text:
Talk:Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election

Lula release ordered today
With the release of Lula (Inacio da Silva) authorised today, he can be restored to the potential Workers' Party contenders. Culloty82 (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Danger of deletion
Based on the recent precedent at Articles for deletion/2022 in the Philippines, and that apparently consensus has in fact changed, this article could be deleted. I can't begin to state how categorically I disagree with this change in consensus, but it is what it is. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The chart data is out of sync
across series and dates (one can see that by pasting it into a spreadsheet, and expanding the csv's into columns). Not sure how best to fix it, though, other than remaking it from scratch. If it comes to that, then perhaps it'd be a good idea to include the data table, collpased, next to the chart, so that both editors and readers can verify the chart is plotted correctly. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm trying to fix the chart, (re: Special:Diff/1095730851). — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see the problem: I broke the tables below. — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Article title
There is currently no polling data in the article for the legislative election. Unless data for that is added, the title of this article should be changed to 'Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election' to ensure readers are not misled.  N Panama   84534  06:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 * True (not to mention the state government elections!). The sister page at ptwiki also has the qualifier: pt:Pesquisas eleitorais para a eleição presidencial de 2022 no Brasil. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to a title that actually reflects current (and well-established!) practice in the English wikipedia. A move to a format different than that should require a more extensive discussion than what just transpired here. Cheers!  Impru 20 talk 18:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In general, do not perform a unilateral moves on any article where the move might be controversial, as was done here yesterday. An uncontroversial move, would be changing Brasil to Brazil in the title, because the former is a misspelling in English Wikipedia; no reasonable editor could disagree with this. In order to do a controversial move—which is anything more serious than a typo—please go through a move request first; see WP:RM. 's return of the article to the original title of "Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election" was the correct move; any change to this must go through a move request.
 * As a secondary point: whatever the article is called in pt-wiki is completely irrelevant here. The only thing that counts, is what reliable sources in English call it, along with a dollop of consistency, which Impru20 alluded to above. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is in stark contrast to the policy you just quoted, :I moved it to Electoral polls for the 2022 presidential election in Brazil, and moved it to Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, which is not the original title. All good. WP:BRD, peeps; wash-rinse-repeat. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The bit about 'anything more serious than a typo' is an oversimplification, perhaps, but not really in contrast to the quotation. To me, it is essentially equivalent to "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". Some editors are unable to see anything that other editors do that differs from their own view as "reasonable disagreement", so the conservative thing to do, is to interpret is as 'anything more serious than a typo'. "After all, how could anybody possibly disagree with *my* obvious choice of move to another name? Clearly I'm a reasonable person, or I wouldn't have done it, if it weren't reasonable; everyone else will necessarily think the same thing." I'm sure you see what I mean. Anyway, I'm fine with your move, and I hope you understand about the 'typo' business; it's an oversimplification that works for editors not as familiar with moves perhaps, and doesn't necessarily apply to you, so, yes, all good. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Graph
There is already a graph that is generated with a code in the article, and it gets frequently updated by many users. It's redundant to show two graphs with essentially the same information, and only you have the code to generate your graph so it hasn't been updated so frequently. In addition, your graph is incomplete because it doesn't show a line for the sum of other candidates, like the green line in the other graph. If you insist on keeping your graph in the article, I suggest adding a line for the sum of other candidates and updating your graph every few days, so in this case we can remove the other graph and keep only yours. In addition, when you update your graph, it's better to upload it as a new version of the same file instead of making a new file name. If you don't want to update your graph so frequently, I suggest removing it for now, and adding it only after the election to replace the other graph. Thank you. Heitordp (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lula campanha 2022.jpg

The Economist "poll aggregator" showing 50/50
So, The Economist poll aggregator has switched to show a 50/50 scenario. This wouldn't be issue, except that no poll shows a Tie or a Bolsonaro lead. At this point, no poll shows a Lula lead lower than 3 and the average margin of all five polls published since the 1st round is 5.4, so it's impossible for any poll aggregator to show such a perfect Tie except for it being an error of some kind. I hid the aggregator until The Economist fixed it, but I was reverted on grounds that '"This is probably an error of them" is not an argument' and that 'the fact is that they have the aggregation tied, until they change it (assuming it's an error) this should remain and it's not misleading'. Yes, it is an error and it is misleading since it does not reflect any of the published polls. If a decision to show it anyway is given, then we should present it as something else (a projection, an estimation or whatever), but as of now it is for sure than that cannot be the result of any poll "aggregation". That's simple maths.  Impru 20 talk 16:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 * This is entirely speculative on my end, but it looks like they are extrapolating results to extend the trend line from the latest poll to the current date. If this is the case, it will probably be adjusted once the next poll is released. At any rate I agree that this isn't an "aggregation" in the traditional sense. Jacoby531 (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if they are making an extrapolation, then that is not a poll aggregator. I see that refers to The Economist numbers as a "poll" in their latest edit: if it's a poll, then its place is the main table, not together with the other poll aggregators. That's the point of the whole affair. We are misleading readers when putting this as a poll aggregator.
 * I don't mind adding it as a separate projection, but we should not be misleading people into something that isn't. No other polls show such a tie, so this cannot be an average of polls or anything related to other published polls. Also pinging the other involved users to the discussion since this seems to be degenerating into an edit war @ @  Impru 20 talk 18:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all of your points above, folks. There simply is no second round poll that I know of which shows such a close tie between Lula and Bolsonaro, not even after the first round was actually tabulated. It is certainly a closer election than initially expected, but an aggregate supposedly showing that Lula and Bolsonaro are evenly split even though there is no such average to see from the polls we have thus far is a mathematical miscalculation to its extreme. If Gregory insists on keeping this particular poll around, then it should be moved to the main area with all the other polls, and not misleadingly marked as a calculated average, since it quite simply is not. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The guy running the average is “exploring fixes” to it, so he’s clearly not very confident in the results right now. Seems best to wait until there’s an adjustment (or they fully stick behind the result it’s spitting out) https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1579474512198144000?s=46&t=PW8IDK7LxNK6NzZvo8dsjg Dingers5Days (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They have now updated the model and it now shows a 54/46 situation, which excluding undecided is fairly similar to the current polling situation. It seems that it was an error indeed, after all (no special knowledge was needed to ascertain it). I have re-added the aggregation to the table.  Impru 20 talk 09:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Polling aggregators?
The reference for the PollingData poll aggregator takes one to another website (veja), which has an aggregator that shows a different estimate than the one given in the main body of the article. Furthermore, the aggregator referenced in the article (https://www.pollingdata.com.br) also gives a slightly different estimate than the one listed in the article. What's up with that? 2A02:A319:8040:3000:C936:6C3E:9553:61F9 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 * For clarity's sake (because I realize that this was not very clear): I mean the part of the article that lists polling aggregators for the run-off. In particular, the third of them (PollingData) links to a different aggregator (veja). 2A02:A319:8040:3000:C936:6C3E:9553:61F9 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Valid poll being removed for no reason
A user keeps deleting a correctly verified poll because according to him it is not a serious pollster when it is registered in the TSE. He also threatens not to let me edit this page anymore when I have been posting polls every day. A source to the poll: https://oantagonista.uol.com.br/brasil/instituto-verita-divulga-pesquisa-sobre-2o-turno-da-eleicao-presidencial/ 2800:A4:33EE:B200:2CF1:F544:2271:EEDC (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Second this. Verita is an established poll, and some overly-aggressive editors are threatening anyone who adds this poll onto the page. Clearly biased WinniethePooh136 (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Also second this. Both reasons stated for its removal - disagreement with other pollsters or Verita not having previously published a poll are not standards kept on any other wikipedia election page. Wikipedia should not editorialize which polls are displayed. Otto_von_Saxony (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Verita was not included originally, so it looks weird for that to be the first poll included. But it should’ve been included originally anyway, so yes, throw it in. However, all the previous Verita polls should be inputted as well. Dingers5Days (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Verita must stay off, until there is genuine compelling evidence that it is a legitimate poll. We aren't going to take the word of people uttering threats and yelling at admins that it is accurate, and Wikipedia has a very strict standard on false information, a standard that your poll quite likely violates. The fact that you are using sockpuppetry to advance your claims is not helping. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC))

