Talk:Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3

Plaid Cymru
Although historically it’s always had its own column, an editor has gone and removed that. Without first taking it to talk. I think it needs to be there, since although there’s always a small percentage, it’s highly unlikely to fade out completely and more importantly, the party has 4 MP’s! Boscaswell  talk  23:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In theory, we should reflect how reliable sources report the polls. So far, BMG headline the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the Brexit Party and Ukip. Opinium includes the same but adds the SNP and Plaid Cymru. I can't find any media write-ups of either poll yet. So on the level of sources it's inconclusive at the moment. I maintain my view from the page for the previous election that including the SNP and PC in the GB/UK poll table is unhelpful because the changes in their poll scores tell the reader absolutely nothing about how well the parties are performing because: all the changes are by necessity within the margin of error, and even if there were changes dramatic enough to be reflected in national poll results, they would be much clearly captured in polls of Scotland and Wales... But we should wait until there's a clear pattern in reliable sources that we can follow. Until then I'd support restoring Plaid Cymru to the table. Ralbegen (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it would be controversial but their results are very low and not considered notable by reliable sources. I don't see any reason to give Plaid Cymru its own column here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the main reason for including Plaid previously was that YouGov had a single SNP/Plaid option prior to the European elections in 2019. Since then they've separated them from each other. Realistically, Plaid are going to be on either 0% or 1% because of the size of Wales and Plaid usually being between 8-15%. However, it's still useful from a trends point of view, as people can work out averages from the data - with more 1% results suggesting Plaid are doing better than if they were getting more 0% results. I'd say we should keep them for now as most pollsters include them in their initial prompt (at least for voters in Wales), which should really be our guideline as for who's included: are the party prompted by multiple pollsters? If the answer if yes, regardless of their territorial extent, then they should be included in the table. Albeit, I'm be happy what's being used right now where named others in the poll (eg. Plaid, UKIP, Change UK) are added as a note next to the 'other parties' percentage to keep the table reduced to size, whilst allowing people who want the polling data for smaller parties to find it easily. Clyde1998 (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest Onetwothreeip stops vandalizing the results table and removing Plaid Cymru. Discussion makes it cleat he is the only one wanting to remove them and has absolutely no support from others. As mentioned above, removing a party that is regularly prompted by all pollsters is total illegitimate and should be explicitly forbidden. JezEuansson (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support removing Plaid Cymru given their very low scores - if they rise again we can always reinsert them. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the issue Plaid Cymru have MPs which is already one good reason NOT to exclude them. And now all pollsters including YouGov have a separate entry for PC in their published results, you just have to check the sources. Which is a second reason NOT to exclude them. Clearly there is absolutely NO consensus to remove them, ergo they should stay. JezEuansson (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus here is clearly to keep them in the table but to merge their results into the Other column, with a note for the Plaid Cymru results. Plaid Cymru have only 4 MPs out of 650, and don't poll above 1%. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely NO consensus here, only you want to remove PC. Now this footnote idea is the daftest possible. There were 468 polls between the 2017 and 2019 elections. So what you propose is polluting the page with 468 footnotes only because you have a fixation on PC? Get a life, lad and stop vandalizing. JezEuansson (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense, . There would only need to be one footnote for each of Plaid Cymru's results. If they poll only 0%, 0.5% or 1%, that would require only three footnotes for the entire article. I have no particular prejudice against Plaid Cymru, they are simply polling far too low to merit a column, and space should be conserved where possible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure and then you end up with as many footnotes as polls since ALL pollsters include Plaid Cymru in their prompts. Make that 400+ footnotes by the time the next election comes round. Great way to conserve space, isn't it? And by the way they deserve their own column for one good reason: they do have MPs. So think this through because, even by your own criteria, you don't make sense.JezEuansson (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. This is what you said previously and I am expressly rejecting this. If there are 200 results of Plaid Cymru receiving 1% in polls, then it would only require one footnote to be used for all of those 1% results between them, since they share the same footnote and not duplicating the same footnote many times. So there would only be as many footnotes as unique Plaid Cymru polling results, not as many footnotes as there are Plaid Cymru polling results. Please don't assume something that is completely nonsense when you could instead ask me for clarification. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - as every single pollster explicitly includes Plaid in their results, if we were to remove the party's column then every single cell in the 'other' column would have to have a footnote beside it (compare this to the situation with UKIP now, which makes sense as only about half of pollsters list it at all). Furthermore, although you are right in saying that footnotes can be reused, we would need to have one for every combination of UKIP and Plaid results that came up, which would be substantially more than the two we have at present. As for your other point about their low number of MPs, Plaid Cymru currently have 3 MPs, while the Green Party have just 1. Should they be removed from the main table too, and be replaced by yet more confusing and unsightly footnotes? It's fine the way it is. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Footnote aversion isn't a good reason to keep them in the main table, but following reliable sources is. If we want to determine which parties should be in the table, we should see which parties are headlined in pollsters' write-ups of their results and in media reports of polls. By that criterion, Plaid Cymru have a moderate case to stay in the table for the time being. The Brexit Party has a much weaker case to remain in the table at the moment. If we're thinking about what it's useful for a reader to know, then Plaid Cymru in the GB/UK table tells us just about nothing. In every general election, they've had what rounds to 0% or 1% of the vote, and that's also what they poll at. Wales-only Westminster polls are a lot more helpful for that.
 * Do pollsters responsible for most polls include Plaid Cymru in their write-ups of poll findings? Do most media organisations covering opinion polls include Plaid Cymru in the headline results? If those are both "yes", we should include them here. If they are both "no", we should move them to the other column. Ralbegen (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We could have a footnote for every combination of UKIP and Plaid Cymru polling, or we could have separate footnotes for each. Either way, the amount of footnotes used would be low. I don't particularly think that the amount of MPs a party has matters, and I was raising that the party only has four when someone argued that their presence in the House of Commons merited its own column. Really, Plaid Cymru should never have been provided its own column, as they aren't included in secondary reporting of polling results. The only reason they have this column is because their polling results used to be often but not always merged with SNP. Per Ralbegen, media organisations don't care about the national polling result of Plaid Cymru, and neither should we. If there is something unsightly here, it's the width of the table. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Loess smoothing is wrong
Hi. We currently have another example of when the LOESS smoothing has gone wrong.

