Talk:Opinion polling for the April 2019 Israeli legislative election/Archive 1

Midgam/Channel 2 survey in March
They really reckoned 4 seats to Ya'alon? Was their methodology vastly different to everyone else? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yaalon had just launched his party back then. It's not impossible that an initial media exposure was enough to push him past the election threshold (but not enough to keep him there).  Rami  R  10:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it was a new party - you can't tell that from the chart. The boxes for his party on previous lines should be greyed out or have some other n/a designation. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Btw the link for his party name takes you to his biog, which doesn't mention his party. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Column for "Likely Coalitions" ?
For example, add up the parties that are most likely to be in a Likud-led right wing coalition, and those most likely to be in a centre-left-jointlist coalition (or opposition if Likud in power) as two more columns in each row?

Would provide an indicator of any significant shifts between potential coalitions, rather than showing only changes within coalition partner balances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 14:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

We have a problem. Kulanu in coalition with Likud. --141.226.165.173 (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not for long... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.88.241 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

But not now. --141.226.165.173 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is called original research. Flayer (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not simply add two cumulative columns for the current coalition and opposition? Granted, they wouldn't reflect possible future coaltion compositions, however they would accurately reflect the strength of current coalition and opposition parties.--Real greenerik (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yahad
Yahad will be running again. ShimonChai (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

New table for Coalition/Opposition
I've added another table to the article that reflects the cumulative power of the Coalition and Opposition parties, based on the current composition of the Knesset. Also, I've divided the Projected Seats section into "Parties" and "Coalition/Opposition" and added an explanation to the new table. The new table takes into account only parties the are currently represented in the Knesset, and thus on occasion might show totals that fall below 120 seats. The main advantage of the table is that it gives an accurate account of the current strength of the Coalition and Opposition without having to speculate what party might participate in future coalitions. So far I've managed to sum up the polls going back to July 2017; I will expand even further in the coming days. I would like to mention that tables such as this are common in similar articles that show opinion polling in multi-party parliamentary systems, in which coalition governments are rutine. For example: Sweden, Denmark and Belgium. --Real greenerik (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Moshe Ya'alon's Party
I think Ya'alon's party should be remove from the table. He only appears in 2 polls, that's insignificant. Sokuya (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger of Parties table and Government/Opposition table
As a principle, we should avoid redundancy. The second subsection is both a pain to update (which is why it is not updated since november), and a pain to read, since one who looks at the party polls must memorize the date and pollster to find the sums - which takes him as much time as calculating them by himself.

We can obey this good principle with a bit of creativity. For instance, font size and line height can be reduced to allow for more space. Take the page on Dutch opinion polls, which has 15 party columns and an "other" column. In the worst case, the table could still be broken up.

Here is what I suggest:

It would save time for both writers and readers. What do you think? Kahlores (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Problem is, that parties join and leave coalition. Some parties join coaltion after being in the opposition for a a long time, other parties leave the coaltion after being in it for a long time. Moreover, some parties that are in the coalition today are also unlikely to be in the coaltion after the elections even if the other parties remain and PM remains. So "Coalition" vs "Opposition" columns are only relevant to date of the poll, but not to date of the article. The "Lead" column gives reader a hint who will form the next coalition, but no one knows whom he'll call to join it and who eventually will join it. Flayer (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I oppose it as I explained in my talk page. I think that the table should remain clean and simple, and it will be excessive to merge the tables together. Sokuya (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yaalon
We have the same announcement on 4 March 2017 and then again on 11 March 2018. It could be that he's repeating himself, but we don't need to follow suit. One of them should be scrubbed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that he was already listed (I was the one that added the March 11th renouncement); I went ahead and removed the older ref. David O. Johnson (talk)
 * Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

New movements
Why was deleted all information about new movements? One of Moshe Yaalon and second of Orly Levy. In some exit-polls from 2017 "party of Yalon" had mandats. In the last exit-poll of Channel 13 and Pidgam was information that movement of Orly Levy will have 5 mandats/ In my opinion it necessary to put this information in the table. --Nathan Gimein (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In order to do that you'd need to add a column (or two columns) to every row in the table. Flayer (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it mean something that these parties aren't registered, and that it is the second time that Yalon has announced that he is forming a party, but hasn't even come up with a name or list for it yet? ShimonChai (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps add a list of parties that tend to poll as one to three seats, but don't include them in the main table? --Rebblumstein (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

