User talk:CoaxAndBotany

Bremen graph

Hi CoaxAndBotany,

First, thanks for adding LOESS graphs to German elections. With your recent addition to the Bremen state election, there's a problem with the party colors. Just wanted to point it out in case you've missed it. Gbuvn (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! thank you for pointing it out, will correct it asap! :) CoaxAndBotany (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polish 2023 Parliamentary Seat Projection

Poland 2050 is incorrectly marked at the beginning of the graph with zeroes. Party didn't exist then and was simply absent in the polls. Could you change that, so Poland 2050 doesn't start from the beginning, like you did HLAS on Slovakia graph? Leo0502 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh thank you for noticing, will correct now!!!! CoaxAndBotany (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Croatian parliamentary elections

Hi, firstly thank You for updating the graph and upgrading presentation for this election cycle. I have just some objections, first I don't see reason for "others" to be in the graph, as their are a lot of different minor political parties that would not be able to coalesce ever. Second, it would be good to refer to the elections as the "next" before than "2024", because of the rumors that HDZ could trigger early elections in the autumn of this year. There is no need to changing it right away but please if You could do it after next poll, probably this Sunday. Thanks in advance Opatijac97 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why do you object for "others"? It does not show them as a coalition, but as a informative variable, and it is very interesting as it is important to see the movement (increase or decrease) of support for "other" political parties.

Without the data for "others" the graph gives a false representation that the latest loss of support for SDP and Možemo (from mid 2022 to present day) has been transferred to DomPok and HDZ, when in fact the percentages that the SDP and Možemo have lost have mostly gone to "other" political parties, which can be clearly seen on the graph that includes the "Other".

@CoaxAndBotany can you please restore the graph so that it includes "Other"? Thanks in advance. Tuvixer (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvixer I will answer on your own example. "Others" are parties from far left to far right so when they receive support it doesn't really shows you how parties are oriented. Summing all together look like they have same importance but in reality most of them cannot even pass the threshold without being in coalition with similar ideologies. Also if you want show where the votes of SDP and Možemo went You should also independently include RF and SD because of their similarities with two before mentioned. If You include these two minor parties then You should include all other included in a table but for a better overview, I suggest that only those with significant support be included. Opatijac97 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Opatijac97 It does not look like they have some importance. It just shows home much percentage goes to all the other political parties, anyone who reads that grey stands for "Other" will immediately understand that. You said that you will answer on my own example but you have failed to do so. The graph is not the only source for the poll data. If someone wants to investigate further, they can look at the table below and try to analyze to which of the "other" political parties gained or lost support. Tuvixer (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvixer Putting "others" doesn't mean anything considering that it's still a dozen smaller parties whose results are combined. With some logic, you can then insert undecided as well as add DP, Most and Možemo to the others. The reason why these five parties are currently in the graph is because they have significant support, and the inclusion of "others" only confuses people because they have the impression that all these small parties together can achieve a significant result. The graph should simplify what is stated in the table, and not further complicate it by adding lines that do not represent the parties themselves. Opatijac97 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Opatijac97 you are repeating yourself with the same argument that makes no sense, and at the same time insulting other Wikipedia readers with insinuation that we are not intelligent enough to understand what "Other" political parties in a simple opinion poll graph means.

The specific political situation in Croatia is that there are currently 5 political parties with a constant above 5% support in the polls (combined they have only 66,5% in the last poll, and in Germany 6 major political parties have 91% combined). But there are at the same time 14 more political parties represented in the Croatian parliament (combined they have 17,2% in the last poll, and in Germany other have only 9% combined). That is also a reason why I think that a line for "other" political parties should be included in the graph. The graph data is incomplete without the data for "Other", and the most simple way is to put them all together. I also have nothing against adding a line for "Undecided". That line will give even more insight into the movement of political support over a longer period of time. Tuvixer (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1970 United Kingdom general election moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Opinion polling for the 1970 United Kingdom general election, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^TT me 18:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next Croatian parliamentary election

What is your method of calculating the average support of political parties in this graph? HDZ for example has lost support in the last Ipsos poll but your graph presents it as an increase. That is an obvious mistake. Tuvixer (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So my method of calculating party support is as follows:

${\displaystyle {\frac {\text{Party Vote}}{{\text{Total Party Vote }}-{\text{ Undecided Vote}}}}\times 100={\text{Re-weighted Party Vote excluding Undecided}}.}$

If you're comparing the two poll results for the HDZ, there's been a 3.6% increase in HDZ support, which is why the graph shows HDZ support increasing?

I hope this clarifies your query.

Many thanks. CoaxAndBotany (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have obviously made a mistake in calculating the re-weight vote.

In the Ipsos poll from 23 Dec 2022 the HDZ has 30.7%, and there are 17.7% undecided. Re-weighted the HDZ has 37.3%.

In the new Ipsos poll from 25 Jan 2023 the HDZ has 30.0%, and there are 16.5% undecided. Re-weighted the HDZ has 35.9%.

That is an decrease of 1.4% and not an increase.