 * Is there a more reliable source than the TSE (Superior Electoral Court of Brazil)? The poll is deleted by users who believe it is false when it is clearly registered with an official body and therefore meets all the requirements.
 * Even one of the arguments used is that "since it is the only pollster with Bolsonaro as the winner, it must be false" which makes no sense. 2800:A4:33E5:8300:5D17:72A8:EE5A:B1F9 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 * You have the burden of proof backwards. Those wanting to remove a poll have to show its not legitimate. Since its registered by the TSE it should implicitly be accepted as legitimate until proven otherwise. Any other standard is ridiculous.
 * Also why are you going on about sockpuppeting? Otto_von_Saxony (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Your claims are inaccurate. When it comes to polling, especially a new poll that no one has ever heard of or seen, it is on you to prove it is accurate, especially for a poll that has a slew of red flags. The TSE is not the standard we use here, it is Wikipedia's standards against false information, which are very strict. You have not provided a single shred of genuine evidence that it is a real poll, such as other surveys from this alleged poll before or during this election in the past this election, or a history, nothing that proves it is genuine. That is why it will not be accepted and screaming about bias is not going to help. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC))

 * New polling firms emerge all the the time, and this is not a standard used anywhere else on wikipedia. F.e. Quebec 2022 election Segma's poll was included even though Segma has never polled before and only released one poll the entire election. You have also not listed a single red flag, only merely asserting there are red flags which is not evidence.
 * Also This isnt against Wikipedia's standards against false information, because this a real poll published by a real news agency from a real market research firm. It may or may not be accurate, but the quality of the poll has nothing to do with it being "false information" or else basically this entire page should be deleted because the round 1 miss was so bad as to be laughable. Otto von Saxony (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Instituto Verita did in fact poll before, in 2018 (and its on Wikipedia no less!) and was perfectly adequate. Otto von Saxony (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should I believe that the poll is legitimate? Because you say so? Listen, the poll is junk. And I can’t trust the “TSE” when I have never heard of them before. I need you to understand that this poll has not been verified by a trustworthy source. The TSA and NOT trustworthy, and could be swayed by any number of factors. I will now close by listing the red flags you seek:
 * Verita have seemingly shown up from nowhere, and have failed to release any polls before or since, except for one occasion in 2018, previously mentioned.
 * The poll claims the incumbent president to have won, even though EVERY other poll over the last few months has proclaimed otherwise. (In fact, I can make the poll make sense again if I swap the two candidates’ names, which suggests that the agency mixed up the names)
 * I hope these are of some use. I will also note that the round 1 “miss” was caused by third party voters abruptly switching allegiance. This CANNOT happen in the 2nd round, as it only has two candidates. Therefore, I must conclude that this anomaly is much less likely to occur in round 2. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. I literally just disproved this point. Wikipedia is fine with one off polls from pollsters, and Instituto Verita has in fact polled before.
 * 2. Polls can disagree with each other, every other contentious race has some polls showing different sides winning. Look at any competitive US election as an example.
 * 3. Number of candidates has no impact on polling error. Polls can miss by miles with 2 candidates, or with 10. Otto von Saxony (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Wikipedia needs verification, and that is more difficult when the pollster shows up from nowhere. They cannot be trusted due to lack of independent verification.
 * 2. No poll is as off-kilter as the Verita one. Disagreeing with EVERY other poll is not acceptable, especially when all of the other round 2 polls have all borne resemblance to one another.
 * 3. I wasn’t denying the possibility of error, I was merely proving beyond reasonable doubt that the round 1 errors CANNOT reoccur in the second round. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. That is just flatly not true. You keep repeating yourself, they have polled before, and nowhere else on wikipedia has the standard of infrequent polling barred a poll from being published. They were fine in 2018 so they are fine now.
 * 2. What are you talking about? Verita is 3 points above the Futura thats within margin of error. Additionally there are polls in the US election wikipedias like Arizona Senate Kurt Jetta showing D+17 and OnMessage Inc showing D+3 which is accepted just fine while clearly not being within MoE or any other level of tolerance.
 * 3. You didnt prove anything. You just asserted the error was polls overestimated third party voters because third party voters changed votes last minute which is completely unsupported. Ipec missed Bolsonaro by 11 PP, thats methodological error not "last minute vote changes". 13 million people dont change their mind in a day. By your standard we should toss Ipec because they clearly have bad methodology. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You still have not given a scrap of evidence to prove it is real. You are in no position to state we are wrong when we are providing evidence that justifies deleting it and not using it. If you really do have proof, then present it and let us judge if that is enough to justify using that poll. 2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Define real? Its objectively a poll published by a market research firm that is on the approved list by the Brazilian TSE, carried by a real polling aggregator.
 * Besides the point the burden of proof is on people calling the poll fake. Not on people saying the poll should be published. You have no given a single piece of evidence that the poll is legitimately fake, only that you dont like its result. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop making up rules, it makes you look like a retard. I suggest that that is not an ideal look for you. Please give it a rest, we are tired of your bullshit.
 * I have given you plenty of evidence, but you just won’t believe it, because it doesn’t suit your narrative. The Brazilian TSE are about as trustworthy as my dog when it comes to Wikipedia verification. Also, YouGov and Ipsos MORI are real pollsters, not some backwater Brazilian weirdo organisation that I have never seen in my life. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You blatantly ignore every single time I contest your "evidence". You completely refuse to engage in good faith, and completely refuse to acknowledge the double standard this would create with multiple other wikipedia pages which were completely fine to have infrequent polls.
 * Why do you expect to have a perfect knowledge of every single pollster ever? Also pollsters you know of is not a standard.
 * Literally all of your evidence is it disagrees with other polls and Verita polls infrequently. That is an insane standard we have to start deleting hundreds of polls of wikipedia by this standard. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring you, you’re just stupid. Now you’re just insulting me and you are crossing the line. It doesn’t just “disagree”, it is violently and misleadingly wrong. It is borderline propaganda and it’s veracity cannot be verified. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lmao stop projecting its a bad look. I never once insulted you.
 * I have cited several actual examples on wikipedia where your standard isnt accepted and you refuse to accept that. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You did insult me, and your arguments are not going to me made any more valid by repeating them 100s of times. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When did I insult you pics or it did not happen. You have called me a "retard", "thick", etc. so so far this is one way street buddy.
 * You've never responded to my arguments once. You just ignore them. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did respond to them. Repeatedly. Also, you insult me by claiming that I ignore you and accusing me of “projecting`’. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about this dispute, but I have to say, calling someone a "retard" is definitely not acceptable behavior. Jacoby531 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Wikipedia needs Verification. How thick must you be to not understand that!? That was the point that I was making, that you were blatantly and conveniently ignoring.
 * 2. Disagreeing with EVERY other poll is still wrong. Also, making up your own “margin of error” won’t save you, the poll is still off by too much.