He passed the threshold only 1–2 times in the polls. This is very insignificant. We don't included other parties like Otzma Yehudit or Eli Yishai's party also. Sokuya (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Gantz
When we will start including Gantz's party in the table? Channel 2 news announced in 16 December puli publishing a new poll that they will include him from now on in the polls. See https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/politics-q4_2018/Article-3ca096a6528b761004.htm Sokuya (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove from the table the combination speculation. Is too confusing. Sokuya (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It's normal practice that we can see, for example, here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_French_presidential_election --Nathan Gimein (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018
There is now an article for the New Right party, which can now be linked to the poll table. Andrewmeiners (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's done. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Seat projections
I think the table should be separated into two. Before announcing election and after. So all the 2015, 2016, 2017 and most of 2018 should be combined (when the parties haven't much changes) and after the announcing on election when you get bunch of new parties like Gantz, Hatnua, New Right and much more changes etc etc Sokuya (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ShimonChai (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Splitting the table is common practice on Wikipedia when the list becomes very long (see Italy, United Kingdom). A merger is not going to resolve the chaos going on. For this I suggest a left-right arrangement (see above). Kahlores (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it still doesn't fix the mess done by the splitting of parties. On election period onward there gonna be a lot of new dynamics. In the last 4 years thing been static. Sokuya (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I think splitting the table is a good idea. Especially now that the Labour seats are going to split. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be split too but nor by years, but before and after the election announced. Sokuya (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Complete proposals
Taking into account your suggestions, I propose these two variants:
 * User:Kahlores/Sandbox/Israel, 2019 - split in two - ordered by seats
 * User:Kahlores/Sandbox/Israel, 2019 - split in two - left-right arrangement

On both drafts I merged the yearly tables to reduce to just two subsections (campaign / pre-campaign). I had to choose the government crisis as the breaking point, as polls with Benny Gantz only appear in November. This way we avoid adding an almost empty column for the entire Knesset.

This is my user sandbox but you are free to toy with it and move columns as you see fit (with the visual editor). Kahlores (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer your first proposal. Sokuya (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too. Much. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Current seats are missing
Yes I know it's difficult to allocate them to the new parties emerging, but we should find a way to show the reader how the poll results relate to existing seat allocation. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean the list of current seats on the 2019 Israeli legislative election page, it shouldn't be too hard indeed to add it. I suggest to put the seats on the Knesset dissolution day at the top, and the 2015 results down below. Kahlores (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Joint List split
Ta’al left the Arab Joint List. ShimonChai (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I have seen this talk only after I made the changes. Of course it could be undone. I think there is no meaning to the "lead" column in the Israeli parliamentary system. In 2009, Kadima won 28 seats and Likud won 27 seats - but Likud formed the coalition. And every other way of mapping it would be a political speculation. so the most objective way i can think of is to talk about the coalition and that took place during the last Knesset. אדם אדום (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested it ten months ago but Sokuya opposed it, preferring to keep the "Blocs" section. I told him that the Blocs section was "a pain to update, and a pain to read", and indeed, it wasn't much updated since then, despite promises of the contrary. This was predictable.
 * That said, there are now 14 parties in the field, and we barely have room left. I have ditched the long labels ("2016 Opposition", etc.) and replaced them with the one-letter abbreviations "C", "O", "N" (using Template:abbr). It has reduced the columns' size by at least a half (45px to 20px). Kahlores (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I'm not sure about the make up of each category.
 * Should Yisrael Beiteinu always be part of C, or "O, then C then O"? The second option is the most accurate but it makes speculative calculations more difficult.
 * Should The New Right be C or N? Technically speaking, Netanyahu didn't compose a government with New Right ministers. They were Jewish Home ministers. Likewise in the Knesset.
 * As for Orly Levy, she could tick every box: she was "C, then O (independent), then N (launches own party)", but counting as N would ask for one more column.
 * Kahlores (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems misleading to include New Right as part of the 2016 coalition, as it wasn't yet formed. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but on the other hand, it also seems misleading to put them outside the coalition; all three of the party's current MK's were in the 2016 coalition at the time. I don't think trying to map the 2016 coalition onto current parties can really work. It will be misleading no matter how it's done. I think the columns should be removed. --Yair rand (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a a speculation about who will be in the next coalition. it is a question of who took place in the coalition in the last term. The reason that "2016 coalition" is relevant is because this was the largest coalition that could be formed and the one that lasted the most time (30 months out of 44 months). None of the parties that were in the opposition in 2016 support it in any way.
 * "Israel Beitenu" took there time to get in the coalition (maybe to in order to get more power, I don't know, we are not journalists) but they did get in the coalition. And when they got out, the government was soon to fall.
 * "New Right" got split from the "Jewish Home". Benet and Shaked, the leaders of the party were ministers in the government in 2016 and still are. so they are clearly "2016 coalition".
 * Orly Levi ("Gesher") split from "Israel Beytenu" because they got in the coalition in 2016. so she is clearly "2016 opposition".185.3.147.231 (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Orly Levi split from the party because of the lack of negotiations on social issues, not because they got into the coalition. ShimonChai (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2019
Add the following opinion poll: https://knessetjeremy.com/2019/01/12/last-2-radio-103-fm-polls/ 14.154.178.41 (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done.

It has already been added here. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

left-right axis
I suggest to re-arrange the party columns.

Currently, parties are classified according to their rank at which they ended up in 2015 (Likud, Zionist Camp, Joint List, etc.), which is somewhat arbitrary, and does not allow us to have a good picture of what's going on. All the more so, since 3 newcoming lists are predicted to get seats.

To get a better point of view of Israeli politics, I suggest to use the left-right axis, because it works very well here and is not very controversial as it could be elsewhere:
 * The Arab and Haredi vote are very stable, so we can safely put them on the fringes, also making the polls more readable.
 * The secular parties can be arranged by looking at their usual, current, and expected coalition partnerships.

