This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries 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, 2 |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 25 January 2016, Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries was linked from Google News, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
|
||
For example, Kansas is shown as for Clinton on the map, but it was a win for Sanders. Massachusetts is shown as shared, but it was a victory for clinton. Will the colours of the states be changed to their winners? Or could there be some other way of distinguishing states that have already voted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C200:5D53:B107:492A:EDF7:E774 ( talk) 00:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The reasoning for the map is so dumb. They say it shouldn't reflect results yet Nevada and Iowa are solid green when polls show showed before the election that it was tied. So why are those states green? They also decided to completely discredit Overtime Politics when their results have been more accurate than PPP. The conclusion that I've made is that they have a massive Clinton bias here. Post an poll that doesn't favor Clinton like in Michigan? Remove it. That's how they operate here. I won't be surprised if someone removes this comment too.
Gordomono (
talk)
15:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The gradient isn't visual even. It looks like Green with a slight Yellow highlight. It's also ugly and convoluded. A neutral shared color should be used rather than patterns and gradients. For states with no recent polling, leave them blank (ie White). Before you say "let's keep it the same as the republican party one" consider if we really want to be modeling anything off of them. They should change to match us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.125.244 ( talk) 18:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how to use any of this, just wanted to tell y'all that democratic statewide polling for California, its been 3 months. It shouldn't say 'for clinton', it should be grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.202.226 ( talk) 15:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Could we include an option to arrange the states by when their primary/caucus was/will be held? This seems like something which people might find helpful. (I'm new to wikipedia editing and am not sure whether it's doable or a good idea) MathematicalMadHatter ( talk) 10:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I've undone this for the following reasons:
Also, would everyone please, please, please use edit summaries? Thanks. Rami R 13:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
People reverting edits with no given reason(s) on talk pages is not worth much value, at least no more than my edits. I was not even the one who started the discussion on the order. I again remind you and others that all past presidential election polling is in chronological order. You cannot just say "I don't like it" as a reason. I am giving reasons to put it in chronological order. Can you please say why not? And for the record, I do not like edit wars so I will no longer attempt to edit the pages. But I do support the polls being in chronological order if anyone else is interested. Manful0103 ( talk) 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
So you guys think that all the other pages for past elections are wrong??? Amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4780:4A6C:7070:727E:2EC6:68F8 ( talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
As per Ramaksoud2000 in August, refer to this discussion to preemt any dispute on how they work. : /info/en/?search=Talk:Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016/Archive_1#Note_on_margins_of_errors_and_statistical_ties To sum up, a statistical tie occurs when two data points from within a set are within twice the margin of error of each other.
Tubadave ( talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
While looking at Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 I saw District of Columbia but then reminded myself that this isn't a state. Rather than be exclusive I chose to add all of the territories with DC as Puerto Rico might be polled (It has twice the delegates DC has). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
So the first question I assume that would be on ones mind "Why are we including these, nobody ever polls them". So far during the primaries there have been no polling from the states of Hawaii, Nebraska, and Wyoming. In addition when it comes to to polling both Dakotas have historically come up short when it comes to the democrats. So why would we add those states but not the non states? Another possible answer to this could be "Because this article is just about statewide polling..." to that I would say; okay how many years have we added the District of Columbia to these "statewide" presidential primary polling articles? Maybe we should consider a rename? There is this issue, and the fact that not all of the states listed have primaries (some have caucuses). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain the use of
on this article. This symbol, in addition to being useless, is also modeled after the Republican Party logo. Unless a good reason is given for its inclusion, I think we should do without it.
Abjiklɐm (
tɐlk)
13:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries 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, 2 |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 25 January 2016, Statewide opinion polling for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries was linked from Google News, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
|
||
For example, Kansas is shown as for Clinton on the map, but it was a win for Sanders. Massachusetts is shown as shared, but it was a victory for clinton. Will the colours of the states be changed to their winners? Or could there be some other way of distinguishing states that have already voted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C200:5D53:B107:492A:EDF7:E774 ( talk) 00:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The reasoning for the map is so dumb. They say it shouldn't reflect results yet Nevada and Iowa are solid green when polls show showed before the election that it was tied. So why are those states green? They also decided to completely discredit Overtime Politics when their results have been more accurate than PPP. The conclusion that I've made is that they have a massive Clinton bias here. Post an poll that doesn't favor Clinton like in Michigan? Remove it. That's how they operate here. I won't be surprised if someone removes this comment too.
Gordomono (
talk)
15:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The gradient isn't visual even. It looks like Green with a slight Yellow highlight. It's also ugly and convoluded. A neutral shared color should be used rather than patterns and gradients. For states with no recent polling, leave them blank (ie White). Before you say "let's keep it the same as the republican party one" consider if we really want to be modeling anything off of them. They should change to match us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.125.244 ( talk) 18:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how to use any of this, just wanted to tell y'all that democratic statewide polling for California, its been 3 months. It shouldn't say 'for clinton', it should be grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.202.226 ( talk) 15:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Could we include an option to arrange the states by when their primary/caucus was/will be held? This seems like something which people might find helpful. (I'm new to wikipedia editing and am not sure whether it's doable or a good idea) MathematicalMadHatter ( talk) 10:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I've undone this for the following reasons:
Also, would everyone please, please, please use edit summaries? Thanks. Rami R 13:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
People reverting edits with no given reason(s) on talk pages is not worth much value, at least no more than my edits. I was not even the one who started the discussion on the order. I again remind you and others that all past presidential election polling is in chronological order. You cannot just say "I don't like it" as a reason. I am giving reasons to put it in chronological order. Can you please say why not? And for the record, I do not like edit wars so I will no longer attempt to edit the pages. But I do support the polls being in chronological order if anyone else is interested. Manful0103 ( talk) 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
So you guys think that all the other pages for past elections are wrong??? Amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4780:4A6C:7070:727E:2EC6:68F8 ( talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
As per Ramaksoud2000 in August, refer to this discussion to preemt any dispute on how they work. : /info/en/?search=Talk:Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016/Archive_1#Note_on_margins_of_errors_and_statistical_ties To sum up, a statistical tie occurs when two data points from within a set are within twice the margin of error of each other.
Tubadave ( talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
While looking at Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 I saw District of Columbia but then reminded myself that this isn't a state. Rather than be exclusive I chose to add all of the territories with DC as Puerto Rico might be polled (It has twice the delegates DC has). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
So the first question I assume that would be on ones mind "Why are we including these, nobody ever polls them". So far during the primaries there have been no polling from the states of Hawaii, Nebraska, and Wyoming. In addition when it comes to to polling both Dakotas have historically come up short when it comes to the democrats. So why would we add those states but not the non states? Another possible answer to this could be "Because this article is just about statewide polling..." to that I would say; okay how many years have we added the District of Columbia to these "statewide" presidential primary polling articles? Maybe we should consider a rename? There is this issue, and the fact that not all of the states listed have primaries (some have caucuses). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain the use of
on this article. This symbol, in addition to being useless, is also modeled after the Republican Party logo. Unless a good reason is given for its inclusion, I think we should do without it.
Abjiklɐm (
tɐlk)
13:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)