The 'smoothed' value for labour is higher than 6 of the last 9 datapoints.

For the conservatives it is lower than 7 of the last 9.

The smoothing has missed the recent turn in the chart.

Personally I would rather skip the uncertain projection at the latest time, and stick to the centred moving average which will never change RERTwiki (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi RERTwiki, a LOESS curve not behaving like a moving average does not mean it has gone wrong. Not being highly sensitive to each new data point is a feature, not a bug. Picking numbers to make it look tendentious is not helpful: across June, five values are above the line and six are below for the Conservatives and contrariwise for Labour. You can find the same balance in each previous month with equal or near-equal values for each party above and below the curve, with some points on the curve. Ralbegen (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Would it make sense to give more information on what type of loess smoother it is? I assume it is a local quadratic (rather than local linear) fit, which would explain the occasional oversteering/'overcurving' (as for instance visible right now, 31/07/2020). Lionjoky (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding UKIP back to the main table?
We've just had the fifth poll in a row giving UKIP 1% of the vote. Surely it's worth considering putting them into the main table now? The "other" section being littered with citations isn't a good look. BrexitZZZ (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess so, but is UKIP even worth a note at this point? Receiving 1% in a poll isn't noteworthy. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 16:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, UKIP is a tiny party with a very optimistic ceiling of some 2%, but if pollsters are prompting it and get results for it, I feel it makes little sense to exclude/marginalise the results. The data is there, at a similar magnitude to Plaid Cymru. Citations are useful, but I feel should be limited to fringe cases like the odd BNP/WEP result that YouGov has historically shown. I'd like to see some more thoughts on this. BrexitZZZ (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've never heard of "WEP" (or many other British parties, not being British, and I’m not very familiar with any of the other minor ones mentioned here) and I'll have to do some research there, but that makes sense. However, I also think that given the fact the the UK has already left the EU, why include parties whose goals have already essentially been achieved? But I am glad to hear other opinions as well. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 13:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the parties reported in the headline results a polling company publishes are the most useful guideline for inclusion, and UKIP aren't amongst those for the ones I've checked. If they return to the spotlight and their results are consistently reported along with the larger parties then they can be retrospectively included for older polls. Ralbegen (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think UKIP are currently getting the sort of numbers that would warrant adding them to the table. Plaid Cymru are included not because of their vote share but because of their seats in Parliament. --Wavehunter (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, I agree with Ralbegen here (and Wavehunter). --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 13:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking, and I don't think any far-right or far-left parties should be included in the chart (including UKIP?). Extremist or near-extremist parties are unlikely to ever receive enough support to be worth including in the polls, so a permanent exclusion of those parties would set forward a sort of policy that would prevent future inclusion and debate. It's just a proposal, but otherwise we risk these extreme parties finding their way into the polling chart. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 16:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable idea from SelfieCity, but we would then have to define far-right, far-left, extremist and near-extremist. A can of worms! I don't think UKIP would describe themselves as any of these things.--Wavehunter (talk)17:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not think its our job to decide which political parties should be included based on how extreme their politics are (that is indeed a can of worms in itself), but leave it to the polls. Our task here is simply to record the polls. But I agree with Wavehunter, Ralbegen and Selfie City that currently they dont warrant inclusion. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Political parties usually have their political position in the infobox on the right, often based on reliable sources. We could use the description in the infobox to decide each, in which case it wouldn't be difficult. Bodney has a point, though. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my  contributions ) 17:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been several months and UKIP is still (somehow) getting frequent polling figures, often moreso than the BXP. Previous concerns against the proposal of adding them to the table included UKIP having little airtime/activity (which shouldn't matter, this article merely echos the figures given by polls no matter how noteworthy the parties are), as well as a lack of consistent figures (UKIP has proven to be consistently prompted and consistently receive non-zero figures in half of the recent polling, directly comparable to the BXP, whilst also proving a ceiling of 3% in a recent Deltapoll poll). We now have 30 total notes for UKIP figures in the other column. When this article is concluded after next election it's very likely we could be looking at three digits of notes, something no other polling article shares from what I'm aware. I recently added a UKIP column (as you can see for yourself in the articles history) and it doesn't look out of place in the slightest, looking nearly identical to the existing BXP column. I propose adding it back to the table via the edit I made earlier, and if UKIP dwindles in support in the future and stops getting figures, the argument to isolate the figures into the "other" column with notes would be more justified, but as it currently stands UKIP polling results haven't remotely died off since the last discussion, giving every indication they might not in the future. I'd like to get this discussion done and dusted as the longer it takes to form a consensus the longer it would take to add a column in the future.. BrexitZZZ (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest this discussion would be better taken in the most recent section as myself and another user made comments concurrently. BrexitZZZ (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Column review
Hi all, in light of boldly adding a column for UKIP's results (which at time of writing, I've boldly reverted), I thought it might be sensible to review the columns we include in the table.

