Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Oklahoma

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: Presidential elections 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

RFK in infobox

As of now, he's the only candidate to file in Oklahoma and polling over 5% in the polling done this year. Should we include him in the infobox? The RFC on state criteria for infobox inclusion does not appear to have concluded yet and there has been some changing back and forth. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those trying to include to get consensus. Until then, he should be left out. 1 poll is not enough for inclusion, especially since it could be an outlier. We would need more data before we know if RFKJR is truly at 5%. Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, non-swing states almost never get polled. This de facto prevents him from being in the infobox when he should obviously qualify.

Of the best sources we can get presently, FiveThirtyEight projects him to get ~8% of the vote in Oklahoma. KlayCax (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really true. Almost every state gets polled at least a few times during the general election season (see Oklahoma 2020 election page). We haven’t even hit the conventions yet. Patience. Absolutely against giving WP:UNDUE weight to one political pundit organization. Prcc27 (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, @Prcc27:. And FiveThirtyEight is on the level of The Economist, YouGov, Ipsos, and others in WP: RS of its political projections. KlayCax (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

538 is making a projection likely based on 1 public poll. It would be unwise to give 1 poll, which could be an outlier, undue weight. Prcc27 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that there appears to have been no consensus on the requirements for state infoboxes in the last discussion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There actually seems to be consensus for option B, although it seems at the very least, unclear whether to use aggregates or polling averages. One thing is for sure, 1 poll is not enough; RFKJR was not added to Utah for this very reason. Prcc27 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring entire columns with the same color

@Thatmediaguy150: At this point, two different editors have removed the overly colored version of the results table. The heavy red, white, and blue color scheme detracts from readability (especially for people using dark mode) and it doesn't add any information that's not elsewhere in the table. You also removed the {{More citations needed}} tag, which is helpful for indicating the need for reliable sources so people can verify the information in the section. Could you share your reasoning for these changes? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coloring was done to preserve the uniformity of the results by county table, as all previous tables of this sort in the Presidential Elections in Oklahoma series have this coloring, as far as I am aware. The removal of the more citations needed tag was a mere oversight. Thatmediaguy150 (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the previous articles should be modified as well. How does coloring an entire column with the same color improve the article? We're not decorating a Fourth of July cake. It's a data table and adding unnecessary colors is bad for accessibility because it lowers contrast below AAA levels for no reason (see MOS:COLOR) and it also looks awful on dark mode. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The colors serve as a very simple and effective shorthand for the table. If you scroll down in the table to the point where the header is no longer visible, you know that the red column pertains to the Republican candidate, the blue column is for the Democratic candidate, the white column is for the third party candidate, and the color of the county name and margin columns indicate which candidate carried the county. All of that information is effectively conveyed in an instant without needing the headers through the colors. Also, with the current colors for the table in place, the table looks better in dark mode than in light mode. Due to the lightly saturated hue of the colors, the contrast between the colors and background is sharper in dark mode than in light mode, making it easier for the eyes to focus on the text. Thatmediaguy150 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]