Jump to content

Talk:Mainstreet Research

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion

[edit]

I frequently update Canadian public opinion polls, and I'm sure the other prominent editors of Canadian opinion polls would agree that Mainstreet is a respectable firm (up there with Nanos, Ekos, Campaign Research, Forum, Abacus, Leger, Ipsos, Innovative, Angus Reid,etc).

If the page violated a couple rules, could the page be re-added? I will edit out the sentences that violate.

This is the only prominent Canadian pollster that does not have a page, and I (and I'm sure other regular editors) believe viewers benefit from being able to view pages of the pollsters we are referencing. Mikemikem (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article — May 2017

[edit]

Referencing style

[edit]

Hello. I suggest using Template:cite web for web references. Including the website or publisher, as well as the article date and author (using first and last fields of the template) and accessdate, allows to more easily recover dead links in the future (there are even automatic robots which can do this). Also see WP:DEADREF for more information. I have converted the ipolitics reference which can serve as example. Thanks and happy editing, — PaleoNeonate — 21:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — PaleoNeonate — 01:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The lead (the beginning of the article) should be a summary of the content of the article. There is mention of a company rename which is not in the article for instance (where perhaps a future History section would be a good idea). The same for the adoption of various technologies. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 01:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK that sounds good. I did not create the original page, I just added the sentence about which websites have referenced their work so it did not violate A7 and would not be deleted. I have no issue if people edit what information on the page goes where (I am not responsible for the original content), I just did not want the page to be deleted for lack of credibility of the organization (as anybody who frequently updates Canadian opinion poll pages know it is a legitimate company). Mikemikem (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Mikemikem[reply]

Sources for expansion, notability and verifiability

[edit]

@Mikemikem: Thanks. I have improved the article a little but have no particular interest in working more on it. Still a question however: would you know of an ideally third party/secondary source which discusses its history, or of interviews, etc? If so, those would be good references to base ourselves on to add a history section, for instance. Even if we can't expand the article immediately, such sources could be mentioned/added for future expansion. Such sources are also always supporting verifiability and showing the notability of the company (they demonstrate significant coverage versus only mentions), so the article would be unlikely to be nominated for deletion again. Thanks again, — PaleoNeonate — 01:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of confused as to what exactly you are requesting (I've never created a wiki page, and I simply update the opinion polls by copying and pasting what is already in opinion poll pages and then just change the numbers and reference). Here are two other prominent Canadian opinion poll pages that are never in question of being deleted:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekos_Research_Associates

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_Research

I simply found prominent Canadian media sources that have referenced the Mainstreet polls (similar to the Forum wiki page) and added them to show Mainstreet's prominence. As far as I can tell none of the Canadian pollster wiki pages have third party sources discussing their history.

If you can point me to examples of what you are asking for, compared to the Ekos and Forum wiki pages, I'll do my best to add them.

Mikemikem (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Mikemikem[reply]

Interestingly, those articles do not seem to be in better state than this one, afterall, thanks for the links. We can leave this thread open for future additions as necessary, as improvements are always nice. I will ping a more experienced editor, DGG who has seen this article before to possibly express his opinion. Thanks again for your help, — PaleoNeonate — 02:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that sounds good.

It looks to me this Mainstreet Research page is similar to other Canadian opinion pollsters. The pages are not overly detailed, but those of us editing the Canadian opinion poll pages are hoping to not see all the pollster pages get deleted that we constantly are uploading polls from.

Mikemikem (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Mikemikem Mikemikem (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those other articles you mention above are just as bad, or worse. There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them.
The standard rule is WP:N: there need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. According to the rule, it is not valid to infer notability just from being quoted, and that seems still to be all there is.

Personally, I am quite willing to accept the idea that notability is not to be judged strictly by the GNG if there are other ways of determining it, but that's not the established consensus. And as an admin, I must go by the standard consensus.

All these articles need sourcing. As for the one you mentioned on my talk page, "Campaign Research" that would also need sourcing, tho there is considerable material about it in the article on it's principal, Nick Kouvalis. for reasons which are apparent from that page, there's in fact likely to more potential sourcing on this one than on the ones we do have. But merging a firm primarily associated with a person to the article on the person can be a good idea. I'm going to make a redirect for the firm.
Myadvice is to work on all of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with "Controversies" section

[edit]

As per the standards set out on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page, I am initiating a conversation about the recent changes to the Controversies section. User Ontlib20 has made repeated and substantial changes to the section. I invite them to provide a rational reasoning for this and encourage editors on this page to work to find an acceptable solution to Ontlib20's concerns.

I have posted the rational reasoning on other "Talks", nobody is bothering to read it, please read, follow the links, once you realize every polling error is prominent and has major media aka "CBC articles" yet none are listed on the individual firm profiles, you can start to understand, but please read them. Thanks.
Pasting from the other page here as well.
I don't see a reply button on the Mainstreet Research talk page so I will post it here. I have already posted my rational reasons in response to Yeeno above. Here is a summary of Canadian Polling Firm Wikipedia Pages. This is a summary page of the polling industry in Canada, https://338canada.com/pollster-ratings.htm Here are wikipedia entries for most of the polling firms listed there.
All these firms have faced criticism over the years for major polling misses.
And yet, despite this long history of major misses by every firm, only one firm has a section dedicated exclusively to two polls it missed, why was this Section ever created? In my opinion, it is a smear against the firm itself. If the content of the Calgary polling failure is so prominent, surely it belongs on the 2017 Calgary Mayoral election page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Calgary_municipal_election) and not on this corporate reference page, it is inconsistent with every other polling firm profile on Wikipedia. Ontlib20 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontlib20 (talk • contribs)
You started a "Talk page" without replies enabled, thanks fiend. And you deleted my other cited context content before doing that, seemingly reasonable but actually not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontlib20 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion as to how Wikipedia works. Replies are provided by editing the section of the Talk page dedicated to the issue as we are doing now. And it is appropriate to indent responses by using a series of ":" before your new paragraph. The thrust of your argument is that no other polling firms have sections on their Wikipedia pages dedicated to their polling errors. I believe a more reasonable response would be to begin the process of creating those sections for standardization. Your focus on this page is concerning; indeed, a discussion on your own talk page from November 2021 indicates you may have a conflict of interest when it comes to editing this page. I can assure you that there is no intent to malign or discredit the work of one polling firm as we have all used polling data from this firm and many others while editing and updating elections pages across Wikipedia. Rather, there has been sustained criticism of Mainstreet's polling that deserves acknowledgement. This is not to say that other firms do not deserve to have their polling issues raised, merely that deleting one polling firm's criticism section when there are clearly grounds for criticism sections to be included with other firms signals a closeness to this article's topic that may invalidate you from active participation. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the issue of conflict of interest, being a subject matter expert is NOT a conflict. There was an accusation made in 2021, that does NOT make it so.
Your point: "Rather, there has been sustained criticism of Mainstreet's polling that deserves acknowledgement" does not address my point about other firms having similar if not more "sustained criticism", I posted these links for you and Yeeno to review. Those references are being deleted by you and others without questioning the original edits, which were done anonymously by users no longer on this platform to question.
I am happy to advocate for standardization, that is precisely my point in fact. I have posted multiple occassions the full list of wikipedia pages. Will you commit to posting these sections to the other pages? Ontlib20 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mainstreet_Research&oldid=1214206235"