With the principle of following reliable sources and ascribing due weight, I think that the most useful things to determine whether a party should have its own column are whether media sponsors cover their results in VI polls, and whether the pollster includes the party's VI figure in their summary write-up. So I've looked at the most recent poll from each pollster and the most recent media sponsor write-up for each pollster I can find, where their most recent poll was for the same sponsor.

For media sponsors: unsurprisingly, these all cover Labour and the Conservatives. Most also cover the Liberal Democrats. None of them covers the SNP, Plaid Cymru or UKIP. One covered the Green Party and the Brexit Party.

For pollster summaries (on their websites where there's a write-up): these all cover the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Most cover the SNP. The other parties are rather more scant. Weighting by the number of polls each pollster has published that are included in the table at time of writing, Plaid Cymru are in write-ups by pollsters representing 33 of the 81 polls on this page. The Brexit Party are in write-ups by pollsters representing 21 of the 81 polls on this page. UKIP are only in the summary by Kantar Public, which represents 5 of the 81 polls on this page.

Accordingly, I think it would be undue weight to add a column for UKIP's results. I think there's a strong case to move the Brexit Party's results to the "others" column. I think there's a fairly strong case to move Plaid Cymru's results to the "others" column. If Plaid Cymru maintains a column in the table, it should be moved to the right: no pollster combines SNP/PC results any more, so they don't need to be adjacent. I'm interested in other editors' views about which parties should be represented by columns in the table and what changes, if any, ought to be made. Ralbegen (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe putting more parties into the "other" column would be a mistake. First off, the amount of combinations of Plaid on 0/1%, BXP on -/0/1/2/3/4%, UKIP on -/0/1/2/3% would create dozens of notes, with the combined "Other" being as high as 8%. All three are legitimate parties which in most cases are given results by pollsters, if not the article. It makes little sense excluding them. I appreciate the intention of "cleaning up" the tables, but having as low as 5 main columns for the 5 largest parties would make an unnecessary small table, with cluttered [a], [b], ...., [m] notes in every row that not only require a great deal of effort to find and input the correct note, but would prevent the article viewer from seeing the long term trends (for example someone unfamiliar with UK politics might not be able to notice the trend of BXP go from consistent 3%s to 0-1%) as looking at the extra figures in "other" would prove an unnecessary hassle, and when it becomes tricky to see the numbers, what good does the article even serve? I encourage you to look at foreign election articles. The French Presidential election has 15 different parties in 19 different columns, many of which hold 0% data. Israeli election has 15 different columns. Why is hiding data to make a table unneedingly narrow an advantage in any way? If the data is gathered and included in the headline figure, it's real data. I don't see reason for the argument that the Conservatives on 44% is valid data worth showing but UKIP on 2% is of no concern to the reader and should be excluded.
 * What I will say is that I completely agree that Plaid Cymru belongs at the end of the column. BrexitZZZ (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Plaid Cymru absolutely shouldn't have a column, as it has almost no media coverage of its national polling results. It's pointless to refer to the tables for articles that list the polling results of other countries, since many of those tables are too large as well. The most important reason to avoid large tables is because they become completely untenable for mobile devices. A party polling from 3% to 1% is not a trend that needs to be meaningfully represented. If the reason for giving much greater prominence to a party polling at 44% than a party at 2% isn't already apparent, then it's something easily justifiable from the coverage of this information in secondary media sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My compromise suggestion would be to follow the reporting of the polls, as suggests, but to err on the side of being inclusive, as per . So definitely in are Con, Lab, LD, SNP. UKIP should definitely be out. That leaves Greens, Brexit Party and Plaid in a grey area. If the Brexit Party are covered in the write-ups of over a quarter of the polls, then that shows RS coverage and, as per WP:BALANCE, I think we should include them. Ditto for the stronger cases of Plaid and the Greens. That would be 7 columns: much less than the 19 in France or 15 in Israel, but not completely minimalist either. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * said Plaid Cymru absolutely shouldn't have a column, as it has almost no media coverage of its national polling results. I disagree with the logic there.
 * Were we discussing some prose describing national polling or discussing the current state of UK politics, then I would agree that the lack of media coverage of Plaid would mean we shouldn't be talking about Plaid in that context. But this is a table of polling results. Our sources here are the pollsters. The relevant coverage here is what the pollsters say in their reports and, as per 's analysis, 40% do talk about Plaid. We must reflect what sources say, but which sources we're talking about does depend on the context. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for your input. I'll not write a fuller reply yet in case other editors want to contribute, but, would you be happy for Plaid's column to be moved to the right of the table? If you are then I think that's a reasonable consensus and I'll implement that particular change. Ralbegen (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, fine to move Plaid to the right. Bondegezou (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've expressed correctly what I meant about Plaid Cymru. The sources in question are the media sources which publish polling results, not media sources which discuss UK politics. The sources publishing the national polling results hardly ever mention Plaid Cymru. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about the grey area (Greens, Plaid, Brexit). I can take or leave them. There does seem to be a ranking in terms of the strength of argument for their inclusion (Green>Plaid>Brexit). Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear some support the idea, but I'm yet to see any arguments as to **why** the Greens/Plaid/BXP should be excluded, even from a purely aesthetic standpoint the table is far from cluttered. This article isn't meant to concern itself with the clients or the articles, but rather concerns the polls themselves and the results they provide. Excluding legitimate and abundant data in an article of which primary purpose is to collect/archive data is absurd. If someone loads this article they no doubt wish to see polling for the next election. If they realise data has been deliberately excluded they'd no doubt feel the article is not fulfilling its purpose (nor is it consistent with any other polling article), or they'd ponder if the isolation of green/PC/BXP data was a malicious partisan act, and they'd be completely justified in assuming so. I fully agree with the movement of Plaid to the end of the table, and appreciate the arguments given by others against giving UKIP a column, but strongly disagree with any measures to prune the table any further. BrexitZZZ (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea is to let prominence in the article follow the prominence afforded by reliable sources, in line with the principle of due weight. Ralbegen (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making a good point but I'm still cautious. Should we really devolve that level of trust to media sources? Just because an online newspaper editor doesn't include "...and the greens are steady on 3%" should the Greens really be isolated? What if a new anti-media party emerges and starts polling at 10%. The media might choose not to report that data, doesn't mean it isn't valid data that readers of this article should be able to see. Bias really shouldn't come into it, the job of this article is to aggregate data from the tables so viewers don't have to search through the poll tables themselves or trust the data from the (often partisan) media sources. I'm still reluctant of the idea, but if a consensus for it comes into play I've made a brief mockup table below showing how an "Other" column might work, with parties consistently averaging no more than 2% nor getting constant pollster prompting could fit into, with an explanation clarifying the constraints for a party to be put into "other" to prove no bias intended, and if indeed an "other" party surges in popularity it could pass the theoretical 2% average threshold and could be given a column should a consensus arise at the time.. It would also give an opportunity to get rid of the unprompted hyphens and annoying [a] notes once and for all. For what its worth it allows all data to be easily accessible to the reader, and the limit to 5 parties is consistent with the figures on the graph. BrexitZZZ (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"