Here's what it would look like for the year 2016:

2016
Your thoughts? Kahlores (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At risks violating NPOV unless there is a citation for the order from left to right.ShimonChai (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not really controversial. There is no doubt as to whom belongs to one of these five groups: secular left-wing, secular center, secular right-wing, Arab, and religious. It can be further detailed with other categories (i.e., "center-left" and "center-right", "leftist", "nationalist", "nationalist-religious"). In case of a doubt, we can also look at their regular coalition agreements.
 * Religious parties may not desire to position themselves on the left-right axis. But the conscription issue demonstrates that religious parties couldn't be put among centrists.
 * Kahlores (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The end of the "Zionist Camp" alliance makes for an even more compelling argument in favor of a left-right arrangement, instead of the current table which is now a complete devastation.
 * I suggest this, but feel free to discuss.
 * {|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center; font-size:90%; line-height:15px;"

!colspan=2| !Arab !Leftist !colspan=2|Center-left !colspan=3|Center !colspan=3|Center-right !colspan=2|Right-wing !colspan=2|Nationalist !colspan=2|Religious ! !rowspan="2" |Date !style="text-align:left;" rowspan="2"|Poll ! class="unsortable" |Joint List ! class="unsortable" |Meretz ! class="unsortable" |Labor ! class="unsortable" colspan="2"|Hatnuah ! class="unsortable" |Yesh Atid ! class="unsortable" |Hosen Yisrael ! class="unsortable" |Kulanu ! class="unsortable" |Gesher ! class="unsortable" colspan="2"|Likud ! class="unsortable" |Yisrael Beiteinu ! class="unsortable" |New Right ! class="unsortable" |Jewish Home ! class="unsortable" |Shas !class="unsortable" |UTJ !class="unsortable" rowspan="2" |Lead ! style="background:;" | ! style="background:;" | ! style="background:;" | ! style="background:;" colspan="2"| ! style="background:;" | ! style="background:#DDDDDD; " | ! style="background:;" | ! style="background:purple" | ! style="background:;" colspan="2"| ! style="background:;"| ! style="background:#0085FF; " | ! style="background:;" | ! style="background:;" | ! style="background:;"|
 * - style="line-height:18px;"
 * style="background:silver" colspan=2| 2015 election results
 * style="background:silver" | 13
 * style="background:silver" | 5
 * style="background:silver" colspan="3" | 24
 * style="background:silver" | 11
 * style="background:silver" | —
 * style="background:silver" |10
 * style="background:silver" | —
 * style="background:#C0DBFC" colspan="2"| 30
 * style="background:silver"| 6
 * style="background:silver" | —
 * style="background:silver" |8
 * style="background:silver" |7
 * style="background:silver"| 6
 * style="background:; color:white;"| 6
 * }
 * That doesn't fix the problem of there not being a citation for it. How do you know that Gesher is center-right? Also, calling Likud right instead of center-right takes a stance that contradicts it's political position of being center-right to right-wing. Why is Yesh Atid considered center-left instead of center? This is literally original research, and the order contradicts the political position listed by the sources on the wiki pages of the respective parties. Your point on "This is not really controversial." Doesn't matter. Even it's not controversial you still have to cite your claims, and in this case, the original research happens to contradict the sources. 06:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The labels are only for the purposes of explanation. Note there are size constraints. What matters is whether you disagree with the gradient. Likud's label, and Yesh Atid's were corrected anyway.
 * The Wikipedia page on Hatnuah says the party is "relatively close in ideology to Yesh Atid and the Labor Party". It then cites a 2013 article, which in fact, doesn't mention Labor at all, but since Hatnuah was allied with Labor for 4 years, we can easily put the party between Labor and Yesh Atid.
 * As for Orly Levy, Gesher's wiki page says it's center-right. We can safely assume that the daughter of a politician who takes up her father's party's name, is going to appeal to the same constituency - unless signs of the contrary appear, of course.
 * I am still open to all remarks. Kahlores (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Yesh Atid, Hatnuah, Labor (as of last election), and Kulanu all consider themselves centrist, Likud (which is center-right) and Yisrael Beitenu are both explicitly nationalist, and Jewish Home identifies itself as a religious party. I don't think ordering the parties like this is workable. --Yair rand (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Forget the labels, the point is the arrangement from left to right. Is there any party you would put two columns to the left or to the right? Kahlores (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Yesh Atid, Hatnuah, Labor (as of last election), and Kulanu all consider themselves centrist, Likud (which is center-right) and Yisrael Beitenu are both explicitly nationalist, and Jewish Home identifies itself as a religious party. I don't think ordering the parties like this is workable. --Yair rand (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Forget the labels, the point is the arrangement from left to right. Is there any party you would put two columns to the left or to the right? Kahlores (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. There's definite POV here. Wikipedia seems to be claiming that the chareidi parties are more right wing than other parties. They may be religiously, but they're not necessarily in terms of domestic and foreign policies. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The left-right axis is an objective arrangement over one dimension of the political supply at one point. By definition far-right parties won't always side with the center-right on some matters, and mirrorwise on the left. This is what happens in most countries (US neo- and paleo- conservatives, Brexit also split both major parties in two camps). And this is expected in Israel as the social backgrounds are even more different.
 * Let me make a reductio ad absurdum. Would you suggest to put Shas and UTJ to the left of the Arab list? Between Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid? Of course not. Now, on the left-right axis, the rejection of modernity (reaction, traditionalism) has always been associated with the right end. This is why Haredi parties should be put to the right of New Right and Jewish Home, which do not completely reject modernity. This is not a statement of approval or disapproval. The left-right axis is objective, not subjective. This is probably the core misunderstanding between us. Kahlores (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose your strawman too. We're here for objective reflection of reliable sources, not editorialising. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 01:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Objective ways to order them:
 * By current seats.
 * By alphabetical order.
 * By the order in which RS order them. The latter would be best, if there's a reasonable consensus in the sources.