 * 3. Funny how the round 2 polls are much closer to the round 1 result. It’s almost as if I was right about the 3rd party candidates and their voters. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. What is your standard of verification? And why is it different than 2018? Instituto Verita clearly exists, clearly does market research, and the TSE has the company registered.
 * 2. Disagreeing with every other poll literally doesnt matter and is not a standard anywhere else of wikipedia you refuse to acknowledge any other real example of other wiki pages that were fine with polls more divergent than this.
 * 3. Round 2 polls have no impact on round 1 results. Feel free to think you are right, but all you have is a theory with no data supporting it. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We have given reasons and our evidence. We have clearly stated that we need actual verification, because in Brazil, a poll could be made up by anyone, and thus just relying on a Brazilian source does not work under Wikipedia's standards. You can provide real evidence that meets the standards, or you can drop the whole argument. ￼ (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC))
 * Why dont you engage with my arguments instead of just asserting the samething 20 times in a row? If you refuse to actually engage I propose this page should just be perma locked/deleted as it will serve no purpose with people deleting polls arbitrarily. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't engage with someone who refuses to give actual evidence, otherwise they are just peddling in falsehoods and is being actively hostile, which is unacceptable. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC))
 * What are you talking about, myself and others have given plenty of evidence that Instituto Verita is a real company, and multiple other wikipedia pages allow polls just like Instituto Verita just fine! I dont know what evidence you want and you refuse to accept anything I say. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You havent given us any evidence that is real and geunine according to Wikipedia's standards. Now you are flat out lying to us. 2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? What is my lie. Name it. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Claiming that we haven’t given you evidence is a lie. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not evidence though. You dont like the headline number, and You dont trust Brazilian sources. That isnt evidence Verita is any different than any other Brazilian poll. And once again Wikipedia was fine with them in 2018. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is evidence Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We would like independent (Preferably Non-Brazilian) sources. Verita being a real company does not exclude the possibility that it is corrupt and wrong. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Verification refers to acquiring independent sources to confirm the poll. TSE is NOT an independent source and therefore, it and anyone copying it cannot be accepted as valid verification here.
 * 2. It does matter, as it a rare occurrence indeed.
 * 3. Are you That thick that you don’t realise that I said that round 2 polls seem to agree with the round 1 result? You have got this the wrong way around, the round 1 result had an effect on round 2 polls, not the other way round. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. So you refuse to accept the government of Brazil as an independent source? You refuse to accept Poder360 as an independent source? On what grounds are those two not legitimate?
 * 2. Almost every single election has polling divergences of more than 3PP, Futura -> Verita is not notable. In fact its incredibly unnotable. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, we won't accept the government of Brazil as independent. From what I understand, pretty much anyone can submit a poll, and there are no rigors checks on poll validity there like we have here. That is why we cannot use it. ￼ (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC))
 * Ok if we are ignore the Government of Brazil then cite me for every single poll on this page an independent verification or they should be deleted too. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Real pollsters such as YouGov and Ipsos MORI can be trusted due to years of experience and countless 1,000s of polls. That is what matters. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the verification for Datafolha, Futura, Ipespe, Atlas, Pesquisas, Gerp, PoderData, IPEC, Genial/Quaest? Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of them are YouGov or Ipsos MORI. The fact that these people cannot be replicated in Brazil is concerning. In US or UK elections, the polls are run by pollsters with decades of experience and are capable of being wrong, but what matters here is that they do polls weekly or even more, which allows for better comparisons. A pollster that shows up from nowhere can’t be used like that. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So you agree, since you cannot give me independent (non-Brazilian) verification of these polls they should all be deleted yes? Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a tough one. A lot of them could be deleted, but it is complicated to work out which are good enough to be kept. Therefore, this process must be done very carefully. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If every poll is suspect is there a point to this entire wikipedia page? Either we accept all Brazilian polls are sus and publish them, or we dont publish any. I dont really see how we can just pick and choose here. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don’t Non-Brazilian agencies ever cover this kind of stuff? Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been following Brazilian politics for a few years now and I havent seen any firms from Canada/US/Europe publish polls for Brazil, at least, with any meaningful frequency. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. By that logic, I should accept the Government of Russia as valid, and they’re absolutely bonkers right now. Same for North Korea, Iran, Belarus, and others.
 * 2. This divergence is ALOT more than 3%, a figure you likely made up on the spot. The real figure is more like 8-9% Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Read above
 * 2. Futura had Lula +0.4, Verita has Bolsonaro+2.3 thats 3%. Overall average its Lula+3 to Bolsonaro+2 so 5PP. Thats not a big discrepancy Canada, Quebec, Alberta, Every single US Senate Race, etc. have similar or larger gaps. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. So you’d accept Russia Propaganda then? World governments can sometimes be a little bit crazy, it is a fact of life.
 * 2. Lula had bigger leads than that which have been conveniently ignored here. He usually leads by around 4-8%. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. No? I didnt want to ask for what is independent verification in two places.
 * 2. Even at biggest Lula+8 to Bolsonaro+2 is par for the course. We see swings that big all the time. Like I said check, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire senate races, US general ballot, Quebec 2022, etc. All has swings of similar magnitude from pollster to pollster. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of those American pollsters are known to be biased. That is why they sometimes are marked with (D) or (R). This indicates possible bias. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is their bias allowed on Wikipedia just fine, but Verita, which you are accusing of being biased, has to be removed? Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they are open about hteir bias and we can adjust that quickly, and the bias is only partial. In a place like Brazil, this could easily mean fabrication, aka false information. That is why we cannot use it. This petulant trolling from you has gone on far long enough. 2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the American pollsters have been there for fears, and their biased is clearly marked, thus preventing anyone from taking them at face value. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is a better resolution then not just marking Verita as (B) - deleting it while accepting other Brazilian polls seems suspect. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But no-one knows what (B) means, because you just made it up. And, most importantly, that (B) will not make any sense in a few decades time when completely different candidates are up for election. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Right I did just make it up to try to come to a compromise here. We can footnote the (B) as being potentially biased towards Bolsonaro. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would still confuse people. It is not immediately obvious that it is a reference to the incumbent president. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you dont like (B) we could go with (C) with a footnote marking Verita as being potentially biased towards Conservatives. With the C representing Conservative. Brazils parties change too frequently for bias to a party to be useful like in the US. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Utterly unacceptalbe. Until we knew for certain, we would be asking for all th polls to be hit with bias warnings. That is why we cant use it, it risks opening up a whole can of worms. 2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

