that poll.
 * Seems fair enough in the case of "VMRO" alone, so I concede on this point.
 * I'd say it's a matter of preference, rather than rules Indeed. But since it's you the one seeking to push for a change compared to previous elections, it'd you the one priorizing your preferences over those of others, right? So a "Please don't touch this"-response in an edit summary reverting other one's edit is a quite reckless response when you yourself acknowledge it's you the one unilaterally changing the format of the tables based on your own preferences. I limited myself to standardize the table to the format already at use.
 * Cheers!  Impru 20 talk 14:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, then that's a mistake on my part. In this case, how does one properly note that the data isn't comparable. I think it's fairly important to do that - either by not including polls that don't allow for recalculation due to partial data or by even adding a design feature (background color maybe?) to signify that in some way. If there has been precedent for such issues in the past, I'd be thankful if you can bring up any potential solutions based on that? My chief concern is that opinion polls are already frighteningly misappropriated within Bulgaria - media often does not make them comparable in any way, which is arguably something that some voters see as a form of opinion tampering. My personal opinion is that, since the data itself is incomplete and the pollster hasn't mentioned their format in a clear way - the poll is flawed due to a lack of completeness and it's impossible to say whether the rest of the possible answers pollees were given were voter-only answers or alternatives like 'I won't vote', etc.
 * Thank you for that. On that note, how would you feel about other parties? Technically the GERB results might be GERB-SDS coalition results, since pollsters don't explicitly mention that. Same applies for BSP results - they might actually be results for the coalition rather than the party itself (the coalition is BSPzB - BSP for Bulgaria in English).
 * Fair point, I'll admit I might have been a bit ticked off, but I didn't know there was an unofficial/semi-official design requirement. In all honesty, yes, I don't like the current way it's done - I find that using the base colors instead of a lightened % off the party's color code is just uglier. I'll leave them be if you feel that strongly about them, though I would still say that the bolding for the lead part might be a good option, since I have run into issues when different fonts on other people's computers or mobile phones have come into play.
 * Thanks for the feedback --Yupyuphello (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"since I have run into issues when different fonts on other people's computers or mobile phones have come into play"

does it really matter, glyphs versus fonts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nckdck (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

паради что има таквизи дебиле у Бълхарската педивикиа?
closed-list PR? really? е па бива ли да сте чак па толко малоумни???
 * Yes, that's what the International Foundation for Electoral Systems says. Number   5  7  21:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

no eff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nckdck (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

? open or closed list= we seem to agree on teh pr part? citations or not

The electoral threshold is 4% for parties.[2]
do we happen to have yet another threshold? smth like 7 percent?

"you have to recalculate it"
do they mean smth along teh lines o normalization in quantum mechs?

how do i raport
Yupyuphello/Impru20

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nckdck (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

on phones
any other option part from mobile?

Grave Digger - William Wallace (Braveheart) @ Wacken 2010 (Official DVD)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEj0Y2ikctE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nckdck (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

be brave, eff facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXqCb094tXU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nckdck (talk • contribs) 03:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Barometer is fake and it should not be included
Barometer is a fake agency, it has no web site whatsoever, it has only 1 employee, previous "opinion polls" of Barometer have shown that it's totally fake, EXTREMELY favouring one particular party or a party candidate (in the local elections), so it is 100% FAKE.

Here you could read up some more info about them (if you're not a Bulgarian, then use google translate):

https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/30988522.html

Barometer was EXCLUDED in the graphical representation of the opinion polls data for the April 2021 election wiki page with the note "The above data does not include Barometer polls, due to claims by other pollsters and media that the agency only has one employee".

It was excluded from the opinion poll section from the Bulgarian page for thw April elections as well.

Are you a Bulgarian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terorio (talk • contribs)


 * I'll give my short view on the matter:
 * It doesn't matter whether someone is Bulgarian or not, Wikipedia is an international project and as a fellow Bulgarian I'm offended that you made that comment, Terorio.
 * Barometer tends to be heavily skewed in certain parties' favor and there have been claims that they don't have enough employees to actually function. These are, so far, just that - claims.
 * Having a website is not a requirement. Sova Harris and Specter use their social media pages to post any data, as they don't have websites either.
 * Data that is circumspect for graphics can be omitted or a workaround has to be used like in the Bulgarian article for the april elections. Data in the core list should always be listed, as even if it is way off or dubious, we provide it as a historical basis. Even a researcher would have a tough time finding data if it's scattered across the internet and, quite often, just gone or deleted. I looked into previous elections and a fair amount of the links were dead and had never been archived.


 * To summarize, that data must be put back where it was. You can add a note to all Barometer polls or expand on the topic like I did in the original april elections Bulgarian article. Otherwise I agree with Kahlores that this is clear vandalism. If you'd like to read up on the topic, I suggest you look here as to how trustworthy the other agencies are. Hint: not that trustworthy, which I thought was obvious, based on how most of them lean a certain way (Example: Mediana favors BSP). --Yupyuphello (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @ No, I am not Bulgarian and indeed this may hamper my understanding, but this is why I asked you to come on the talk page to explain why we should remove Barometer's polls. I am not prejudiced for either side, I'm just asking to see proof.
 * Barometer Bulgaria Ltd's numbers are not wildly different from the others, except for DB which they seem to underestimate compared to the others.
 * The source you give against Barometer, Svobodna Evropa, is probably close to DSB based on both preferred policies (they even share the torch of Liberty logo!), hence the anger at Barometer.
 * This is typical of partisan polling. I notice that Mediana seems to favor BSP.
 * Wikipedia cannot take sides, for as long as they are legally published. In any case, all opinion polls have to be taken with distance. Some argue they can be seen as prophecies modernized with mathematics to give them credit. (see for instance this paper: Are public opinion polls self-fulfilling prophecies?)
 * One thing I suggest is to add the publisher or commissioner. This is often enough to explain the bias. Svobodna's 2020 article said Barometer was published by BNT. However, I wasn't able to find BNT on the two June polls.
 * Thanks for your remarks.
 * Kahlores (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)