Talk:2012 United States presidential election in Idaho

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Idaho Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Idaho portal This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Adding references . . .

WP editors who are watching this important Idaho 2012 caucus (and primary; and convention) page will note that I just added the second sentence to mention the Primary which follows the caucus. Both sentences use the excellent and only Green Papers as the authoritative reference to what will happen. I wanted to refer to the reference(1) that was already made in the first sentence (but do not know how) and so I added an additional [1] in the body of the Article, which is not as nice as it could be. If any editor 'fixes' it, then I will learn. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Otherwise, at least WP readers will be able to click (as is).[reply]

We can use "<ref name="xxx"> ... </ref>" as the first citation and just use "<ref name ="xxx" />" as the following repeated citations. --Pengyanan (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was fast. Nicely done. It looks great. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. --Pengyanan (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

The Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it."
Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.

WP:OVERLINK specifically says:

"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link:

plain English words;
terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided);
dates."

Ground Zero | t 18:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-caucus "polls"

Of the three polls cited, two were online surveys from a site of dubious reliability, and one has a dead link from a local news channel as a reference. Any reason we shouldn't find a working source for the latter and axe the rest? --BDD (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, that working source was much easier to find than I thought it would be. Looks like it was just one digit off in the URL. I still say we remove the online polls. If Ron Paul wins this caucus with over 70%, I'll eat my hat. --BDD (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, these online polls are a mess. The descriptions of them sounded like they were written by Ron Paul's campaign manager (I've cleaned this up a bit). The apologies for Romney winning one were an especially ridiculous touch. And what is this "Kaz Wittig KStar Enterprises"?? After a Google search, there's a Kaz Wittig that has commented on items on a Ron Paul fan site, and a variety of companies called KStar Enterprises, neither of which have apparent connections to Idaho or political polling. Please, someone else say these look legitimate so I can remove them without feeling like a tyrant! --BDD (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that it's odd to include online polls, especially now that we know how wrong they were. It should also be mentioned that, according to the state GOP, Romney will get all 32 delegates: "Mitt Romney will receive all of Idaho’s 32 delegates."[1] --62.78.234.31 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]