Non-objective ways: Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By our perception.

what about the order here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset#/media/File:2019_Israeli_Knesset_Composition.svg It's it reflect political blocks and I assume based on the Knesset's own sitting order (?). New lists still could go at the end. --Nngnna (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's not based on the actual Knesset seating order. IIRC, the Haredi and Arab parties sit in or close to the middle columns, not at the edges. --Yair rand (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the seating order in the Knesset: "The custom is that the committee enables the largest parliamentary group to choose its place in the hall. The largest group in the coalition usually sits to the left of the Speaker: according to the website of the Knesset. ShimonChai (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018
Benny Gantz's party is currently named "Resilience" in English while all the other parties have their Hebrew names. I think that it's stand in the poll table should be renamed to "Hosen" or "Hosen Israel" so it is standardized with the rest of the parties. Also, Gesher's pink or blueish color should be added to it's stand. Gibzit (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's based on what English citations call the party. Not all parties are in Hebrew. Jewish Home, Joint List, Labor, and New Right aren't. 06:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShimonChai (talk • contribs)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —  Newslinger   talk   09:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Party ordering proposal
The current table makes it hard to keep track of parties that have split off from other parties, and the lists become inconsistent. I propose that the table be re-ordered to match the following rules: So, the order of parties would be the following: Admittedly, the rules could break if two breakaways merge with each other or something, but I think this could generally work and make it easier to read the lists. --Yair rand (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Parties are ordered by how many votes they received in the last election, or by how recently they were announced if they didn't exist at last election, except:
 * Parties that split from other parties must be to the immediate right of those parties, and parties that join together with other parties inherit their locations on the list.
 * Lists from before mergers should match the ordering of those after.
 * Likud (largest party)
 * Hosen + Telem (Telem split from Likud, so must be adjacent to it. The component parties inherit the location on lists prior to the merge, so Hosen would be next to Likud (or Telem, if present) in earlier lists as well.)
 * Labor
 * Hatnuah (split from Labor)
 * Joint List
 * Ta'al (split from Joint List)
 * Yesh Atid
 * Kulanu
 * Jewish Home
 * New Right (split from Jewish Home)
 * Shas
 * Yisrael Beitenu
 * Gesher (split from YB)
 * UTJ (if UTJ merges with Shas, the column prior to the split would be moved next to it, and the joint party would take Shas's place in the order)
 * Meretz

Hosen and Telem
Sokuya according to this alternate source on the Walla poll, Hosen and Telem are included on a joint list in the poll. Even the Walla source That's why I created another table. Even the Walla source mentions a "joint party" between Gantz and Ya'alon. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yaalon merged his party into Hosen. He even appeared last night on stage in the event. It's like the situation between Jewish Home and National Union (Israel), although National Union (Tkuma) is a separated party their joint list is still called Jewish Home. We already mentioned in the table that Telem joined Hosen so we don't need to split the table even further. In the evening polls all three major news networks called it just Hosen. Sokuya (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019
Change the amount of seats projected for The labor party from 28 to 5 in the Feb 1 poll. The poll clearly says 5. Also, parties who receive 3 seats or fewer in polls in actuality get 0 seats, due to being below the threshold. 37.26.148.144 (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done It looks like this is already done. In the section called "Campaign period", in the first line of the table, Labor is shown with 5 seats projected in the Feb 1 poll. If there is still an error on the page, be more specific about where it is on the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Shvakim Panorama/Israel Beitenu poll
If a poll in done for and publicised by a party itself it would be good to indicate it in some way on the box of that party in the row. In general such polls would be optimistic for that party.--Nngnna (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I added an RS template. VwM.Mwv (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Date of Knesset dissolution
The date of the formal dissolution of the Knesset needs to be added. As it stands now you would assume the knesset automatically dissolved on 14 november when Yisrael Beiteinu left the government.