People won’t know what (C) means either. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That wont work, because then it opens a whole can of worms. That is why we cannot use it. The potential of it being fake or corrupt means that we cannot use it and that has been our point all this time. Just drop it. It won't be used because it is against Wikipedia standards, and I dont care if I have to see this page protected intil the election ends. 2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Im not going to drop arbitrary deletion of polls. What has come out here is the anti-Verita camp doesnt trust Brazilian verification (fair enough), but that casts doubt on every single poll on this page. We can either come to some compromise here or accept this page should be permalocked. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a large enough discrpeancy that we cannot use it because it violates Wikipedia's rules. This poll cannot go on there, and you acting hostile to everyone is not going to help. 2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, then toss me a compromise then. I'm not going to just accept the deletion of a poll when by the same standard Im not sure how we can trust any Brazilian poll. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That poll is worse, other polls may remain until a solution is found. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If all the polls are in doubt, then the page should remain locked until we come to a conclusion. Wikipedia cannot allow untrustworth polls and none can be verified by your standards, which if we are going to use we apply them everywhere. Either we only allow polls that come from non-Brazilian sources or we come up with another system to mark the less trustworthy Brazilian polls. Otto von Saxony (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously a new system must be invented. The page is currently locked, and I would advocate keeping this until after the election is over. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We dont need a new system, and we cannot make one. That is up to Wikipedia, not us, so any chance of changing it is impossible. 2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my previous remark. No system for marking polls will be anything but confusing. I still think the page should be protected, though. Pablothepenguin (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well until Wikipedia comes out with a system here I concur the page should be protected. I dont see a good way to resolve this dispute otherwise. Otto von Saxony (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice to have polling info for the second round. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 * It literally takes you a minute to google the pollster and see that they have published some polls on the election
 * Their official page: https://www.institutoverita.com.br/
 * A poll they have published before this one:
 * https://portaldeprefeitura.com.br/2022/09/24/bolsonaro-e-lula-estao-empatados-tecnicamente-na-terceira-rodada-de-pesquisa-para-presidente-da-republica-do-instituto-verita-veja-os-dados/
 * In addition, Poder360 has the Verita poll in its polling aggregator: https://www.poder360.com.br/agregador-de-pesquisas/ 2800:A4:33E5:8300:B0AB:2FC0:C58:E4B7 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because they have a page does not mean it is a valid poll. Wikipedia has a very strict procedure on this, and just because it is a poll deemed valid by Brazil's standards does not mean it is valid by Wikipedia's standards. Furthermore, Wikipedia can refuse to use polls if they are deemed with too many red flags and that is what happened here. Too many red flags to be used. Please drop it. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)).

 * You havent listed a single red flag. Otto von Saxony (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Pablothepenguin listed at least two red flags that are grounds for refusal, you have not given a single scrap of hard evidence that it is genuine or accurate, both of which are required to prove that it does not qualify as false information, instead you just rant about bias. We have given proof it is false and cannot be trusted, you have to give proof it is real. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC))

We cannot rely on Wikipedia to create a new system, especially when the current one works so well. And besides, the protection will expire in two days. By then, more accurate and valid polls will likely be out. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC))

Semi-Protect
Administrators, could you please semi-protect this article? I hope this request reaches you in good faith. Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I second that opinion. These two users, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Otto_von_Saxony and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2800:A4:33EE:B200:2CF1:F544:2271:EEDC are blatantly ignoring the red flags about this poll, and there have been no other polls released from this alleged pollster. Even worse, the two users are resorting to threats and damaging this site's emphasis on article information being accurate, which this poll is demonstrating to be heavily inaccurate, and Otto Saxony has a history of initiating edit wars on political topics as well such as the Nevada election. I ask that they both be banned, and Otto be banned permanently. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:7581:D27E:EC2F:CC6C (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)).

