| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania 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 |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | Consensus on infobox inclusion criteria for state subpages: A consensus has been reached to include candidates in the infoboxes of state subpages who are polling at an average of at least 5% in a state or are the nominees of parties whose candidates received 5% in a state in the last election: Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Individual state pages. This consensus is an extension of the RfC that developed the same criteria for inclusion in the national infobox: Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Rfc on inclusion for the infobox. |
It would be nice if a source was added to the objection section, specifically the objection PDF like on Arizona’s page. -- 69.121.243.76 ( talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Thegayfrenchbullie123 ( talk) 3:54 PM, 20 January 2021 (EST)
at the results section. . write-in totals aren't given. BBC gives a total of write-ins in PA here (archived here). But they have slightly different totals for Biden, Trump & Jorgensen, than the source being currently used. Mostly likely BBC totals weren't updated. But that total of write-ins seems important. what should we do? Can bother sources be used? thanks skak E L 17:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Write-ins are not included in the certified results. Counties report them and some sources have added those numbers up, but they are still not part of the official results. Many states have laws that state write-ins only have to be tallied and/or reported if the number is large enough for a write-in candidate to win. Please see the FEC results summary, which has the write-in column blank for PA and has the same total (6,915,283) as this article. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This spat has gone on long enough. While we welcome new users to edit, following a Twitter joke to edit here is a bad idea, and edit warring to enforce the joke is simply going to result in being blocked from editing. Any serious discussions about election maps can go into a new section. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I've seen jokes about election maps by increasingly irrelevant geographic divisions on Twitter recently, but "results by Catholic diocese" takes the cake. I don't think any value is added to this or any other US elections article by adding a map of results based on any divisions that don't have anything to do with elections. I'm not sure what the precedent here is, if any, but I propose that we remove the map that was added to the article for a Twitter shitpost. Stuart98 ( talk) 22:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we should keep the results by catholic diocese. This information is very relevant, and certainly belongs on the infobox. The infobox is only for important, pressing things like this. GI Brown 1970 ( talk) 01:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
If the argument against religious districts like diocese is "the average person doesn't know which one they're in" then by that logic all maps should be removed, the average person doesn't know their precinct or township and a lot of them don't even know what county they live in. adding more maps allows users to view the elections of the USA with greater detail and to be honest they're tucked away in a drop menu so they take up zero clutter screen space. Matthew McMullin ( talk) 01:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC) How boring of a life does one have to have to put meaningless maps on Wikipedia pages and call it "fun"? LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 02:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
While I appreciate the divine sense of humour from ET, me recognizing many of the people in this thread (hi! ^^), and I always stand by the more info the merrier, this is a bit too niche for the infobox. It could've been included elsewhere in the article, including a small part on Catholic voters in PA & Biden's Catholicism and any potential effect it had on the election, this shouldn't be in the infobox. If you want it for a joke, please use your user sandbox. If you seriously want it, it's consensus for only county/precinct races, as per @ AveryTheComrade. You can also discuss on the talk page before making the change. The disrespect on Twitter definitely constitutes harassment, as per @ LilianaUwU. It's evident that many of these people are, in fact, joking though. Reminds me of my chatroom trolling back in like, 2010. It's hard not to get mad, but that's what trolling is specifically designed to do. My two cents worth is we should leave it out the infobox, but if people really, seriously, want it, as is the result following some joke edits, it should be included later in the article. ^^ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 13:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC) So, I want to put forward my thoughts on this whole affair. First of all, this situation has escalated beyond what is at all reasonable, and some editors have engaged in edit warring or downright uncivil behavior, including some on this talk page. While that’s not really a matter for this page itself, it really does need to be said that using Wikipedia like this is not acceptable. Second, mapping statewide elections by Roman Catholic dioceses is clearly not relevant and entirely unsuitable for a Wikipedia infobox. Even if Roman Catholic voters were particularly important in the election, the dioceses are not. Especially since the map doesn’t show how Roman Catholic voters voted, but rather all voters regardless of religious affiliation. Third, the following edit warring was unwarranted. In a situation where there is a dispute over the infobox’s maps, it should be addressed on the talk page. It should not be addressed through the edit war seen on this page. Fourth, it should go without saying that adding further, even more irrelevant maps and images is unacceptable. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be used for making jokes that you can then post to Twitter. Finally, I want to come with my own views on maps that are used in infoboxes. I will note that there at the moment is no consensus on this topic in general. I think it would be useful to develop that at some point. Although infoboxes allow an arbitrary amount of election maps to be shown, there are practical reasons for not having more than about 2-3 in any infobox. Beyond that number, the infobox becomes very large on mobile devices and is harder to navigate. The purpose of showing these maps is not to provide a gallery of an arbitrary number of ways of showing the result. It's to provide an overview for viewers of the election depicted. In statewide elections, county maps are normally the form this is done. Not because county maps are perfect for showing the distribution of voters, but rather because that’s the administrative units at which election results are reported at in most states. That makes using counties as the basis for election maps the least arbitrary choice in most states. The same thing applies for municipalities in those states where statewide results are specifically reported on that level, and for precincts. On the other hand, using congressional or state legislative districts for election maps of a statewide election is usually not relevant, at least not for the infobox (except Alaska, where results are reported on that level). The reason for this is that they don’t have anything to do with the election itself. Including them risks being WP:OR. Finally, election maps of other geographical units, that are merely the sum of the county results that are already depicted, should not be shown in the infobox. This is especially the case for units that have no official status in the state nor federal government. Gust Justice ( talk) 14:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
|
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Maps are too small requesting change to 300 px like the rest please Putitonamap98 ( talk) 23:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the {{ Edit protected}}template. This page was fully protected because of edit-warring over the maps. Any changes to the maps will require consensus. 25stargeneral ( talk) 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)- Support The map width of 300px was used on the version of the page that existed on 28 March. A restoration to that width seems to be consistent with other pages, and would be a return to the status quo that existed prior to the recent edits that caused the page to be locked. Gust Justice ( talk) 09:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Done
Iseult
Δx
parlez moi 15:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The current maps shown are way to similar, and I think that Municipality needs to be moved to where the congressional district map currently is. Just wanna gain a consensus LordEnma8 ( talk) 14:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania 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 |
|
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| Consensus on infobox inclusion criteria for state subpages: A consensus has been reached to include candidates in the infoboxes of state subpages who are polling at an average of at least 5% in a state or are the nominees of parties whose candidates received 5% in a state in the last election: Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Individual state pages. This consensus is an extension of the RfC that developed the same criteria for inclusion in the national infobox: Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Rfc on inclusion for the infobox. |
It would be nice if a source was added to the objection section, specifically the objection PDF like on Arizona’s page. -- 69.121.243.76 ( talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Thegayfrenchbullie123 ( talk) 3:54 PM, 20 January 2021 (EST)
at the results section. . write-in totals aren't given. BBC gives a total of write-ins in PA here (archived here). But they have slightly different totals for Biden, Trump & Jorgensen, than the source being currently used. Mostly likely BBC totals weren't updated. But that total of write-ins seems important. what should we do? Can bother sources be used? thanks skak E L 17:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Write-ins are not included in the certified results. Counties report them and some sources have added those numbers up, but they are still not part of the official results. Many states have laws that state write-ins only have to be tallied and/or reported if the number is large enough for a write-in candidate to win. Please see the FEC results summary, which has the write-in column blank for PA and has the same total (6,915,283) as this article. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
| This spat has gone on long enough. While we welcome new users to edit, following a Twitter joke to edit here is a bad idea, and edit warring to enforce the joke is simply going to result in being blocked from editing. Any serious discussions about election maps can go into a new section. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I've seen jokes about election maps by increasingly irrelevant geographic divisions on Twitter recently, but "results by Catholic diocese" takes the cake. I don't think any value is added to this or any other US elections article by adding a map of results based on any divisions that don't have anything to do with elections. I'm not sure what the precedent here is, if any, but I propose that we remove the map that was added to the article for a Twitter shitpost. Stuart98 ( talk) 22:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we should keep the results by catholic diocese. This information is very relevant, and certainly belongs on the infobox. The infobox is only for important, pressing things like this. GI Brown 1970 ( talk) 01:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