It formally dissolved 26 December Hydromania (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been added. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Hydromania (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

C Sum Correction
The total mandates of coalition parties must include Kulanu. 79.182.234.58 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Thus, the C sum for the latest Maariv poll should therefore be corrected to read 62 rather than 57 seats.
 * Kulanu was included. The reason C doesn't total 62 is because Yisrael Beiteinu (also 5 seats) is not included, as it has left the coalition. Kahlores (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Y.B. is a rightist party that clearly belongs in the projected Netanyahu coalition. 79.178.223.115 (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yisrael Beitenu wasn't a member of the most recent coalition. I believe that's why it wasn't included. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's original research to include it, because the coalition doesn't necessarily just mean "right wing". The coalition is just the group of parties in the ruling government, and currently, Yisrael Beiteinu is not part of that.. It would be speculation to say that Yisrael Beiteinu is going to be part of the coalition in the next government. ShimonChai (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

C Sum should not be used when a poll does not add up to 120 seats. It doesn't make sense. Flayer (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Polls with total seats that are less than 120
Many parties don't pass the threshold in some of the most recent polls, so they don't get any seats; because of this, the total seats add up to less than 120.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Polls with 85 ot 87 seats should not be mixed with correct polls with 120 seats. Otherwise it dosn't make sense. Flayer (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely arbitrary rule. Polls should be listed regardless of how many seats they end up with.  The way Israeli elections work, polls need not result in 120 seats.  I'm restoring the information you deleted.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents: Polls which end up with less than 120 seats should be added, although that particular poll happens to be an extreme outlier which only adds up to 85 seats. The main thing is, why is a blog considered a RS here? Is there no mainstream source which reports it? (and for the record, that blogger himself says he won't be counting this poll in his averages). The C column however, only makes sense in the context of a poll which allocates all 120 seats Hydromania (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

New format now that yesh atid and hosen merged
I propose that the entire Hosen column be moved next to yesh atid's current place, and then new polls can just merge the two spots. This would show the historical trends of the two parties separately, compared to new polls with them + Ashkenazi. The current format completely disconnects yesh atid from its original polls Hydromania (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Ta'al is separated in the list from its former partners in the Joint List, and the New Right is separated from Jewish Home, and Hatnuah is separated from Labor in the earlier polls, and Gesher from Yisrael Beitenu. See my proposal above to reorder things to fix these. --Yair rand (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe we are talking about two different things. You are of the opinion that split parties should be listed next to each other. I'm of the opinion that merged parties should be listed next to each other so as to show the historical trends and changes since the merger. (also, note that all those splits you noted happened a while ago, especially telem, while this is a merger literally hours before the deadline.) Hydromania (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that both split parties and merged parties should be listed next to each other, and that the positions should be retroactive to the entire table, to show historical trends. --Yair rand (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It would have been much simpler to manage splits and mergers with the left-right arrangement (see example) that I suggested last month on this talk page.
 * The reason it would've been simpler, is because splits and mergers are almost always between neighbours on the left-right spectrum. This is true for all of splits and mergers of these past 2 months if we put Beiteinu next to Gesher. Whereas right now, we are supposed to order parties by their number of MKs in the current Knesset, which obviously, make them move a lot every time they split or merge.
 * If you want keep on using the current 'arrangement', I wish you a good luck. Use the visual editor, on a quick-enough computer, and patiently move the columns. There is so much retroactive work to do that you might end up with a headache! Kahlores (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Name of right-wing alliance?
From the two sources in English I thought the name was the "Union of Right-Wing Parties" ShimonChai (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's "Union of the Right-Wing Parties" in this source:. I'm going to go ahead and change it. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Major edit
For reasons that I have laid out yesterday, I have taken the bold step of editing the whole page, to prevent the reader from being disturbed by the many mergers (3) and splits (5).

Up to this point we'd follow the custom of ordering parties by their number of MKs, decreasingly from left to right. However, with the ongoing changes in Israeli politics, the tables were illegible, especially when looking for month-long trends.

The exact ordering may be discussed, but everyone should understand that following the dogma is more trouble than it is worth.

Another big change is the use of the dash (–) instead of 0, which makes the table much more legible.

I should not have made mistakes, but if you spot a big one, I owe you the correction. Kahlores (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose ordering the parties based on your personal interpretation of where they are on the political spectrum. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose listing it by political spectrum unless a reliable citation is provided, otherwise it constitutes original research. ShimonChai (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also oppose listing by political spectrum, and I also don't like the dash (–) instead of 0. Cause when it 0 its means that the party was in the poll but didn't get enough votes to surpass threshold, and N/A has been use to indicated that the party wasn't checked in the poll. When you put a dash on all of it, you lost that data. Please revert it back to 0 where it was. Sokuya (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sokuya, you made a mistake. I didn't "put a dash on all of it". All the N/A were kept. I just replaced "|0" by "|–" in the wikicode.