Furthermore, Otto has created a sock account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WinniethePooh136.

This user is using the exact same arguments about the poll to justify it, without acknowledging the slew of red flags regarding whether or not it might be a fake. I ask that both accounts be banned immediately. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:7581:D27E:EC2F:CC6C (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)).

 * Actually could we have this page fully protected then? IanDBeacon (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I already requested this at RfP. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are there no current polls shown in the article?
The latest one has been conducted already a week ago and there have to be some more recent one`s. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 * The reason there are no current polls was that the page was protected after a user attempted to insert a poll that violated Wikipedia's standards, and for several days, no one but administrators have been allowed to edit. You are free to add the polls that have since come out, barring the Verita one, as Wikipedia has deemed that one unacceptable. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:846:A53C:298D:FA08 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC))
 * Banning the Verita poll makes the editors look biased because it was the first one showing Bolsonaro leading in the run-off. Deleting that one poll in particiular confirms the already existing notion that wikipedia has a left-wing bias on political issues. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, and "Wikipedia" as an entity does not "deem" sources "unacceptable". There was no consensus that that poll violated Wikipedia's standards, as you can read above. The reason the article was locked was a particularly frothy edit war that developed over the inclusion of the poll. Blippy1998 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The portuguese version of the same article on wikipedia shows the latest polls. By hiding them on the english speaking site you are basically siding with Lula, the socialist and lefty in this election because the latest numbers are showing a trend favoring Bolsonaro which the left does not like. By hiding these latest numbers you are siding with the left and this should never occur on a objectivity driven encyclopedia. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anexo:Sondeos de opinión para las elecciones generales de Brasil de 2022 - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
 * "libre" means free. Apparantly there is no longer freedom to write and communicate openly on all areas of wikipedia. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course there is; add any poll that's missing if you want to and can find a reliable source for it. As for me personally, I have never added or removed polls because I don't know where to find them. I'm just telling you what happened earlier and trying to clear up any idea that there is some sort of moratorium on adding polls. There is not. Blippy1998 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is now becoming absurd. Several polls show a close race. There is nothing in Wikipedia which says "I don't like their findings" and "I've never heard of them" are valid reasons for rejecting the inclusion of a poll. It is clear that Verita correctly picked up on a trend of the Lula lead narrowing or disappearing. Calling something a "red flag" doesn't make it so. This page should be brought into line with the page on Portuguese Wikipedia, with the same polls included. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have to add polls that are actually valid. According to Wikipedia, you cant just add polls without proving they are genuine, and polls can be removed if people have reason to believe they are false, and the site wont allow polls that go so far against the mean as Verita did. The rules are the rules, and you cannot just blatantly break them. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:6D27:C2FC:538C:9B3B (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC))
 * There is no Wikipedia policy that says outlier polls are not allowed. Blippy1998 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not even particularly an outlier poll! If you take the 125 2nd round polls done since the start of February, and rank them based on how far they are from the average of the 10 polls before them, the Verita poll in question is not in the top 10 outliers. It is 16th.
 * In November 2021 there is a poll with a 7% Lula lead and a poll with a 30% Lula lead. One of those must surely go further against the mean than the Verita poll? Yet there they are.
 * In February 2022 a poll with a 24% Lula lead and a poll with an 8% Lula lead.
 * In May 2022 a poll with a 25% Lula lead and a poll with an 8% Lula lead. The poll with the 25% lead is actually the biggest "outlier poll" in the series, as the average at the time was around 14%.
 * So polls in Brazil are generally not very good and can span about a 16% range, though the average poll is about 3% from the rolling average. More than a quarter of polls are 5% or more away.
 * A poll with a 2.3% Bolsanaro lead is therefore wholly consistent with a position where other polls have a 13% Lula lead and the truth is Lula being about 5% ahead.
 * Does anyone have a link to any of these "According to Wikipedia" rules, or any actual reason to believe the Verita poll is "false"? The sample size is strangely large and invites questions, but are there any RS questioning the poll, as against several reporting it and the decision of Brazilian Wikipedia editors to include it? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for the policy and guidelines, respectively, on inclusion of sources, but also WP:REDFLAG, which is perhaps what the other editor is citing. Of course, as you said, variance is expected, and shouldn't ordinarily count against a poll under the red-flag standard; see perhaps WP:CALC for a related policy. In any case, even if the red-flag standard would have been met by this poll, the emergence of new polls in the same ballpark would qualify as "exceptional sources" under that standard. See also WP:SOURCESDISAGREE for a possible way to handle the emergence of reliable sources that contest the methods, etc. of any specific poll.
 * I'm sure one could talk all day about what counts as "fringe" and how reliable a polling firm is and what kind of data we should seek to include in an article like this, but the policies, as well as the practice of translating pages to English, to me seem to strongly favor updating the article to match the Portuguese version, which I will do right now. Since the Verita poll had an edit war over it, I'll add it last so that it can be reverted on its own if I'm wrong about it. Blippy1998 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


text:
purista

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) purist

Noun

 * 1) purist

Noun

 * 1) purist

Etymology 1
From, from an root.

Verb

 * 1)  to make a quiet purring sound
 * 2)  to talk quietly or whisper

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) purist

Noun

 * 1) purist

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) purist

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) purist

Noun

 * 1) purist

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) purist

Noun

 * 1) purist

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: purista


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Serbia/archive1

 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC).