! rowspan="2" | Pollster ! rowspan="2" | Client ! rowspan="2" | Dates conducted ! rowspan="2" | Area ! rowspan="2" data-sort-type="number" | Sample size ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Con ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Lab ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Lib Dem ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |SNP ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Green ! rowspan="2" class="unsortable" | Other ! rowspan="2" data-sort-type="number" | Lead ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" |
 * Survation
 * N/A
 * data-sort-value="2020-08-03" |31 Jul–3 Aug
 * UK
 * 1,019
 * style="background:#BADEF5;" |44%
 * 35%
 * 8%
 * 4%
 * 5%
 * 3%
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" | 9%
 * YouGov
 * The Times
 * data-sort-value="2020-07-31" |30–31 Jul
 * GB
 * 1,623
 * style="background:#BADEF5;" |43%
 * 35%
 * 6%
 * 5%
 * 5%
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" | 8%
 * Opinium
 * The Observer
 * data-sort-value="2020-07-31" | 30–31 Jul
 * GB
 * 2,002
 * style="background:#BADEF5;" |41%
 * 38%
 * 6%
 * 6%
 * 4%
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" | 3%
 * }
 * I like the expanding Other column and feel that is an improvement over footnotes. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If an appropriate consensus is formed and support that idea I'm more than happy to go back and change the table. If anyone has any objections/suggestions for improvement on that mockup then please let me know. BrexitZZZ (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as do I. is there a way to hide and expand columns so you could expand all of them at once? => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 18:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this mock-up, ! This is a good way of presenting the data and I'd support using this format for the whole table, with the same division between individual columns and 'others'. Ralbegen (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As per feedback I've updated the main table to reflect the mockup. I'm not aware of any way to expand all columns at once as suggested, and someone with better formatting might be able to improve on the redesign in general. BrexitZZZ (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Would it be possible to, where a party polled 0% but was prompted, include that party in the expansion as e.g. "Brexit Party on 0%" or "Plaid Cymru on 0%"? Ralbegen (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see why not. I'll get on it now. BrexitZZZ (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial instincts were to limit the table to the parties which contest the majority of the seats in the parliament as the table is showing data for all/most of the parliamentary seats. with that in mind I'd use the criteria used for PEB allocation, they must be contesting 1/6 of the seats up for election (109 seats - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/99188/pprb-rules-march-2017.pdf). while the percentages for PC, SNP are interesting they are not useful because a change in 1 or 2 % can have a very large impact on numbers of seats. scotland or wales specific polling is more useful. on this measure UKIP only had 44 candidates in 2019 and wouldn't be on the list. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 10:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - This is certainly an interesting idea, but it becomes less and less useful as time passes, because if (for example) UKIP suddenly make a resurgence and start polling 5-6-7%, we would still have to exclude them from the main table even though they were polling higher than most other parties. My opinion is that Plaid should stay, as they are mentioned in over a third of pollster write-ups that mentioned above, although I agree that they should be moved to the right. As far as the Brexit Party is concerned, they don't appear in nearly as many write-ups and (looking at the table) around half of pollsters don't even list them as a result in their own right, so I am happy for them to be merged into the 'other' column. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with 's concerns. We follow Wikipedia policy better by sticking to the principles of following what reliable sources say (which can evolve as polling fortunes vary) rather than using a rule based on the previous election (which runs into WP:LOCALCONSENSUS concerns). Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would go further than Comparison of Brexit Party pre and post election is notable. There is a real possibility that the Brexit Party could rename and become important again. I would wish to keep them for that reason. The new format is not scraper-friendly. I just feel status quo until the end of the year when we have a new table in any event. The old Brexit Party would be dead then and any resurgence effectively a novation.Cutler (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * makes a valid point, that we should remember that parties support can vary enormously over short spaces of time (see last May/June for example), and that just because a party's polling figures are in the gutter right now, if you cast your mind back (or your eyes down the table) to 3/6/9 months ago, it could be a very different story. However we shouldn't keep a party in the table on the off chance that they (or a re-launched version) might do well in the future. If the Brexit Party (or whatever Nigel Farage decides to rename it) starts getting a higher proportion of write-up coverage/consistent poll results on par with other parties listed in the main table, then we can retrospectively add it back in. It is a bit of a faff (especially if they suddenly rise to prominence at the end of a year), but if that is the small (less than half-an-hour of someone's time) price to pay for following reliable sources and giving due weight, then so be it. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal to collapse the results for Brexit, Plaid Cymru and UKIP is certainly better than the current table. Anybody with a mobile device can see how oppressively large these tables are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial instincts were to limit the table to the parties which contest the majority of the seats in the parliament as the table is showing data for all/most of the parliamentary seats. with that in mind I'd use the criteria used for PEB allocation, they must be contesting 1/6 of the seats up for election (109 seats - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/99188/pprb-rules-march-2017.pdf). while the percentages for PC, SNP are interesting they are not useful because a change in 1 or 2 % can have a very large impact on numbers of seats. scotland or wales specific polling is more useful. on this measure UKIP only had 44 candidates in 2019 and wouldn't be on the list. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 10:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - This is certainly an interesting idea, but it becomes less and less useful as time passes, because if (for example) UKIP suddenly make a resurgence and start polling 5-6-7%, we would still have to exclude them from the main table even though they were polling higher than most other parties. My opinion is that Plaid should stay, as they are mentioned in over a third of pollster write-ups that mentioned above, although I agree that they should be moved to the right. As far as the Brexit Party is concerned, they don't appear in nearly as many write-ups and (looking at the table) around half of pollsters don't even list them as a result in their own right, so I am happy for them to be merged into the 'other' column. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with 's concerns. We follow Wikipedia policy better by sticking to the principles of following what reliable sources say (which can evolve as polling fortunes vary) rather than using a rule based on the previous election (which runs into WP:LOCALCONSENSUS concerns). Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would go further than Comparison of Brexit Party pre and post election is notable. There is a real possibility that the Brexit Party could rename and become important again. I would wish to keep them for that reason. The new format is not scraper-friendly. I just feel status quo until the end of the year when we have a new table in any event. The old Brexit Party would be dead then and any resurgence effectively a novation.Cutler (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * makes a valid point, that we should remember that parties support can vary enormously over short spaces of time (see last May/June for example), and that just because a party's polling figures are in the gutter right now, if you cast your mind back (or your eyes down the table) to 3/6/9 months ago, it could be a very different story. However we shouldn't keep a party in the table on the off chance that they (or a re-launched version) might do well in the future. If the Brexit Party (or whatever Nigel Farage decides to rename it) starts getting a higher proportion of write-up coverage/consistent poll results on par with other parties listed in the main table, then we can retrospectively add it back in. It is a bit of a faff (especially if they suddenly rise to prominence at the end of a year), but if that is the small (less than half-an-hour of someone's time) price to pay for following reliable sources and giving due weight, then so be it. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal to collapse the results for Brexit, Plaid Cymru and UKIP is certainly better than the current table. Anybody with a mobile device can see how oppressively large these tables are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've only just noticed this now the table's changed again, but I thought we'd previously reached a consensus wherein parties listed in the main table would be the parties that are regularly prompted by pollsters in the initial list of options (which for a majority of pollsters is still the seven we had before - that is including both Plaid Cymru and Brexit Party); by this I'm referring to what's shown in the data tables, as they're required by the BPC how they asked the question and what options they gave to each question. This was a happy medium of including every party that's regularly promoted by pollsters, whilst including a note for named parties when the pollster list figures for non-prompted parties. It was a clear way of ensuring that only relevant parties are included, as the pollsters add and remove parties from their initial prompt when they are confident prompting won't overestimate a party, whilst avoiding any of these discussions which come up every few months about which parties should be included on the table and the arguments for changing which parties are listed based on Party X polls at y% or Party A only has b number of candidates, because where's the cut off for either?
 * I'd be very sceptical about using news media as a guide as to whether a party should be included or not, given that news media actively and publicly endorse political parties and therefore may decide the list of parties to report based on their preferences or for 'sensationalism' rather than any fixed principles.
 * I'm tempted to refer this to WP:DRN to give a clear view from an outside perspective.
 * In regards to the table formatting, the table significantly better previously; the changes don't look good, especially on mobile - where it makes the table practically unusable. Even on desktop, you run into the issue where the height of the rows are dependent depending on whether we know any individual figures for the 'others' are or not. Clyde1998 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - I agree with your concerns about newspapers/media outlets, but was mainly focussing on press releases by the pollsters themselves, who must remain neutral and report data in a balanced and fair way. It would be interesting to compare the range of parties given in the initial prompts from pollsters with the method listed above, maybe aggregating the two could give us a more accurate picture PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 20:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - based on the data table of the most recent poll from the eight pollsters who've conducted a poll since the start of July - note Kantar's last poll, possibly others, prompted for the Brexit Party, but didn't mention in their final report (albeit they are shown as getting 0 votes total, which may be why):