 * Before any of us delves into the wikicode again, we should try to patiently form a consensus – we are all, I suppose, responsible adults. For instance, whatever the horizontal arrangement, we can agree about the vertical arrangement, namely that the only way to read trends is to deal with mergers and splits this way:
 * {| class="wikitable"

!colspan=2|Joint list!!Splinter!!Splinter !Splinter!!Splinter!!colspan=2|Joint list
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * colspan=2|11||5||5
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * 5||5||colspan=2|11
 * }
 * Can we agree on this basis?
 * As for the left-right spectrum, we could also find a consensus if you tell me exactly which specific party positioning is shocking to you. There are dozens of commentary articles about left-right politics in Israel. As such, there are countless sources that say Yesh Atid is center or center-left, Likud is center-right to right-wing, and so on for each party. This is not disputed, thus I suppose what you dispute is one of these issues:
 * the case of Haredi parties, which could arguably be placed nearer Likud than URWP, like in this diagram
 * the particular positioning between two parties, such as Labor and Hatnuah, or Gesher and Kulanu. This could be solved by looking at the past (Gesher's leader was a Beiteinu MK), or simply by a notice in the article saying that "Parties are roughly arranged according to their described position on the political spectrum".
 * There are also political science articles trying to range parties from left to right - however they are too old for today.
 * Ideally, we could solve this issue by finding an Israeli pollster that asks respondents to self-describe their position on the spectrum between 1 to 10, thus providing party averages.
 * Kahlores (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also oppose reordering based on original research, and using the dash instead of zero, but support dealing with splits and merges as described above. --Yair rand (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also oppose reordering based on original research, and using the dash instead of zero, but support dealing with splits and merges as described above. --Yair rand (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

this has all been discussed above. It doesn't matter what your opinion is or mine. Wikipedia reports on reliable sources. Everything else is WP:POV. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, is should be Blue & White, Gesher, Kulanu, Likud and then Yisrael Beiteinu. Yisrael Beiteinu is right wing and Likud is centre-right to right wing. Still not the right listing. Sokuya (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that's the point, This is all OR. I do support the vertical arrangement above. I'm kinda ok with the current horizontal ordering though, seeing as it doesn't explicitly label any parties as right or left wing. Hydromania (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 's criterion is splits and mergers, so according to this logic Gesher should be next to Israel Beitenu. Gesher negotiated a merger with B&W which ultimately didn't happen, so I would put B&W on the other side of Gesher. Kulanu split from Likud a few months after the union of Likud Israel Beitenu broke apart, so I would put Kulanu closer to Likud than Israel Beitenu. So I suggest: B&W, Gesher, Israel Beitenu, Kulanu, Likud. ערן117 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Israel Beitenu isn't centrist. You have all the titles inside the table that says who merged with who and who split etc. Sokuya (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Zehut
According to this poll Zehut is starting to pass the threshold. Sokuya (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was inevitable. And given the number of people who have said that they want to vote for Zehut but are afraid of the threshold, this is going to lead to a large jump.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 07:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Zehut passed the threshold only in 2 polls. I think it can be safely removed. ערן117 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I Agree. Flayer (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also agree. ShimonChai (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If the polls are still including it, I think it should be included here. Hydromania (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The polls included Otzma Yehudit before it was apart of the alliance, and we didn't include Otzma Yehudit on the list of parties because it wasn't passing the threshold, we also don't include Yachad, etc. ShimonChai (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those parties never passed the threshold. Zehut passed it twice (in polls whose in house bias seems to favor the right wing, but anyhow). Hydromania (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be included on the table that includes the polls, the most recent table on the page, does not have them winning any seats in any of the new polls. ShimonChai (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Solid point. As we're all in agreement now, I've gone ahead and removed them from the most recent table. Note that Gesher also hasn't passed the threshold in any polls, but Levy is currently in the Knesset, so we should leave it.Hydromania (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of Zehut's or any other party chances to pass the threshold. If they are mentioned in at least one poll, they should be listed as "-", if they aren't - as "N/A". Ilyan (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing Otzma seats from the coalition count
The party Otzma Yehudit is running as part of the URWP, with its candidates in the fifth and eighth spots on the list. The party is not part of the current coalition. However, the table currently counts all polled URWP seats towards the coalition numbers. Should the Otzma seats be removed from the count, so that, for example, when the list polls 8 seats, only 6 count toward the coalition count? --Yair rand (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a hard one. I'm leaning toward leaving them in, as the polls just list them as one party, and the party or most of it is currently part of the coalition. Taking them out just makes it complicated. Hydromania (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I described the URWP in the same way as the New Right (the other newly created Knesset faction, or in this case party) - by name and month of creation. M  .   M  08:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a revolutionary idea: rather than arguing whether Otzma is part of the coalition or not, let's replace the coalition count, which is quite meaningless, with a right-religious count and a left-arabs count. Many commentators do this, so it shouldn't be very difficult to find references for this partition. For example the reference for the latest Israel Hayom poll does this. ערן117 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with dividing many parties into only two camps by perceived preferences is that you can't be sure the next government will consist of the exact parties in either such camp. The coalitions are dynamic, so the only objective way to do this is by listing current government parties vs. current opposition parties (including non-Knesset parties like Zehut when they're polling above the threshold). I guess the alternative is to just list each party independently (which is not really the best idea either), or include a note stating something like "Due to alliances being dynamic, the post-election government coalition will not necessarily consist of the exact same parties as the ones that are listed as being part of the current government coalition even if they gain 61 or more Knesset seats." M   .   M  17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey VwM.Mwv Please refrain from editing your talk page posts (aside from minor spelling errors and such) as it makes it confusing and annoying to keep track of. Aside from that, I mostly agree with you but many RS do describe a right/religious bloc vs a center/left/Arab bloc. Hydromania (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Balad and United arab list disqualified
see here and here. I suggest waiting to add this to the table and start a new table until the polls stop including them and/or the High Court either accepts or rejects the decision. Hydromania (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This happens almost every election and HCJ rejected the decision every time.--Nngnna (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019
5 March Smith Poll Coalition Total (Col C) is wrong. Should be 64 not 56. 2600:1700:B840:98C0:4410:5D1F:6F3A:BC5D (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 4 (Kulanu) + 29 (Likud) + 6 (New Right) + 6 (URWP) + 5 (Shas) + 6 (UTJ) = 54. Yisrael Beitenu and Gesher are not part of the current coalition, which is what the column counts. --Yair rand (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019
Moneoli (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The sum of the coalition for the two most recent polls are incorrect -

