Talk:Opinion polling for the 2016 Croatian parliamentary election

Change ratings display from coalitions to parties?
The Croatia is Growing coalition no longer exists (HNS left it) and HSS is no longer in the Patriotic Coalition. Polling firms no longer give coalition preference votes, just party ratings. They also don't give ratings for smaller parties that are/were members of the two largest coalitions, and their ratings of 0.1-0.2% can change the front-runner. So it would be easier to just give ratings of HDZ, SDP, HNS, HSLS, HSS... than count them in non-existent coalitions. There could also be two sections, one for coalitions and one for individual parties, but it's impossible to give exact percentages for coalitions now as we don't have numbers for all parties. Tzowu (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

RTL/Jutarnj list poll
Well I can't see what is the problem? The polls show how the parties would go on the national stage, with or without undecided voters. Links are provided, and you can't remove arbitrarily something that is sourced. Care to explain what is your problem with this polls? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are no such polls as the ones you have added to the article. They do not exist in the links you have provided. I will continue to add the actual polls with actual links which lead to them. Kind regards.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is an actual poll, and you can see it in the link, it is your problem that you don't want to see it, thanks, and please stop removing sourced content. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read through the page several times, and there's nothing to this effect anywhere there. Please provide a reliable reference for these numbers, they have to be removed otherwise.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added another source, I can't see the point any more with you, because the results are also visible in the link I have provided before. You are just ignoring facts, why I don't know. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your additional source is an incomplete citation, to the point where I am not sure what it even is. It appears to be course notes at first glance, which likely couldn't pass verifiability. Please provide a complete citation. Also please refrain from deleting essential info such as the dates when polls were conducted and the sample sizes. Cheers.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You have just made a whole mess of the table. Place the sample size on the table with party standings. Tnx
 * Also what is your problem with the provided source? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason to remove vital info from the table. It's hardly a mess. Also, your source seems suspect and unverifiable. Upravna znanost is a course taught in Croatia by Robert Blažević. It's highly unlikely that a poll conducted a couple weeks ago is already in a published book. Please elaborate on the citation (i.e. proper book, journal, etc. citation; with further info on publisher, etc.).--Thewanderer (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is. Already we have a table that has all that info, the table with coalition standings should be simplified. The book was published a couple of weeks ago. Publisher is Pravni Fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci. I can give the proper citation, but I'll do it tomorrow, it is late now. You should instead of making a whole mess of this article be focused on getting your facts straight, here on the talk page. You whole behavior has been very disturbing and unproductive, just reverting my edits is not the way Wikipedia should work. When we start a discussion you should refrain yourself from edits on the content that we are discussing about. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks. I have not made any mess of this article, but have been working to improve its misleading and fragmented presentation to date. I do not have to ask for your permission to add content to the article. However, you have repeatedly removed sourced info baselessly.--Thewanderer (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes to the results. I would have never thought that there is a person that is willing to start an edit war on an article about opinion polling. I guess that I was wrong. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the citation: "...rezultati zadnje provedene ankete(here is a footnote that shows the info, date, etc. of that opinion poll) jasno pokazuju da,..., stranka HDZ sa svojim partnerima dobiva 26,9% glasova. Koalicija oko SDP-a bi ostvarila rezultat od 33,6%, a od stranaka Živi zid i Most koje se bore za treće mjesto, prva bi dobila 8,2%, a potonja 7,1%. Vrijedne spomena su još male stranke koje glasovima svojih birača ne prelaze izborni prag na nacionalnoj razini, ali zahvaljujući izbornom sustavu imaju mogućnost da budu zastupljene u parlamentu (stranka Bandić Milan 365(another footnote) 2,6%, HSS 1.9%, IDS 1,6% i HDSSB 1,4%). ... Orah... 0,9%... neodlučnih birača je 12.1%..." --Tuvixer (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please Thewanderer, can you stop your disruptive editing. I have provided the citation, as you requested. The table needs to be simplified. We cant have duplication in the same article. The table about the coalitions is simplified, and the table with party standings shows the polls in more detail. Please again, if you have any problems address them here, and do not edit the article. Edit war is not allowed, and I will have to report you. Sry but that is how it is. Be civil, and discuss the matter here. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting sources by writing arbitrary publication dates for polls. There is absolutely no reason for the coalitions table to be "simplified". If the size of the table is becoming an issue, we can consider at least removing ORAH, and probably also IDS due to their consistently low numbers. The monthly Promocija Plus polls have differing data for the coalitions than the individual parties, so it's important to have the full source info available. There's also at least one poll for now (the one for RTL and Jutarnji) that's only represented in the coalitions table and not the individual party table. Coincidentally, I have zero information right now about the polling dates and sample size for that same RTL and Jutarnji list poll.


 * If you feel the need to continuously insult me, we can certainly get an administrator involved. But I can assure you, they will find that you are the one who has attempted to take ownership over the article and has been performing disruptive edits.--Thewanderer (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the matter here, and do not make disruptive edits to the article. This is the last time. Next time I will have to report you. It seems that there is no other way to resolve this issue. Please show some good faith, and stop editing the article until we have discussed the matter properly here on the talk page. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Same polls
How are two polls conducted 22 May - 9 Jun not the same? Both have the same source and if you remove the information about undecided voters from the one that has is and scale all other numbers so they add up to 100, you get the numbers from the other one (up to the rounding errors, I guess). 46.234.79.149 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well maybe that is so. I will check the numbers tomorrow, and if that is right, I will remove it. Tnx :) --Tuvixer (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems you were right. I have removed that row. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Graph
Could someone make a graph in order to provide a better visual representation? Like the one for the previous election's opinion polls, but with only one year span. 46.234.79.149 (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will make it in a week or two, when the next poll is published. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

recent edit war
I was canvassed here via my talk page. AFAICT there's several points of dispute in the most recent two diffs:


 * introductory text - not sure what the complaint is, that one intro doesn't apply to all polls?
 * sample size - not sure why we would ever omit that, it's pretty standard?
 * dates - that sounds like a trivial verifiability issue?
 * who to name in the reference, polling organization/client?

Can we please make separate edits for separate issues, because this is a mess. A separate talk page section for each issue that remains in dispute would be most welcome, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)