 * I'm assuming the SNP and Plaid Cymru are only prompted in Scotland and Wales respectively, but the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru are prompted by all pollsters, the Greens by seven (plus one), Brexit Party six (plus one); I think all of these can safely be taken as prompted by a majority of pollsters. UKIP at four is really the grey area, as it's included in the headline figures for half of pollsters. Clyde1998 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The information that is prompted isn't notable. What is notable is the information reported. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What said: Wikipedia policy is about what RS report. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * given the preferred source for individual opinion polls has always been the data tables, where available, and what appears in the data tables are the parties they've prompted for. There are specific reasons as to why the data tables should be the preferred source over write ups (in terms of being the source the page links to), but primarily it guarantees all the information listed on the page is in a single source - which largely lines up with the BPC rules on what a pollster must publish, where they must note the:


 * Client commissioning the survey;
 * Dates of interviewing;
 * Method of obtaining the interviews (e.g. in-person, telephone, internet) This is not currently on the page, but is in other UK polling pages' table. In the past this information has been included in a separate 'methodology' section in regards to general election polling, as it tends to be fixed for each pollster.
 * The universe effectively represented (all adults, voters etc) Again not listed, but again this was generally handled within 'methodology' section in the past and would only need to be noted in the table if it's a different base from usual (e.g. going from all voters in the headline VIs to likely voters))
 * The percentages upon which conclusions are based;
 * Size of the sample and geographic coverage;
 * Complete wording of questions upon which any data that has entered the public domain are based (when practical) As per 'methodology' section note above.
 * A web address where full computer tables may be viewed (when practical)
 * YouGov's latest write up, for example, doesn't note the client, sample size, geographic coverage or complete wording of the question, but their data tables do - the first three are all relevant our table. Because we're linking to the data tables, not the write up, the parties and their percentages listed in the data tables (the ones prompted by the pollster) are what someone looking at the source will see.
 * YouGov, following the 2019 EU election, had an article about why they prompt for specific parties and not others - and that relates to due weight. They only prompt for parties, in the initial list, if they're certain the polling results for said party would be accurate; preventing a smaller party from being overestimated by giving them too much prominence. I imagine that's the case for other pollsters, which is why the table was for prompting not what was included in their write ups. Clyde1998 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the comment I made, since I have no issue with using the data files as sources. Those documents are primary sources and can't tell us what information in them is notable and what is not. We must rely on secondary media sources to inform us which data is notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've put a request on Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 32 to see if there is any way of having collapsible columns. it appears that there may be but not in general usage. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 19:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I have worked out how to scrape the Brexit Party results so am now more relaxed, from that point of view, about the change (Isn't R wonderful?). Actually, from a scraper's perspective, the new Others column reduces the need for column format changes so is an advantage. If a scraper's view counts at all.Cutler (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

From my point of view as an occasional reader of the article, I don't particularly like the new table format, becaues the "Others" column means that the rows are about 7 times taller than before each, so it's hard to get a skim of what's happening over time. I don't have any particular views on how many columns there should be but a "single-height row" format would be much better for me. 2A02:C7F:B421:9A00:138:362E:5187:2E5F (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My own judgement is that it is too soon to exclude the Brexit party column. They achieved 2.1pc support nationally less than a year ago, from half the seats. And they scored an average of about 2pc last month (July 2020) in those polls which gave them a definite figure. I would be in favour of re-instating that column until/unless it is clear that their support is miniscule. The exclusion of PC and UKIP as specific columns seems fine, as their national support is clearly smaller. Mwbaxter (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe that's a fair argument. I'd be more than happy to go back and reinstate a BXP column if the proposal reaches a consensus. Polling evidence suggests they're consistently getting 2-4% when prompted, an uptick on earlier in the year where its support was dwindling and it was suggested they'd die off.
 * In addition, the other criticism mentioned above, that the new format is clunky and creates wide columns on mobile devices is something that should be addressed and that I sympathise with. The 2017-2019 polling article features as many as nine parties on the final table. It doesn't look "excessive", it's supported across different platforms, it's easy to parse and it's easier for contributors to put results in as the need to use fancy elements with line breaks isn't needed. Eight columns is perfectly reasonable when the standard across wikipedia is to have enough columns to hold all recorded data. Israel has 14 columns, Italy has 11 columns. The Israeli polling page features as many as 5 tiny parties which rarely get prompted (less so than UKIP, certainly less so than BXP). Cambiamo in Italy gets less prompting and smaller figures than UKIP, yet Cambiamo is included on the polling chart, never mind the table. I am more than happy to fix the table for accessibility, accuracy and consistency reasons. I already made these changes to the table in a previous article iteration before this discussion begun (on August 4th), so all it'd require is me moving Plaid behind BXP and adding the most recent half dozen polls, a task I'm more than happy to pursue, but I will only do so if a consensus arises, as table layout is always a contentious subject. If anyone believes the current layout is superior to having eight columns, I ask what good does the current have for accessibility, accuracy and consistency? All three key goals for the polling article are improved upon with more columns. BrexitZZZ (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Update, I just added the recent data to my old revision and put the Plaid after BXP in 2019 vote-order as per earlier consensus. Nearly a fifth of the articles filesize was pruned, demonstrating how inefficient the recent layout is/was. You can see the updated "finished" design in the articles history for yourself. It's more accessible, easier to edit/parse, is consistent with other polling articles and shows the data in full. BrexitZZZ (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like we had broad agreement that prominence should be related to RS coverage and this overrides that. I don't think anybody other than you has suggested or supported adding a column for UKIP. Your recent change feels like a radical departure from the conclusion of the recent discussion we had before, which I had believed amicably resolved to your condensed design. I'm happy to revisit the discussion but I'd appreciate the condensed design being restored until there's a new consensus. Ralbegen (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I'll revert it to the other format as per consensus. I'd at least ask what the issue was with the old table earlier this year without UKIP. I tentatively included UKIP in my design for completeness but appreciate its lack of prominence, however Plaid and BXP are two notable household name parties, one of which has noteworthy parliamentary representation and the other which consistently gathers 1-4% in polls it gets prompted for, which is very similar to the 2-5% bounds typically given by Green results. Putting those two parties back on the table (particularly BXP given its non negligible figures as supported by Mwbaxter) would also enable the UKIP values to be once again marginalised to footnotes instead of [show] elements, meaning rows aren't "about 7 times taller than before" for mobile devices, a serious concern as mentioned by other users above. Even if no consensus forms to add a BXP or maybe Plaid column, surely having footnotes for each combination of Other parties needs to be considered as a better option than the current element that proves incompatible on certain devices. BrexitZZZ (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a quick mockup of the table with footnotes and BXP inclusion. By using footnotes instead of [show] elements it's compatible with mobile. Thoughts? BrexitZZZ (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"