The TNS Kan March 5 it is not including Zehut - so should bring coalition to 61 The Smith/Channel March 5 is not including Yisrael Beiteinu - should bring coalition to 60

Looks like a summing error when those parties reach the threshold after not reaching the threshold


 * please see above on this talk page. Those parties (Yisrael Beteynu and Zehut) are not part of the current coalition, and are therefore not included in the sum.Hydromania (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding percentage for parties below the threshold
I think it would be a good idea to start adding to each poll the percentages attained by each party below the threshold. Most sources include this information, and there's a difference if a party is getting <1% or 3%. (note I'm only referring to those parties currently included, they sometimes pass the threshold. There is a separate discussion to be had about adding an others column with a note. see elsewhere on this talk page) Hydromania (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a good idea! It makes the table quite confusing and virtually unreadable. I love percentages (and, on some respect, I would prefer them rather than seats in the table), but mixing them with seats is really a bad idea. What about having a separate table for percentages? --Checco (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's unreadable (and there was an emerging consensus about this on the thread directly above). Alternatives would be having two tables (but that's messy and duplicative), having seats next to percentages for all parties (takes up more horizontal space) or, if it's doable, allowing the user to toggle between seats and percentages (which I think would be nice and allow direct use of percentages for the graph).--Rxtreme (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, but I don't think the polls are usually published with the percentages for parties which pass the threshold. Maybe we can use a smaller font or a different color for percentages. Hydromania (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Using a smaller font seems like a good idea to me, I do agree that adding the percentages did make the chart a bit harder to read, but if you look at other polling pages it didn't add too much complexity, we should keep it and find a solution to improve readability, because I believe that the percentages give a lot more information than the simple dash or 0. Gibzit (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I am doing this wrong since I am pretty new to Wikipedia editing. As some one who references this wikipedia page daily, I believe that the current percentage format makes the page nearly unreadable. I do see the merit in having these but I think that we should find a different way to note the percentage. Could smaller fonts or footnotes be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:690:7822:84FC:F184:507E:8768 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea. But we should only include parties that have passed the threshold in at least one poll. Otherwise, it will get too messy.
 * It's not unreadable at all. The percentages were added in a small font. M   .   M  15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Small fonts were later introduced. It was a slight improvement, but I still think that percentages are confusing. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Prime minister preference
As it is right now, it's not clear what the polling numbers represent for the preference of prime minister. It would make sense to either clarify, convert to precentage, or potentially even dropping the section as the people vote for a party and not a prime minister. Any thoughts? (Also my first interaction with Wiki - Hi! *waves*)

HydroIT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * They are percentages. I've added a clarifying sentence. --Rxtreme (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Is it perhaps also worth it to mention where the remaining percentages are (i.e. abstained votes/no preference)? HydroIT (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Poll Graph
Hello, I've noticed this page is missing a crucial component that is present in many other polling pages (for example the Swedish one) a poll average graph. I've made one as you can see here:



This graph was made using data from this page, and I'd like to add it at the top of the page, I believe it will make following changes in the polls much easier for the uninitiated. What do you think? Gibzit (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, but there are a few issues.


 * 1) The electoral threshold is 3.25% of the vote, not precisely 4 seats (esp. given the number of wasted votes, it's possible to hit 4 and not enter the Knesset).
 * 2) I'm not sure where you're getting the seats that are less than the threshold from.
 * 3) I can't make out the difference between eg. Ra'am-Balad and Labor, UTJ and YB
 * 4) For dates, I'd use month/day/year (also, the dates are getting truncated oddly)


 * 1) I thought we should specify what the threshold is, so people understand when parties are under it. Could be easily changed to 3.25%
 * 2) I'm getting the seats that are less than the threshold by going to the polls and taking the percentage the party got. Multiplying by 120 and then dividing by 100, which gives you the accurate number.
 * 3) Sadly you can't really solve this issue, due to the fact that so many parties have similar percentages.
 * 4) Sure, you could use that, although Israel uses day/month/year which is why I think it is more fitting. Gibzit (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, how do you deal with multiple polls on the same day? Average them? --Rxtreme (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do average them. Gibzit (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The threshold is 3.25%, not 4 seats. (It's technically possible to get three seats and pass the threshold, though very unlikely.) Anyway, how about using a graph template instead of an image? That would make it easier to just add new polls by editing the page directly.


