Talk:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election/Archives/2013/April

Sock puppetry
So it seems that and  are confirmed sockpuppets. Given that much of the consensus for this article has been achieved through debate between these "two" people, it seems that certain issues that they previously condemned other people for questioning are now up for debate again. I'm going to archive much of their previous debates so we can finally have a clean slate for this article. –  Richard  BB  18:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sock puppetry or not, I don't see why the issue has been closed and why the decision has been reversed. The 2 logon's that were found to be the same person are not the only ones that supported the 3rd party column.n The arguments were sound and credible to me!130.88.52.104 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There were three people who supported the changes. Two of them were proven to be the same person. That leaves two people. That is not a consensus. It was reversed because consensus was never achieved in the first place. –  Richard  BB  18:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For another opinion (though I'm an IP editor entering a world of apparent sockpuppeting, so suspect me if you'd like), I'd suggest that the 3rd party lead being called OR is silly, I don't think simple mathematics really counts as research, possibly not all sources used would exactly give the lead, merely stating labour on 40 and cons on 33 (or whatever), with the dif being obvious, but we'd still put the lead column. IMO, calculating the 3rd party lead doesn't come anywhere close to OR....however, I don't think it should be added in the table. It never has been before, it's only being suggested because UKIP wants to draw as much attention as possible. The rise of UKIP is probably the biggest polling theme of this parliament, and deserves plentiful weight in some sort of commentary to the numbers (suggest sourcing Anthony Wells' website for it)...but there's no good argument for adding in a 3rd party lead. Do any of the older parliaments pages have a 2nd party lead (eg when libs and labour were close in the 80s)?? 92.15.56.51 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how a wall of yellow (in the most part) in the 3rd party column is good for UKIP. The colouring hides the small difference between 3rd and 4th, it would appear that the difference is just as great as between 1st and 3rd. I disagree about writting commentary on this. I think that would constitute orignal research. You are right to say that simply showing numbers in a reader friendly format is not original research, if this were so then we should get rid of the 1st party lead column. The argument that we don't use this in any other article seems to me to be weak and irrelevant. UK politics is different, we have had all these stupid comparisons with Italian and Israeli politics where the situation is different. I say let's let the numbers speak for themselves, let's not write anything, lets just re add the user friendly column. The 2 accounts that were involved in sockpuppetry were not the only ones that supported the table but that issue seemed to take over and be used as an excuse to remove it in spite of everything else.213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell how many people are in favour of something or not if they stay as IP editors only. There are many benefits to starting an account, so I would suggest that some of the above do so. Bondegezou (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that column would be really useful as others have pointed out! Myself and at least 3 others are in favor but apparently their views don't matter because they wish to remain anonymous. Oh dear. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to know how many people were in favour of the column given sock puppetry and multiple IP addresses being used by single people. Perhaps more to the point, Wikipedia is not decided by voting, but by policies. Bondegezou (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Sheff, there weren't that many — there were 3: You, Nick Dancer (you) and an IP (impossible to tell who it is). So really, two (or fewer). –  Richard  BB  20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that Sheffno1 hasn't been scared off from this discussion. His actions were questionable but argument was very reasonable. May I remind Bondegezou of what 92.15.56.51 said i.e. that 3rd party column did not constitute original research. I understand that wiki is not a voting system but we do things by consensus and it seems to me that the decision was reversed against the wider consensus! Yes sock puppetry is wrong but you cant use that as an excuse to discount everyone elses points! Sheffno1 and his alter ego were never the only person in favor of this column! Sockpuppetry has merely been used an excuse to reverse this change! There is nothing in wiki policy that disallows a 3rd party lead column, so you cant really use that as a valid excuse! 81.149.185.174 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Sheff. –  Richard  BB  20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I said maths isn't OR, but I also was pretty clear that putting leads other than the 1st place lead was a bad idea. If we are to have a 2nd lead column, it should be 2nd/3rd, not 3rd/4th :p
 * I do think this page should have more than a guide to methodology (which is dodgy as companies frequently tweak theirs) and numbers, some sort of analysis (no not OR, cited analysis of experts....like what every other wikipage is supposed to be) would be sensible. There are a few psephologists who do end-of-year summaries. An in my experience an account is a bad idea, wiki has it's own vile politics. 92.15.50.23 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Im in favour of the Third party lead column. As established its not original research and it was indeed helpful because 3rd and 4th position would change quite frequently. No use in having a 2nd party column, thats a daft idea and indeed a poor excuse for not having a 3rd party lead column. The article was so much better with the extra column, although I did agree with removing the shading. Only 1st place should be shaded. 2.123.20.148 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm against the 3rd party column. It makes no sense to highlight when a party is third (or fourth, by the way). Why? Is scoring third or fourth really that important and remarkable in Election Day? Does a party win a special prize or is regarded with a special consideration if it does score in that place? The one who gets first does: it (most of times) achieves the likehood of forming a government, as well as the high standing and prestige (temporarily, at least) resulting from winning an election. But that's all about it. The same does not happen for a party which scores third. And about the 2nd party column being "a daft idea and indeed a poor excuse for not having a 3rd party lead column", it could be said likewise about the 3rd party column, being a "daft idea and a poor excuse for not having a 2nd party lead column". Note that I do not support either of them, but having a 3rd/4th column and not a 2nd/3rd looks rather random and not sustained by a strong argument. Furthermore, it's rather weird to find people defending having a 3rd party lead column but, at the same time, outrightly rejecting a 2nd party lead column, when both are the very same thing serving the same purpose; just for different parties. Impru20 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that we do not need a 3rd party column. Not only is there a clear consensus against it, but I have yet to see a reason why we should have one. As Impru said, who the 3rd party is is irrelevant. We don't have AV here, so it doesn't matter. –  Richard  BB  18:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not want to reinstate the third party lead column. The first party (usually) forms the government, the second party gets to become the official opposition. The third party might get included in televised debates or extra party political broadcasts, but there is nothing automatic about this and it is uncertain whether coming third in opinion polls or even real votes will translate into having the third largest block of seats. Third place is of interest to supporters of UKIP and the LibDems, but has little relevance to anyone else. In the earlier round of discussions, tainted by sock-puppetry, one advocate insisted we stop flogging a dead horse. To use a second cliché, may I mischievously suggest that what's good for the goose is good for the gander? --Wavehunter (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

YES, Thank you Wavehunter for being the voice of reason. Bkissin (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)