List of World Heritage Sites in Serbia

 * Nominator(s): Tone 15:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Following some related FL examples, such as the List of World Heritage Sites in Slovenia, I believe this list meets all criteria. Some prose tweaks may be required but I expect this to be sorted during the nomination process. Tone 15:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned for the Croatia list, there's no need for a 'Shared with' column. The description of the graveyards already has the other countries in the description, and the frontiers of the Roman Empire could easily include it. Reywas92Talk 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably it's for the best if this part of discussion continues at Croatia list, the outcome should be of course applicable to both. --Tone 06:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment as I noted at the Croatia list, this can't be sorted chronologically. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the list has now been adjusted to follow the style of Slovenia and Croatia. --Tone 19:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments from BeatlesLedTV
 * Center the year columns.
 * Center the image columns, or at the the Start Ras image. Looks weird left aligned.
 * Done! --Tone 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Support—I also added one more as of template for good measure :) --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Support – All of my concerns have been addressed and I believe this meets FL standards. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; I'm not a fan of including the website address in the references but you're using it consistently and also have the organization name, so it's not opposable. Promoting. -- Pres N  14:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
The Miner (film)

The Miner (Rudar) is a 2017 Slovenian drama film directed by Hanna Antonina Wojcik Slak. It was selected as the Slovenian entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards, but it was not nominated. This film follows the true story of a miner, who discovers thousands of executed people in Barbara Pit massacre.

Plot
Alija discovers thousands of bodies of people executed during World War II in an abandoned mine. His employer, wanting to sell the mine, pressures him to keep quiet, but he risks his job by alerting police.

Cast

 * Boris Cavazza
 * Jure Henigman
 * Leon Lučev
 * Tin Marn
 * Marina Redzepovic

title: The Miner (film)


text:
Dong Yang Animation

Dong Yang Animation Co., LTD is a South Korean animation studio that was founded in 1981 and contributed animation production services to many famous American animated shows since the late 1980s throughout the 1990s and the 2000s. It supplied its 2D Animation and 3D Animation services to major film studios like Warner Brothers, Disney, Hanna-Barbera, Filmation, DIC Entertainment, Saban Entertainment and Film Roman.

Projects
Among their most famous works are: Captain N: The Game Master, The Real Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Captain Planet, Batman: The Animated Series, Mighty Max, The Sylvester & Tweety Mysteries, Gargoyles, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, Superman: The Animated Series, 101 Dalmatians: The Series, The New Batman Adventures (Won the 1998 Emmy Award for Animated Program), Freakazoid! (Won the 1998 Emmy Award for Animated Program), Histeria!, Animaniacs, Johnny Bravo, Big Guy and Rusty, Spider-Man Unlimited, Batman Beyond (Won the 2001 Emmy Award for Animated Program), Totally Spies!, Justice League, The Zeta Project, Static Shock, The Proud Family, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Xiaolin Showdown, Mucha Lucha, The Zula Patrol and The Batman.

title: Dong Yang Animation


text:
User:Mkshuvo84

"Dream" Dreaming is the most important thing for a human being to survive in this beautiful world. Imagine for a second you were transposed into the karmic driven world of Earl. Is to dream. The dream is to show. He who does not dream is a dead man! The dream is fulfilled, if one cherishes it in the heart. And you have to dream big. When you dream big, small dreams come true. So, see the dream and awaken the inspiration to live.

title: User:Mkshuvo84


text:
Dichotomous Key/Reptilia

1

 * Upper and a lower lateral temporal fenestra
 * Both present -
 * Not present -

2

 * Ribs adapted into hard shells
 * Present - ../Testudines/
 * Not present - ../Tuatara/

3

 * Cloacal opening
 * Longitudinal slit ../Crocodylia/
 * Transverse slit -

4

 * Jaw disarticulation
 * Present - ../Serpentes/
 * Not present - ../Sauria/

title: Dichotomous Key/Reptilia


text:
Cell Biology/Cytosol

Cell Biology | ../Parts of the cell/ | ../Organelles/

<< Peroxisomes | Cytosol | Cytoskeleton and Microtubules >>

The cytosol (as opposed to cytoplasm, which also includes the organelles) is the internal fluid of the cell, and a large part of cell metabolism occurs here. Proteins within the cytosol play an important role in signal transduction pathways, glycolysis, and act as intracellular receptors and ribosomes. In prokaryotes, all chemical reactions take place in the cytosol. In eukaryotes, the cytosol contains the cell organelles. In plants, the amount of cytosol can be reduced due to the large tonoplast (central vacuole) that takes up most of the room of the cell.

The cytosol is not a "soup" with free-floating particles, but highly organized on the molecular level. The cytosol also contains the cytoskeleton. It is made of fibrous proteins and (in many organisms) maintains the shape of the cell, anchors organelles, and controls internal movement of structures, e.g., transport vesicles.

As the concentration of soluble molecules increases within the cytosol, an osmotic gradient builds up toward the outside of the cell. Water is flowing into the cell, making it larger. To prevent the cell from bursting apart, molecular pumps in the plasma membrane, the cytoskeleton, the tonoplast or a cell wall (if present) are used to counteract the osmotic pressure.

<< Peroxisomes | Cytosol | Cytoskeleton and Microtubules >>

Cell Biology | ../Parts of the cell/ | ../Organelles/

title: Cell Biology/Cytosol


text:
džemper

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) jumper woolen sweater

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) jumper woolen sweater

title: džemper


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/archive1

 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 07:56, 25 March 2015.

List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)

 * Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. It is the second of a three-part series of lists headed by List of York City F.C. players, which has been a featured list since October 2007. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is great. Can you clarify sourcing for me? I recently worked on an FL and it felt like every cell of the table needed a reference. You have a column of refs that is barely populated. Clarify that and I am happy to support.
 * I'll go through the sourcing column by column. Positions are cited by either Batters, Windross & Jarred, Soccerbase or an individual reference in the Ref column where necessary (e.g. Michael Coulson).  Club career, apps and goals come from a combination of refs 14 & 15 in the key.  International selection and caps are referenced individually in the Refs column. Loans in the Notes column are referenced by either Windross & Jarred or Soccerbase.  Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Other notes: The image MOS is not perfect since you have people facing away from the text. Making adjustments would either screw up the layout or reduce images. I recommend keeping them all.
 * I've just stumbled across MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and I was completely unaware of what it recommends. I would agree with keeping the images as they are. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the key should be an independent section but it is in depth enough that I'll yield to whatever is considered best/standard.
 * I've gone with what has been done on other featured lists, like List of Birmingham City F.C. players, List of Lincoln City F.C. players, and List of Malmö FF players, which include key sections. I feel there's enough content to justify it having its own section. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Should the other lists be wikilinked in the lead?
 * They are linked directly below the list, which I think is a logical location, and in the template at the bottom of the page. So I think it would be a bit OTT to include them in the lead too. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome, Support. The aesthetics of the blank columns irks me but presenting that much data is better than I could have done. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comments from Harrias talk
 * In the Positions key, you have "Full back" and "Half-back", be consistent and either use a hyphen in both, or neither.
 * Hyphen added to full-back. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note F needs clarifying: I know what you are saying, but it could be read as "While at Yeovil, Dunphy was the first player capped by the Republic of Ireland."
 * I'm not sure about rewording it as that, as the emphasis wants to be on him being the first player capped by any country, rather than the Republic of Ireland. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that it be rewritten as that, but that the note could be interpreted as meaning that. Harrias talk 11:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. I've removed "by his country", this should remove any ambiguity. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are some of the players not linked in the table?
 * The players not linked did not play in any fully professional leagues and as such are not deemed notable accoring to WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead looks as though it would be better suited in the second paragraph. Though personally, that whole piece explaining the list would be better suited in the Key section.
 * I've moved the last sentence of the first paragraph into the second. I'm a little reluctant to move it into the Key, as it wouldn't match the bullet-pointed format used there, and that is it used to explain the contents of each column. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the "Introduction" needs a reference.
 * I chose not to reference these two sentences as the content in them, like in the list, is supported by the general references. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that "England amateur" doesn't capitalise all words, I think it should be "Wales semi-pro". Harrias talk 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * My only concerns are as follows:
 * "The club's first team have competed in numerous nationally organised competitions, and all players who have played between 25 and 99 such matches [...] are listed below" - this suggests that only matches in national competitions are included in the totals, but Midland League matches are included and that was not a national competition
 * Removed "nationally organised" to make it clear that all competitions are included. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that you've made that change, "all players who have played between 25 and 99 such matches" doesn't really make sense. I'd be inclined to change it to something like "all players who have played between 25 and 99 matches for the club's first team" or something like that......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I look at it, it still doesn't look quite right. Maybe try "The club's first team have competed in numerous competitions, and all players who have played between 25 and 99 first-team matches....." - with this change made I'm happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reworded as suggested. Thanks for the comments and support. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the Introduction starts with a numeral, which the MOS says should not be done
 * Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Think that's it.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * I don't usually comment on prose, but it might be an improvement to turn the second sentence round so that the link from "elected", to a Football League-specific page, is more appropriately placed. Something like "Formed in May 1922, the club failed to be elected to the Football League for the coming season, but succeeded in gaining admission to the Midland League."
 * Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the key, you've missed out the alt bit in the double-dagger template call, and you might want to clarify that it's York City's Clubman of the Year
 * alt added and added to text. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Fairclough image caption, "injury hit" should be hyphenated, as should "extra time" in the Leaning caption
 * Hyphenated. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the stats are correct as of match played 7 March 2015, shouldn't the accessdate for their source be more recent than August 2013?
 * Accessdates updated where needed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are Caribbean Football Database, englandstats.com, and Dragon Soccer reliable sources?
 * Caribbean Football Database: I'm not sure as to its reliability, but I've replaced it with Soccerway anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * englandstats.com: Their website states who "designed, maintained, researched and updated" their content, and it probably doesn't count for much but I've never encountered any issues with the site's accuracy. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Try the FA profile, which confirms Mr Hulme played for England, but not till long after he left YCFC. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replaced it with that ref. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dragon Soccer: same drill as Caribbean Football Database. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorting for the club career column is inconsistent. E.g., when sorting the column in ascending order, if the two years are in the same century, the end year also sorts ascending: so 1923–24 sorts before 1923–25 sorts before 1923–26. But if the range goes over the century boundary, it doesn't: 1998–2000 sorts before 1998–2001 sorts before 1998–99... Should it be consistent?
 * I think the only way to remedy this would be to write the years in full, although this would contradict MOS:DOB. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't, in fact. Notes at that section exempt year ranges in tables specifically because of the century-sorting problem. To be fair, I changed various lists to the what-was-then MoS-compliant format last close season, and didn't realise it messed up the sorting until several months later, at which point I changed them back. Somewhen in the meantime, the MoS was changed to include that exemption. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Year ranges written out in full. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with sourcing the post-07/08 "other" apps/goals to Soccerbase plus a list of twenty-nine newspaper match reports, especially as there's no explanation of why they're needed or what they cover. Or, for that matter, the unexplained extra newspaper links for league apps/goals. See e.g. WP:CITE. Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The league apps/goals contains additional refs for where Soccerbase have made errors, and they are not needed in other apps/goals as they apply only to league appearances. The sourcing of the appearances has long been a concern for me, and it's arisen out of Soccerbase excluding excluding FA Trophy and Conference League Cup appearances.  I will try and replace the newspaper pieces with Non-League Club Directory refs sometime soon. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've used Soccerbase plenty long enough to know why you might need 29 match reports as well :-) Are the competitions that Soccerway covers e.g. FA Trophy from 10/11 onwards, equally error-prone? The problem is the reader doesn't know why, and doesn't know what any of those 29 match reports are supposed to be referencing. The explanations and annotations do need to be in the article, whether in a separate notes section or in with where the refs are now. If you want to keep them all together in one giant reference, like they are at the moment, it'd be more helpful if they had a bit of structure. E.g after the Soccerbase ref, put something like "Soccerbase has no data for a number of competitions:" and then group the match reports by season:
 * For the 2008–09 FA Trophy and Conference League Cup, see
 * 1st match report
 * 2nd match report...
 * For the 2009–10 Whatevertheyremissingthisseason Cup, see
 * 11th match report
 * etc etc etc
 * plainlist is a useful tool, and more accessible than using s.
 * As to the league apps/goals, if any of those extra refs only affect one or two players, like for omission from a lineup or awarding of a dubious goal, I'd be tempted to put them on the row for the player(s) concerned, with an explanatory note. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've structured the apps/goals ref in the way you recommended, and have used plainlist to separate the sources. I've moved the league apps/goals sources to the rows for the players concerned and have included explanatory notex. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Comments from Reckless182
 * The first thing I notice is the left alligned text in the international selection section. Now I don't know if there is a MOS for this, but I would prefer for it to be centrally alligned as all other text (except for the player names) are centrally alligned.
 * I've looked through Manual of Style/Tables for guidance on this, but haven't found anything explicit. The example tables at Manual of Style/Tables show text aligned to the left for cells containing substantial text. And having done a preview of some left aligned and some centre aligned, I think they look more presentable left aligned. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Same section as above. I'm inclined to disagree on the inclusion of youth and B team selections, most certainly for youth teams. I just don't think that it is notable enough to include.
 * I would prefer to include them for the sake of comprehensiveness, by presenting the players' highest level of international representation per country rather than just senior level. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you considered colour-coding the players marked with symbols? It would perhaps increase the ability for readers to find what they're looking for.
 * I'm not opposed to this, but I'm concerned about what would be done with the colour-coding if there was one cell with multiple symbols. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job with the list! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Support - A very good list in terms of its technical composition as well as meeting all the criteria of what a Featured List should be. I'm not overly enamoured with the idea of including the national teams represented by some of the players as I don't think such a column would be present if York City was a more prominent club that had international players as a matter of course, but its inclusion has a rationale, even if I don't agree with it. – PeeJay 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 * - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