 * --Yair rand (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess using the graph function would be better. I do think that parties under the threshold should be represented not by 0 but by taking the percentage from the poll and multiplying it by 120 then dividing by 100, giving you the number of seats they would have gotten had there been no threshold, instead of just dropping to 0 (although if there are no polls that mention a percentage then they could drop to 0) Something like this:

Gibzit (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue with doing that scaling is that the polls are already scaling up seat counts for the percentage of votes thrown away. That is, if you give two smaller parties 3 seats, you should be deducting 6 seats from the parties that passed the threshold, otherwise you're allocating 126 seats. Also, you'd be allocating seats differently to the parties that passed the threshold and the ones that fell short. This is further compounded by the difficulty of including polls that don't report percentages.
 * To tell the truth, I would like to see information about how close Ra'am–Balad, Yisrael Beiteinu, Kulanu, Gesher, Zehut etc. came to the threshold for any given poll (and that's regrettably missing from this page), but I don't think trying to include that in a "number of seats" graph is the way to go. --Rxtreme (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but if we want to make a graph I think it's the best option, unless we want the weird situation where parties jump between 0 and 4 seats and Gesher being at absolute 0 despite being close to the Threshold. The slight inaccuracy in seat arrangement for the parties who pass the threshold is not too important in a graph, because it does not change how the graph really looks, only the absolute numbers which you cannot really see.
 * As for information about parties under the threshold, we could replace the current dash (-) arraignment with something like (2.5%) for parties that do not reach the threshold, it is what the media does with parties who do not reach it, and we could mimic that in this page. Polls with no specified percentage would retain the dash (-) Something like this:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;line-height:13px"

! style="width:45px;" rowspan="2" |Date ! style="width:160px;" rowspan="2" |Polling firm ! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;" |Gesher ! class="unsortable" style="width:40px;" |Zehut ! style="background:;" | ! style="background:#51C8E6;" |
 * data-sort-value="2019-03-03" |N Month
 * style="text-align:center;" | Poll 1
 * (2%)
 * (1.5%)
 * data-sort-value="2019-03-03" |N Month
 * style="text-align:center;" | Poll 2
 * (2.5%)
 * (2.9%)
 * }
 * Gibzit (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While reading this thread and Rxtreme's complaint, I was thinking . . . about the exact same solution. Great minds think alike!
 * As for your graph, I would venture having two instead of one, one for the head-to-head in front, and the other for the peloton (vs the sweeper car). Such double graphs can be seen on Wikipedia. This way it is more legible. Kahlores (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that weird a situation - it reflects the reality of the number of seats they are predicted to get (by poll), and the presentation in the table.
 * As for the other suggestion, I'd be happy with it, but there seems to be a consensus to exclude Zehut and other parties that would have to be revisited. Probably worthy of its own section on the talk page. --Rxtreme (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we don't have much space left, I suggest to create instead an "Other" column in which we put every list on whom there is info whether seats, or percentage. Details would be easily accessible with a note[3] (Template:efn). Kahlores (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As for your graph, I would venture having two instead of one, one for the head-to-head in front, and the other for the peloton (vs the sweeper car). Such double graphs can be seen on Wikipedia. This way it is more legible. Kahlores (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that weird a situation - it reflects the reality of the number of seats they are predicted to get (by poll), and the presentation in the table.
 * As for the other suggestion, I'd be happy with it, but there seems to be a consensus to exclude Zehut and other parties that would have to be revisited. Probably worthy of its own section on the talk page. --Rxtreme (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we don't have much space left, I suggest to create instead an "Other" column in which we put every list on whom there is info whether seats, or percentage. Details would be easily accessible with a note[3] (Template:efn). Kahlores (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Since the consensus here seemed to be a graph with estimated seat counts for the parties below the threshold, I've added the following, updated graph with new data:


 * I've used the numbers from the table, which don't always coincide with those above. Note that I've left out numbers where there's a blank - no reason to show the parties plummeting to 0% on the basis of a poll not showing their percentage. I'd be happy to put the calculations somewhere accessible so it's easy to check and update, but I'm not sure how wikipedia tends to handle that. Rxtreme (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Graph is unreadable. Too many parties and with the same color tune. Sokuya (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unreadable, but I agree that it's hard to read. I'm inclined to pull out the colors and let the chart template use its own generated colors.
 * Also, I don't like the recent change to two graphs - I'd rather just see a discontinuity between ~12 and ~25, but I'm not sure if the graph template supports that. --Rxtreme (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I made the change to automatically generated colors because the chart was becoming difficult to read again.
 * If somebody can find the colors the chart is using and (for instance) assign them to the most proximate parties, I think that might be even better. (Though which of, eg., Labor and Hadash-Taal gets red would necessarily be subjective, and only two parties can get the blues.) --Rxtreme (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Graph not displaying on mobile
Is there anyway to get the graph to display on mobile browsers? It doesn't come up on my phone. Hydromania (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's bug T216431, on the Graph extension. I've added a temporary workaround to the template's CSS, so it should display properly now. --Yair rand (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It does, great! Hydromania (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarify graph
Does the graph show seats or percentage of vote - it isn't mentioned and should be. 2402:8100:3977:DF81:150B:D2D3:7E6C:4F89 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The graph clearly mentions seats. ShimonChai (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)