It is now clear that the best course of action is to present the party support in the grap without recalculatin and removing the undecided. So please restore the table as it was.

Also I actually asked how do you calculate the average support of political parties in this graph? That means how do you calculate the numbers that we see represented as curves in the graph? Tuvixer (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tuvixer,

I think you might be misreading the graph in that case, the HDZ reweighted points are 37.3% and 35.9% respectively for the ipsos polls. Don't forget that between the 2 Ipsos polls there was a 2x1 Komunikacije poll and Promocija plus poll that have lower values for the HDZ (I have circled the 2 Ipsos polls in the image attached below).

Also sorry for the misunderstanding, so the way the curves are calculated are by using LOESS regression in R which is better explained at the link below. Effectively for my graph of Croatia, it makes sure that the regression line accounts for the closest 4/5 points. Of course there is much more involved in the calculating of it and if you are interested, the wikipedia page for LOESS regression is actually very detailed!

I guess a more simple way of putting it is that instead of being an average of polls in the sense of a mean or moving average, it is more of a line that best fits the data points provided.

[1]https://meticulousdatascience.com/journal/loess-smoothing.html

CoaxAndBotany (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:2023 Turkish Presidential Polling.png

Hi, and thanks for making the image. Can you add a line at 50% to signify the threshold for second round? Thanks again, Betseg (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! :) CoaxAndBotany (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next Croatian parliamentary election (again)

Hi, so I didn't watched in graph for so long time, mostly because I would just add results. But Now I noticed some things. 1 Ključ Hrvatske (KH) is a a new name for Živi Zid (ŽZ), a party which participated in last election and won 2.26 in a coalition they lead 2 I'm not so much involved in statistics but I have noticed you reweighted points for the parties, so is that even correct to do or not. It looks misleading for someone who visits article and graph for first time. Opatijac97 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opatijac!

So the way I do my graphs is I remove the undecided votes and then re-calculate the vote as shown here:

{\displaystyle {\frac {\text{Party Vote}}{{\text{Total Party Vote }}-{\text{ Undecided Vote}}}}\times 100={\text{Re-weighted Party Vote excluding Undecided}}.}

I hope that helps! :) CoaxAndBotany (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explanation. Opatijac97 (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Opinion polling for the 1970 United Kingdom general election

Hello, CoaxAndBotany. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Opinion polling for the 1970 United Kingdom general election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Opinion polling for the 1970 United Kingdom general election

Hello, CoaxAndBotany. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Opinion polling for the 1970 United Kingdom general election".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^Read! Talk! 18:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese election polling graph

Hi!

Thank you for your graphs on opinion polling. They are very helpful visualization of political situations. Unfortunately, there are some issues with your Japanese graph owing to some unique natures of Japanese politics.

The bar charts and the second graph that "removed the option 'None'" is misleading. The opinion polls in question are polling party identification, not voting intention. There is a substantial number of floating voters not loyal to any particular party. This doesn't mean you can simply deduct them from consideration as come elections they usually migrate to one of the opposition parties. This is why opposition parties always outperform their party identification polls. The current graph gives the impression that all non-LDP parties are decimated to single digits with the LDP cruising to a massive landslide. This cannot be further from the truth.

It'd be fabulous if you could remove the bar charts as well as the second graph.

Cheers! 沁水湾 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newest Belgian Poll

Your latest addition to the Opinion polling for the 2024 Belgian elections page includes an uncited poll of the seat projections, would you be able to provide such a citation for the poll at Political family seat projections? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opinion Polling for the Next Turkish Parliamentary Election.png

Hi @CoaxAndBotany, I've been keeping records of polls in a CSV file according to the Opinion polling for the 2023 Turkish parliamentary election page in tr-wiki. You made a nice graph for the polls listed on the page, but I would like to make sure that the polls in your dataset have the correct dates and are changed accordingly with the edits made between the times you updated your graph. You might wanna consider checking it out: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c-YcLt3B6YUlVSzTpNLuz3KLU-oBiQXn/view?usp=sharing

Thanks, Umtcnyd (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Umtcnyd thanks for bringing this to my attention! Thankfully with respect to updating the data, I use python to scrape the data from the wikipedia tables, so if any changes are inputted to wikipedia, it will automatically be updated in my csv and the graph! I hope this answers your worries! :) CoaxAndBotany (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Thank you for the answer, appreciate your work. Umtcnyd (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of parliamentary constituencies in Oxfordshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Maynard. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese election polling graph

Hi there @CoaxAndBotany! Thank you so much for your graph on the next Portuguese legislative election. I have just one suggestion: What do you think of removing the 14-day average numbers, as there is already a table with polling aggregations from different sources? Tell me what you think. Best regards Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Irish general election poll

Hi there. You may have missed the notice in the edit box on Next Irish general election, but the entries need to be sortable by date of last polling, and by poll commissioner. I've fixed those now, and removed the links to the last poll by the same commissioner. I've also added a reference. You appear to have originally added a reference to a September poll for the latest one, then removed it entirely. As you should know, all such additions require an accurate reference. Bastun^Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]