! rowspan="2" | Pollster ! rowspan="2" | Client ! rowspan="2" | Dates conducted ! rowspan="2" | Area ! rowspan="2" data-sort-type="number" | Sample size ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Con ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Lab ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Lib Dem ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |SNP ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Green ! class="unsortable" style="width:50px;" |Brexit ! rowspan="2" class="unsortable" style="width:75px;" | Other ! rowspan="2" data-sort-type="number" | Lead ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" | ! data-sort-type="number" style="background:;" |


 * Survation
 * N/A
 * data-sort-value="2020-08-21" |21 Aug
 * UK
 * 1,005
 * style="background:#BADEF5;" |41%
 * 37%
 * 9%
 * 5%
 * 4%
 * 1%
 * 3%
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" | 4%
 * Redfield & Wilton Strategies
 * N/A
 * data-sort-value="2020-08-19" | 19 Aug
 * GB
 * 2,000
 * style="background:#BADEF5;" |44%
 * 37%
 * 7%
 * 4%
 * 4%
 * 3%
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" |7%
 * YouGov
 * The Times
 * data-sort-value="2020-08-19" |18–19 Aug
 * GB
 * 1,652
 * style="background:#BADEF5;" |40%
 * 38%
 * 6%
 * 5%
 * 6%
 * 4%
 * 2%
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" |2%
 * SavantaComRes
 * N/A
 * data-sort-value="2020-08-16" |14–16 Aug
 * UK
 * 2,083
 * style="background:#BADEF5;" |42%
 * 37%
 * 7%
 * 4%
 * 3%
 * 2%
 * 4%
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" |5%
 * Opinium
 * The Observer
 * data-sort-value="2020-08-14" | 13–14 Aug
 * GB
 * 2,005
 * style="background:#BADEF5;" |42%
 * 39%
 * 5%
 * 5%
 * 3%
 * 6
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" | 3%
 * }
 * [a]=Plaid Cymru on 1%; Other on 1%
 * [b]=Plaid Cymru on 1%; Other on 3%
 * [c]=Plaid Cymru on 1%; UKIP on 3%; Other on 2%
 * 6
 * style="background:;color:#FFFFFF;" | 3%
 * }
 * [a]=Plaid Cymru on 1%; Other on 1%
 * [b]=Plaid Cymru on 1%; Other on 3%
 * [c]=Plaid Cymru on 1%; UKIP on 3%; Other on 2%
 * [b]=Plaid Cymru on 1%; Other on 3%
 * [c]=Plaid Cymru on 1%; UKIP on 3%; Other on 2%

Opinium
Can somebody add the new Opinium poll? BSMIsEditing (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

New template for easier/reliable date ranges
I've created a template opdrts (short for "Opinion Poll Date Range Table Sorting") for generating date ranges in the tables, to avoid having to maintain both the data-sort-value and text and avoid our occasional mistakes doing that. It also forces the correct en-dash use (eg my very recent fix of wrong en-dash use in data-sort-value). The template link opdrts has adequate initial documentation, and for here I think these example expansions are good enough to explain it - the subtlety is it generates the preceding month name itself if day1 > day2 for polls straddling month end: -> data-sort-value="2020-10–15"|14–15 Oct -> data-sort-value="2020-10–02"|30 Sep – 2 Oct -> data-sort-value="2020-08-24"|24 Aug -> data-sort-value="2019-12-12"|12 Dec 2019 -> data-sort-value="2020-01-02"|27 Dec – 2 Jan 2020 I would like any views on if this is obvious enough for people adding table rows. The default format is suitable to single year tables, with the "year" format suitable for multi-year tables. Another possible interface would have been  or   but this does not seem greatly better, is less consistent, and could make implementing it harder so I wouldn't be enthusiastic to do this unless there are strong views for this. For now I'll use it in a few places in tables as a temp demo, but I have the technology to convert entire tables if there are no objections to this. NB this is the first Template I've written so review by any Template expert here would be useful - non-Lua Template code is horrible to write or read! Rwendland (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this ! I think it's a clear improvement and I'd support its extension to the page. The existing syntax is pretty unwieldy. Ralbegen (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This looks great, I'd be happy to help roll this out to the table if there is agreement. Very impressive for your first template, especially with all of the parser functions! PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 15:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I've just applied it fully to this article, and I think I'll wait a couple of weeks to see if any odd problems crop up - eg the problem on Template talk:Opdrts page by someone who scrapes the web page HTML for data!  But then we need to decide what other pages it is worth applying opdrts to - does anyone know of a page/project where opinion poll data is discussed?  Eventually I'll offer to write a variant for U.S. editors outputting U.S. order dates, as going by the current Presidential election opinion poll article they don't have any clever technology for this either.  Rwendland (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Within the UK, WP:WikiProject UK Politics would be your best bet. Internationally you could try WP:WikiProject Politics, WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums or even WP:WikiProject Statistics. The table looks a lot neater now with the template, thanks for implementing it. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to for this. I have already discussed with him/ her that I have had trouble scraping as what appears to be a space is in fact a nbsp or something else. Rwenland then fixed it for me for which I am very grateful. However, I accept that this is my problem and isn't the determinant of the best solution.Cutler (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Savanta ComRes 16-18 Oct
This doesn't look right to me. My view is that the SNP and Green columns should be hyphens and the 14% all in the "Others" column.Cutler (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think either is suitable, but it'll only have to stay that way a few days. SavantaComRes seem to be pretty slow at getting their tables up, but they always get there in the end. The current "tables" linked appear to be a placeholder or a mistake, I think? Ralbegen (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