text:
Talk:David Arkenstone

Article Needs A Lot More Personal Biography
As a wiki article about an individual musicin, this should have a lot of personal biography included.

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I really expected to see a note about Arkenstone being a stage name, or him changing his name to Arkenstone. It seems more likely than that his family name matched the object in Tolkien's The Hobbit. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Harkonnen Music
Im suprised that there isnt anything here about his work on House Harkonnen tracks in Emperor: Battle For Dune He along w/ Frank Klepacki (House Aterides tracks) and Jarrid Mendelson (House Ordos Tracks) made the music for the game... or at least that what the info says, "War for the Spice - House Harkonnen David Arkenstone" the song can be found here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVw_iQIJvCo&feature=related ...I hope this helps... SpartanLaser 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Arkenstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202042911/http://narada.com/ to http://www.narada.com/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Arkenstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202132347/http://prismmovie.com/2006/07/setting-tone.html to http://prismmovie.com/2006/07/setting-tone.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Arkenstone


text:
Graphic Design

Discipline

 * /Graphics/
 * /Type/
 * /Web Design/
 * /Corporate Identity Design/

Theory

 * /Form and Function/
 * /Principles of Design/
 * /Planning/

History

 * /Pioneers of Graphic Design/

Application and Techniques

 * /Project List/
 * /Drawing/
 * /Photography/
 * /Sign Making/
 * /Silkscreening/

Etc

 * /Statistics about graphic designers/
 * /Authors/
 * Example of Immunization Record

title: Graphic Design


text:
User:Osakabrash/sandbox

Transact24 is a Wan Chai, Hong Kong-based Internet payment services company. It was founded in 2006 by a Swedish Venture Capital entity and staff and Hong Kong was chosen as its home in order to take advantage of the emerging Chinese online market. Philip Meyer has acted as Executive Chair and Managing Director of T24 since establishing the company.

Overview
T24’s head office is in Hong Kong, but the company has operations, technical, and support centers in Zhuhai, China and South Africa as well. Regional satellite offices and/or service entities are also located in Australia, Singapore, Mauritius, Gibraltar, Saipan, Austria, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Macau, and the United States. The company’s staff is a mix of Chinese and Western staff.

In January 2016, Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (Net1), a payment processing company in South Africa and the Republic of Korea, acquired the remaining 56% of T24’s shares, after having acquired 44% of T24 in May 2015. Since January 2016, T24 has operated as a subsidiary of Net1.

title: User:Osakabrash/sandbox


text:
rymistä

Etymology 1
From an root;.

Verb

 * 1)  to rumble emit a low-pitched irregular noise, such as a truck on a bumpy road or stones being unloaded from a dumper

title: rymistä


text:
granulovirus

Etymology
From the genus name.

Noun

 * 1) Any of various baculoviruses in the genus ; used in the control of insect pests.

Translations

 * Finnish: granulovirus
 * Korean: 과립병바이러스

title: granulovirus


text:
Cookbook:Herbs and Spices

| Basic foodstuffs

Spices and herbs are used in many different ways in the art of cooking. Different cultures use different sets of spices and herbs to give the dishes their distinguishing taste and flavour.

Characteristics
The difference between herbs and spices is that, if a leaf of a plant can be used to add flavor or aroma to dishes, then it is an herb. If it is another part, like the seed, fruit, berry, and bark, then it is a spice.

Whole vs ground
Most spices and herbs are available in either a finely ground form for cooking or in the raw form as a seed, nut, leaf, or tuber. Most of the time, the ground form is required to properly flavor the dish. Generally, whole spices keep their flavor longer than the ground spices. South Asian cuisines often use whole spices that they roast freshly before grinding for use, maximising the flavors and aromas released into the food.

Bay leaves are generally used in stews and soups and are almost always used whole.

Fresh vs dry
Often, a recipe will require modifications if the fresh version is used because the flavors do change in the drying process. Fresh herbs are nearly always better than dried herbs, as some subtle aromatics are lost during drying. When substituted in recipes, one part dried herbs are approximately equal to 3 parts fresh herbs. For example, 1/3 tablespoon of dried basil is equal to about one tablespoon of chopped fresh basil.

Blends

 * Baharat
 * Berbere
 * Dry Rub
 * Five Spice Powder (Chinese five spice)
 * Herbes de Provence
 * Garam masala
 * Jamaican Jerk Spice
 * Meat Masala
 * Mexican Seasoning
 * Milagai Podi
 * Mixed Spice
 * Panch Puran (Bengali five spice)
 * Tandoori masala
 * Za'atar

Index
For a list of herbs and spices, see Category:Herbs and spices or browse below:

title: Cookbook:Herbs and Spices


text:
Talk:Amy Clay

How Australia
Could the article explain how it is she came to compete for Australia? (parentage, realizing it would be easier to make the Australian team, just felt like she should have been an Australian all her life, something like that). Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * She moved to Australia after she graduated from Uni. Not certain why. Sources just indicate she moved here. --LauraHale (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Amy Clay