Talk:Opinion polling for the 2014 Indian general election

Necessity

Is it really necessary to create this page? There is already a section in Indian general election, 2014 and is upto date. In my opinion, there is no need to create this page unnecessarily. Any other opinion? Logical1004 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We dont need this page as it replicates the same info. Anotjher page is needed when the main page is too big for content, which isnt the case here. Ther eis nothing different here that cant be on there.(Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because...

This page is meant to hold all the opinion polls that are being held for Indian general election, 2014.there are a number of polling agencies like ACNielsen,CSDS,Hansa GCR and CVoter to name a few and a lot more of them.
The criteria under which the speedy deletion is sought i.e. [A10] says "....does not expand upon, detail, or improve information within the existing article(s)...." .In reality there is a lot of scope for the article to expand as the agencies named above surveys every week for the above mentioned elections. The article is intended to be better than or at least like Opinion polling in the 42nd Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010. Also, CSD A10 reads "This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material.". This can taken to imply that a article with an extension to main article are not allowed to be deleted.And by the end of the election the article Indian general election, 2014 will surely touch the split limit (it's around 60Kb now).Hence, I would disagree with the CSD request and will like the page to stay and expand.

Respect and Follow Wikipedia:Five_pillars
Thank You! --Khushank94 (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've declined it because there is more information here than on the original page and also because I feel that it would be better if this was discussed through a formal AfD. There are merits to having a separate page for the polling results since there is enough for a controversy section, but I can also see where it could be merged into the main page for the elections. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• I will say that the article does need some editing for flow and neutrality since it reads a little like a news article. It also sort of looks like it's written to support a specific viewpoint or promote something. This may be unintentional, but this is why it's so important to be neutral when writing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also, you need to clarify in the controversy section whether the subject matter is about polling in general throughout the years or if it is about this specific election. If it is about polling in general but was discovered with this election, that could help justify this article but we need to show how this pertains to the OP for this specific election. From what I've found so far ([1]) this seems to be more of a general concern. Also, please be aware that opinion pieces are not usable as reliable sources in most instances. This link wouldn't be considered to be a RS as it looks to be an opinion piece on a blog-type website. There doesn't seem to really be any editorial oversight, so we can't use it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

choose between coalition and parties

i am of the view that we should use coalitions(upa or nda ) as a single group rather than giving the exclusive seat share of parties like for INC or BJP. want to know the community view on this. Khushank94 (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As the coalition is changing as the elections are coming near, some parties in a coalition are breaking away, some are linking, so its better to say party statistics too in the scenario in which the opinion poll was taken place. Logical1004 (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

True : but the present form is little hazy and ambiguous . can there be a separate table for both the things -Khushank94 (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Table should be formed in such a way that all parties of UPA and NDA would be listed below them.

We indicate what the sources say, we dont artbitrarily define, as editors, what should be represented.Lihaas (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

protection

i want to move for protection on this article. it just take +1 or -1 byte to change the whole scenario. -Khushank94 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

examples- [2] ,[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] are some. -Khushank94 (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

117.201.75.26 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Lok sabha company UPA-200 NDA-160 OTHER 213

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

controversy section - previous opinion polls proved to be wrong

Opinion polls have been proved to be wrong in 2004 and 2009 elections.

In 2004, for example, the final opinion polls gave the NDA a clear victory. Star News-CVoter gave the alliance 267-279. India Today-ORG 282, and NDTV-IE-Nielsen 287-307. However, the final figures were 185 for the BJP and allies and 275 for Congress and allies.

In 2009, too, the opinions got it badly wrong. Most polls saw the Congress slipping, and the BJP rising. While Star News-Nielsen gave the Congress plus allies 203, TheWeek-CVoter gave Congress 234, CNN-IBN 185-205, and India TV-CVoter 189-201. The final result was: 262 to Congress+, and 159 for BJP-plus. It clearly showed the opinion poll was all wrong.

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/if-opinion-polls-have-got-it-wrong-nda-may-end-up-with-300-1482303.html

This fact must be added in the controversy section to make the article neutral. 122.151.102.179 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.102.179 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bar graphs

wasn't this[9] better than this [10]

these many graphs are not needed in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khushank94 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

Amjath test Arunsrec (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)