![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Here's a link to a new Target Insyghts primary poll.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/31/poll-whitmer-fieger-lead/104178896/
Legionaire Editor ( talk) 18:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought this was fairly obvious, but don't add polls that can't be corroborated or verified. It's even debateable to add a poll commissioned by a major paper if they don't include all of the relevant information. So it's certainly not acceptable to add polls that we never made public and that some columnist had seen or heard second-hand from some unnamed source. Polling is under enough scrutiny as it is, so please be extra careful about this. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 22:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Three parties selected candidates via primaries on August 7th, but the opening section only shows photos of two of them. All three should be included, both for completeness's sake and in the avoidance of bias.
Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com 24.127.238.196 ( talk) 19:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What's the wiki standards for a candidate to be included in an infobox on a page like this? For instance, the Liberatrian Party qualified for "major" party status this year, which means they got to have a state-wide primary instead of a convention like the Democratic and Republican parties. Do you do infobox inclusions by the political rules of their respective state, or does wiki have a different standard? -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 14:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment added by wolfsden3: I have undone the change made by user Nevermore27 because their argument was that Bill Gelineau was not polling at 5% or greater. In Michigan "major party" candidates are not arbitrary based on polling numbers. In Michigan you are considered a major party when Michigan law (MCL code) tells you that you have to have a primary rather than a caucus. Minor party's caucus and major party's primary. Primary's are tax payer funded to a degree, state organized and not everyone qualifies. Major party's should be in the info box since other two major party candidates are represented. The link to the PDF below is also referenced elsewhere on the references page that I didn't post but I posted it here for your convenience. As a likely non-Michigan resident I don't think you're aware that Michigan has three major party's as does New Mexico. There might be one or two others with this unique distinction this election cycle. You can not disqualify a major party candidate from the info box based on arbitrary opinion. I would also like to add when you look at each candidate, republican, democrat and the libertarian they all had to do the exact same things mechanically, 15,000 signatures, debate other candidates, campaign to win their primary, etc. Mechanically they all did the exact same things but the Green, Tax Payer, Constitution, etc party's (the minor party's) didn't have to do any of it. The infobox as noted elsewhere in the talk section (I"m new here sorry) also talks about the difference between major and minor party's and to not think of them in terms of "third party's". States don't classify party's as first, second, third, fourth, etc. State classifications are either major or minor regardless of polling data.
Wolfsden3 ( talk) 09:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nevermore27: I don't mind being in an edit war. You're the only one who's "fighting". You're suggesting treating all major party candidates unequally and that isn't fair. Wikipedia as noted by other users doesn't have a hard rule about 5% in the polls. You seemingly only want to use 5% because that has been some kind of loose standard over a decade. You don't speak to the major party status I asked about and on those grounds Bill Gelineau should stay as should ALL major party candidates. The framing of your narrative and that of Wikipedia about polling numbers is a biased measure since polls can be manipulated. Why would anyone want to base who shows up in the info box on something that can be manipulated? To me this makes no sense and state laws, election laws, how states categorize party's is a better measure. Major vs Minor party status and not polling data should be what determines info box listing regardless of how it has been in the past decade. Whomever created those loose guidelines didn't think about how polls can be manipulated. If we took a poll on this page I think Bill Gelineau would get 75% in our poll. Wolfsden3 ( talk) 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC) @Nevermore27: Apparently I've been whacked by the wiki whacker bot. I've appealed to the great and mighty whacker bot in wiki world. This entire argument of 5% is absurd and I've pleaded my case. I think you're wrong to base info box listing on manipulative data controlled by corporations and party's but should rather base info box listing on how states categorize. Major or minor. Major party's get info box listing and minor one's don't. This is in my view 100% unfair. I'm sure you disagree. I'd love to hear why you think it should be based on poll numbers of 5%. Why not bump it to 25%? Wolfsden3 ( talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I too support the inclusion of Gelineau in the infobox. I agree Nevermore27 is the only person who is against this.-- Kruggsy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Candidates beyond the Republican and Democratic parties should be allowed to be displayed in the infobox regardless of political status.
I think instead of "Third Parties" which should be spelled "Third Party's" I think you mean "Minor Party's". There is a distinction between major and minor not third. You're either a major or a minor. I think all major party candidates should be in the major party info box and minor party candidates should be in a minor party info box. This is how the states classify and categorize laws on how those party's behave according to their candidate selection process. You either caucus (minor party) or you primary (major party). In Michigan for example for the first time in 50 years the libertarian party had to primary and where on the primary ballot making them a major party since they benefited from tax payer dollars paying for them to be on the ballot, paying for a primary at public polling locations, sending information to county secretary's, etc. Forgot to sign my comments here: Wolfsden3 ( talk) 06:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
We need a box for no endorsement. For example, governor Rick Snyder is not endorsing a candidate for Michigan governor as shown at [1]. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 02:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It is VERY VERY important to make sure the edits match the supporting citations. I prevented an edit war by making sure the citation supports the edit. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 14:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Can someone make a new SVG map, whoever made it utterly fucked up the SVG. Thanks. MB298 ( talk) 07:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
There needs to be an endorsement box for whitmer in the democratic primary WavyPhoton ( talk) 00:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
It somehow got deleted when trying to make another one WavyPhoton ( talk) 00:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Here's a link to a new Target Insyghts primary poll.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/31/poll-whitmer-fieger-lead/104178896/
Legionaire Editor ( talk) 18:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought this was fairly obvious, but don't add polls that can't be corroborated or verified. It's even debateable to add a poll commissioned by a major paper if they don't include all of the relevant information. So it's certainly not acceptable to add polls that we never made public and that some columnist had seen or heard second-hand from some unnamed source. Polling is under enough scrutiny as it is, so please be extra careful about this. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 22:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Three parties selected candidates via primaries on August 7th, but the opening section only shows photos of two of them. All three should be included, both for completeness's sake and in the avoidance of bias.
Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com 24.127.238.196 ( talk) 19:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What's the wiki standards for a candidate to be included in an infobox on a page like this? For instance, the Liberatrian Party qualified for "major" party status this year, which means they got to have a state-wide primary instead of a convention like the Democratic and Republican parties. Do you do infobox inclusions by the political rules of their respective state, or does wiki have a different standard? -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 14:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment added by wolfsden3: I have undone the change made by user Nevermore27 because their argument was that Bill Gelineau was not polling at 5% or greater. In Michigan "major party" candidates are not arbitrary based on polling numbers. In Michigan you are considered a major party when Michigan law (MCL code) tells you that you have to have a primary rather than a caucus. Minor party's caucus and major party's primary. Primary's are tax payer funded to a degree, state organized and not everyone qualifies. Major party's should be in the info box since other two major party candidates are represented. The link to the PDF below is also referenced elsewhere on the references page that I didn't post but I posted it here for your convenience. As a likely non-Michigan resident I don't think you're aware that Michigan has three major party's as does New Mexico. There might be one or two others with this unique distinction this election cycle. You can not disqualify a major party candidate from the info box based on arbitrary opinion. I would also like to add when you look at each candidate, republican, democrat and the libertarian they all had to do the exact same things mechanically, 15,000 signatures, debate other candidates, campaign to win their primary, etc. Mechanically they all did the exact same things but the Green, Tax Payer, Constitution, etc party's (the minor party's) didn't have to do any of it. The infobox as noted elsewhere in the talk section (I"m new here sorry) also talks about the difference between major and minor party's and to not think of them in terms of "third party's". States don't classify party's as first, second, third, fourth, etc. State classifications are either major or minor regardless of polling data.
Wolfsden3 ( talk) 09:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nevermore27: I don't mind being in an edit war. You're the only one who's "fighting". You're suggesting treating all major party candidates unequally and that isn't fair. Wikipedia as noted by other users doesn't have a hard rule about 5% in the polls. You seemingly only want to use 5% because that has been some kind of loose standard over a decade. You don't speak to the major party status I asked about and on those grounds Bill Gelineau should stay as should ALL major party candidates. The framing of your narrative and that of Wikipedia about polling numbers is a biased measure since polls can be manipulated. Why would anyone want to base who shows up in the info box on something that can be manipulated? To me this makes no sense and state laws, election laws, how states categorize party's is a better measure. Major vs Minor party status and not polling data should be what determines info box listing regardless of how it has been in the past decade. Whomever created those loose guidelines didn't think about how polls can be manipulated. If we took a poll on this page I think Bill Gelineau would get 75% in our poll. Wolfsden3 ( talk) 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC) @Nevermore27: Apparently I've been whacked by the wiki whacker bot. I've appealed to the great and mighty whacker bot in wiki world. This entire argument of 5% is absurd and I've pleaded my case. I think you're wrong to base info box listing on manipulative data controlled by corporations and party's but should rather base info box listing on how states categorize. Major or minor. Major party's get info box listing and minor one's don't. This is in my view 100% unfair. I'm sure you disagree. I'd love to hear why you think it should be based on poll numbers of 5%. Why not bump it to 25%? Wolfsden3 ( talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I too support the inclusion of Gelineau in the infobox. I agree Nevermore27 is the only person who is against this.-- Kruggsy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Candidates beyond the Republican and Democratic parties should be allowed to be displayed in the infobox regardless of political status.
I think instead of "Third Parties" which should be spelled "Third Party's" I think you mean "Minor Party's". There is a distinction between major and minor not third. You're either a major or a minor. I think all major party candidates should be in the major party info box and minor party candidates should be in a minor party info box. This is how the states classify and categorize laws on how those party's behave according to their candidate selection process. You either caucus (minor party) or you primary (major party). In Michigan for example for the first time in 50 years the libertarian party had to primary and where on the primary ballot making them a major party since they benefited from tax payer dollars paying for them to be on the ballot, paying for a primary at public polling locations, sending information to county secretary's, etc. Forgot to sign my comments here: Wolfsden3 ( talk) 06:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
We need a box for no endorsement. For example, governor Rick Snyder is not endorsing a candidate for Michigan governor as shown at [1]. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 02:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It is VERY VERY important to make sure the edits match the supporting citations. I prevented an edit war by making sure the citation supports the edit. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 14:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Can someone make a new SVG map, whoever made it utterly fucked up the SVG. Thanks. MB298 ( talk) 07:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
There needs to be an endorsement box for whitmer in the democratic primary WavyPhoton ( talk) 00:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
It somehow got deleted when trying to make another one WavyPhoton ( talk) 00:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)