these constituency polls need to be added
https://www.jlpartners.co.uk/red-wall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.52.72 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The individual constituencies' results are based on a uniform swing across all 45 seats. This is why the nine with the highest Conservative majority are projected to stay Tory, while the rest are calculated to swing back to Labour. This isn't very accurate as these seats are spread out over the whole of the North and Midlands, meaning that particular areas of local support are ignored. I suggest that we put the poll as a whole into the Nations and Regions section, it is obviously useful and conducted for a reliable source (Channel 4). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. YttriumShrew (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now added a table with these results to the Nations and Regions section. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Archiving this page
In the little more than a year since the election 27 discussions have taken place on this page though some of these were to do with getting aspects of the article set up, this has slightly overwhelmed the page already and likely will make it completely unworkable long before 2024. I therefore think it would make sense to add an automatic archiving system to this page including a limit of 100 days since last response and minimum of 4 discussions left on page prior to archiving should insure discussion have plenty of time to be responded to. Any thoughts? Llewee (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can afford to have a longer archiving period, like six months. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we can change it later if it's necessary. Llewee (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

MRP Polls
Foculdata has conducted a MRP poll and I have added that to the main table as a temporary measure. Personally I would be supportive of creating a new section (as the date template bugs out as a two row width) which was the case for the Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election. JDuggan (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no issue with having a seat projection section as per previous articles. BrexitZZZ (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The poll should be in the polls section, the seats projection should be in a seats projection section, right? Ralbegen (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should have a separate table for MRP analyses which represent a different methodology from a poll simpliciter.Cutler (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

National/regional polling
Any objections to using "regional polling" as the headline for the section with polls for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London? This isn't a veiled insult to Scotland and Wales, it's simply what is meant by regional: a geographic part. We can't have a section called national polling and another called national and regional polling. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind changing it but it is the sort of thing which might cause a bit of edit warring at some stage. Llewee (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Would you support "Sub-national polling" as a compromise? I do think "Regional polling" strikes the wrong tone as there is a huge difference between the four home nations and the nine English regions. However it is preferable to the current "Polling in the nations and regions", which is confusing and doesn't take into account polls that don't take place in a specific nation or region (like the one Channel 4 did in red-wall constituencies, instead of a specific region). This could be remedied by renaming the first section to "UK-wide polling" (or words to that effect), but I think my first suggestion is better as it is more inclusive and less wordy. Thoughts? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sub-national" is contrived and there is a word for sub-national - regional. It's certainly better than "Polling in the nations and regions", as almost anything would be, but it could just as well be seen as calling Scotland a "sub-nation". The four countries of the United Kingdom are regions in the sense of the word itself. If we had polling results for England there couldn't be such an objection, as we would be treating Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the same as England, as we ought to. Multi-constituency polls should be treated as constituency polls, like those for individual constituencies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nationas and regions" is a standard formulation used by the TV industry, professional bodies, politicians, official bodies. So "Polling in the nations and regions" (which I think I introduced here, for full disclosure) is a recognisable form of words, and the most suitable one. Nothing else usefully includes the home nations as well as geographical divisions of them. The name "National polls" for the first section has to be preserved because there are a mix of GB and UK geographies within it. If separating off non-continuous geographies like the Channel 4 poll would make it more acceptable then I am happy for that to happen. Ralbegen (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the nation of Scotland being polled though, it's the people who reside in the geographic area. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an ambiguity that exists at all, and if it does then "Polling in the nations and regions" is the phrasing that avoids it... Ralbegen (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The ambiguity is that the United Kingdom, like any sovereign state, is referred as a nation, and matters relating to it referred as national. We don't need to be catering to peculiar sentiments in Britain about the status of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you prefer, "Polling in constituent countries and regions" would also work but I think nations and regions is snappier. I agree that national is more appropriate for UK/GB polling, which is currently the case. "The nations" in a UK polling context is unambiguous. Ralbegen (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Something like that could be appropriate as a sub-heading, to separate polling of the four constituent countries from polling of other regions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments in the polling tables
The 2020 table has a comment for 13 Mar reading, "2020 local elections delayed to 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic". I removed this, has restored it, saying in the EC, "local elections are routinely listed as an event in UK opinion polling articles."

JDuggan, I concur that local elections are routinely listed in polling tables. But this isn't a local election! Decisions about the timings of elections are not routinely listed as events. Prior consensus has tended to err on the side of having a limited number of these comment lines in polling tables. Most polling articles don't have any when you look internationally. I don't see any need to include this item: it had no impact on polling, it doesn't provide any figures that polling can be compared against.

This is a table of polling figures. It is not a timeline of any events related to elections. I suggest we remove it. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and would also support removal of the EU-UK relationship lines. Ralbegen (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think anything that couldn't directly have an effect on polling figures should be omitted. Therefore a major party electing a new leader should be included, but the government changing the dates of the local elections shouldn't. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, I think, we should exclude comments. Everybody will have their own views on what is important, relevant or interesting. There are excellent pages with detailed chronologies of events.Cutler (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I take this as sufficient consensus to act. I will re-remove the note about the local election delay. I will also remove the Brexit comments, but I see there's more debate there, so revert me if you like. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic Minority voting intention
We're in the middle of a series of NCP polls that poll BAME voters. Would a section for these polls be appropriate or would it be considered too niche? BrexitZZZ (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As the article has polls focused on different parts of the UK and groups of selected constituencies a section on polling by demographic would make sense to me. Llewee (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)