If the argument against religious districts like diocese is "the average person doesn't know which one they're in" then by that logic all maps should be removed, the average person doesn't know their precinct or township and a lot of them don't even know what county they live in. adding more maps allows users to view the elections of the USA with greater detail and to be honest they're tucked away in a drop menu so they take up zero clutter screen space. Matthew McMullin ( talk) 01:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC) How boring of a life does one have to have to put meaningless maps on Wikipedia pages and call it "fun"? LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 02:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
While I appreciate the divine sense of humour from ET, me recognizing many of the people in this thread (hi! ^^), and I always stand by the more info the merrier, this is a bit too niche for the infobox. It could've been included elsewhere in the article, including a small part on Catholic voters in PA & Biden's Catholicism and any potential effect it had on the election, this shouldn't be in the infobox. If you want it for a joke, please use your user sandbox. If you seriously want it, it's consensus for only county/precinct races, as per @ AveryTheComrade. You can also discuss on the talk page before making the change. The disrespect on Twitter definitely constitutes harassment, as per @ LilianaUwU. It's evident that many of these people are, in fact, joking though. Reminds me of my chatroom trolling back in like, 2010. It's hard not to get mad, but that's what trolling is specifically designed to do. My two cents worth is we should leave it out the infobox, but if people really, seriously, want it, as is the result following some joke edits, it should be included later in the article. ^^ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 13:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC) So, I want to put forward my thoughts on this whole affair. First of all, this situation has escalated beyond what is at all reasonable, and some editors have engaged in edit warring or downright uncivil behavior, including some on this talk page. While that’s not really a matter for this page itself, it really does need to be said that using Wikipedia like this is not acceptable. Second, mapping statewide elections by Roman Catholic dioceses is clearly not relevant and entirely unsuitable for a Wikipedia infobox. Even if Roman Catholic voters were particularly important in the election, the dioceses are not. Especially since the map doesn’t show how Roman Catholic voters voted, but rather all voters regardless of religious affiliation. Third, the following edit warring was unwarranted. In a situation where there is a dispute over the infobox’s maps, it should be addressed on the talk page. It should not be addressed through the edit war seen on this page. Fourth, it should go without saying that adding further, even more irrelevant maps and images is unacceptable. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be used for making jokes that you can then post to Twitter. Finally, I want to come with my own views on maps that are used in infoboxes. I will note that there at the moment is no consensus on this topic in general. I think it would be useful to develop that at some point. Although infoboxes allow an arbitrary amount of election maps to be shown, there are practical reasons for not having more than about 2-3 in any infobox. Beyond that number, the infobox becomes very large on mobile devices and is harder to navigate. The purpose of showing these maps is not to provide a gallery of an arbitrary number of ways of showing the result. It's to provide an overview for viewers of the election depicted. In statewide elections, county maps are normally the form this is done. Not because county maps are perfect for showing the distribution of voters, but rather because that’s the administrative units at which election results are reported at in most states. That makes using counties as the basis for election maps the least arbitrary choice in most states. The same thing applies for municipalities in those states where statewide results are specifically reported on that level, and for precincts. On the other hand, using congressional or state legislative districts for election maps of a statewide election is usually not relevant, at least not for the infobox (except Alaska, where results are reported on that level). The reason for this is that they don’t have anything to do with the election itself. Including them risks being WP:OR. Finally, election maps of other geographical units, that are merely the sum of the county results that are already depicted, should not be shown in the infobox. This is especially the case for units that have no official status in the state nor federal government. Gust Justice ( talk) 14:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
|
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Maps are too small requesting change to 300 px like the rest please Putitonamap98 ( talk) 23:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the
{{ Edit protected}}template. This page was fully protected because of edit-warring over the maps. Any changes to the maps will require consensus. 25stargeneral ( talk) 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC) - Support The map width of 300px was used on the version of the page that existed on 28 March. A restoration to that width seems to be consistent with other pages, and would be a return to the status quo that existed prior to the recent edits that caused the page to be locked. Gust Justice ( talk) 09:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Done
Iseult
Δx
parlez moi 15:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The current maps shown are way to similar, and I think that Municipality needs to be moved to where the congressional district map currently is. Just wanna gain a consensus LordEnma8 ( talk) 14:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)