This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 14 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
One editor keeps rounding 26.186 to 26.19 and 26.182 to 26.18. My issue with this is it rounds 0.004 point lead to 0.01 point lead, which I think is biased. The lead is overall more around 0.0037 or 0.0038, and I’m ok with rounding it up just to be clear. I’m gonna playing devil’s advocate here. If it is ok to round to do this, then would it be ok to round 26.186 to 26.2 and 26.182 to 26.2. 0 is closer 0.004 than 0.01 is to 0.004. We also can clearly see a lead in state delegate equivalents, therefore it is unnecessary to show lead. Can someone please explain? Thank you! Pentock ( talk) 16:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Domeditrix. The reason I made the change is because when I saw the results on Wikipedia had changed. I thought the lead widened. If it was a 1.004 percent lead and rounded to 1.01. I would not care. We need to show how close the results are. Not everyone is in agreement. If I asked you how much Pete Buttigieg was leading by, would you say 0.01? The New York Times has the results tied at 26.2. Politico has it at 28.186-26.182. While I get rounding the numbers. At the same time if I were to round 0.4 point lead to 1 point lead. Would you find that misleading. We can’t mislead our viewers. Pentock ( talk) 18:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It is different to round 0.0037 point lead up to 0.004 point lead because if it is 5 or greater you round up. If it 4 or lower you round down. Pentock ( talk) 18:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
What are we to make of the AP refusing to call Iowa even after the recount? [1] [2] [3] How should we deal with this in the infobox and elsewhere? I guess that after the results are certified one way or another on Saturday, it won't really matter.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Drreid1212, the infobox is incorrect the way you have edited it. We have agreed that the delegate count, not the popular vote, is what should be counted as a win. David O. Johnson ( talk) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 ( talk) 00:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
does this article state that someone was certified as the winner? I literally do not understand if a winner was conclusively determined. skak E L 04:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 14 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
One editor keeps rounding 26.186 to 26.19 and 26.182 to 26.18. My issue with this is it rounds 0.004 point lead to 0.01 point lead, which I think is biased. The lead is overall more around 0.0037 or 0.0038, and I’m ok with rounding it up just to be clear. I’m gonna playing devil’s advocate here. If it is ok to round to do this, then would it be ok to round 26.186 to 26.2 and 26.182 to 26.2. 0 is closer 0.004 than 0.01 is to 0.004. We also can clearly see a lead in state delegate equivalents, therefore it is unnecessary to show lead. Can someone please explain? Thank you! Pentock ( talk) 16:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Domeditrix. The reason I made the change is because when I saw the results on Wikipedia had changed. I thought the lead widened. If it was a 1.004 percent lead and rounded to 1.01. I would not care. We need to show how close the results are. Not everyone is in agreement. If I asked you how much Pete Buttigieg was leading by, would you say 0.01? The New York Times has the results tied at 26.2. Politico has it at 28.186-26.182. While I get rounding the numbers. At the same time if I were to round 0.4 point lead to 1 point lead. Would you find that misleading. We can’t mislead our viewers. Pentock ( talk) 18:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It is different to round 0.0037 point lead up to 0.004 point lead because if it is 5 or greater you round up. If it 4 or lower you round down. Pentock ( talk) 18:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
What are we to make of the AP refusing to call Iowa even after the recount? [1] [2] [3] How should we deal with this in the infobox and elsewhere? I guess that after the results are certified one way or another on Saturday, it won't really matter.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Drreid1212, the infobox is incorrect the way you have edited it. We have agreed that the delegate count, not the popular vote, is what should be counted as a win. David O. Johnson ( talk) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 ( talk) 00:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
does this article state that someone was certified as the winner? I literally do not understand if a winner was conclusively determined. skak E L 04:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)