Jump to content

Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

New Graphics

I've uploaded two new graphics to Wikimedia Commons that you may want to consider for this article instead of or in addition to the existing options. I designed them to be easy to read and to be color neutral. I have added these to Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, but since I haven't been as involved in editing this article, I thought I'd just suggest them here on the talk page. Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Northwesterner. I find the cartogram much easier to read than the one we currently have. However, I find the popular vote graphic very hard to read, particularly the lightest colors. Also, I may be beating a dead horse, but neither of these graphics conform to WP:COLOR. Of course, neither do the ones we currently have on this article. If there were some pattern or bit of text (like candidate initials) we could add in addition to the color, then we'd be golden. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bryan, even a young person with good eyes like myself, I have a hard time reading the popular vote map. Also adding postal abbreviations to it would also be a good idea. The pledged delegates map is perfect, although I'd prefer the current red/blue color scheme we've got going on now. Thanks, the maps look great! HoosierStateTalk 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I uploaded a new version of the popular vote map, hopefully easier to read. I adjusted the color scheme and font, and I collapsed the 0-5 and 5-10% categories into one to reduce the number of shades. The most important WP:COLOR guideline is that that any information that may be inaccessible to a viewer should be available in another form. In this case, you have that covered; all the information in the map is duplicated in the article, so visually impaired viewers can still access the underlying data. Incidentally, does anyone know if I uploaded the new file correctly? The new version shows up correctly in the thumbnail, but the old version shows up if you click through to the image description page on WP and on WM commons. The new version also shows up correctly if you click through again to the image source itself. How do I get the new version to show up on the description pages? Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's much better! The popular vote graphic is very clear now. As far as the WP:COLOR guideline goes, it's true that the data is available in another form, but it is much less conveniently so. It seems unfair to reserve at-a-glance views of the data only for certain users when the maps could be made accessible to all with only slight changes. It's sort of like saying that wheelchair ramps don't need to be present on courthouse entrances because non-ambulatory folks could still find someone to carry them in (ok, that's a little overblown, but you get the idea). One more thing, I don't fully understand the whys and wherefores behind it, but I think Wikipedia prefers SVG images over GIFs and PNGs for maps and diagrams (see Wikipedia:Image use policy). There have been repeated battles over that point with images on this article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to undervalue accessibility -- I agree it's a very important goal and should be the gold standard on Wikipedia. I just don't know enough about contrast ratios and color balance to be able to improve the image for some without degrading it for others. In general, my feeling is that overlaid patterns, additional text, etc., clutter the maps and makes them less readable for the majority of users, and they provide only marginal gains for accessibility, as many visually impaired people will not be able to use the map regardless of whether it has patterns or additional text. However, if anyone knows of a better color/contrast scheme, please feel free to implement it. On the other point, I think the issue is that SVGs are more efficient in reducing page file size and load times for users without broadband connections. Unfortunately, I don't know how to create SVGs... something to learn someday, I guess. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
They do seem to check out okay for color blindness... See [1] and [2]. But I imagine monochromancy is still a problem. Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate your openness in considering my concerns and your willingness to put in some time checking your graphics on vischeck. I must admit I'm in a bit of the same boat as you in that I know enough to be concerned about these issues, but not enough to completely fix them. I also don't know enough yet about the SVG format to convert or re-create your graphics. Perhaps in a little bit I'll take a crack at making your graphics suitable for monochromancy, though. Maybe someone else can step in and help out with the other stuff. In the meantime, I do think your graphics are quite good and better than the ones we're currently using, so I'm going to put forth a proposal to use yours. Thanks again. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the cartogram image in this article with the one above. I'm still thinking about whether the popular vote image should replace the one in this article. Opinions, anyone? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that image have a red/blue color scheme so it's consistent with the rest of maps on the page. I don't know may be its just my opinion. HoosierStateTalk 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe Northwesterner's intent when making the image was to avoid the current culturally loaded associations that red and blue convey. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was the intent -- it was in response to a concern that came up on the talk page of the main primary article. Also, over on that page, we're not currently using any red-blue maps, so the color consistency thing is not a problem there. I'm also working on some more maps and charts with the purple/green theme. I'll post them after the WY and MS results. If you want red/blue for this page, it's a relatively simple fix in Photoshop. I'd be happy to do it if consensus requests. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to alter the colors, Northwesterner. My preference would be to keep the existing purple/green/grey color scheme. I'd rather see us change the other graphics on this article to match that scheme than the other way around. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the graphic represents pledged delegates, they should be grouped by the majority of delegates won rather than by popular vote. Nevada and Texas ought to be moved down into the Obama majority to reflect this more accurately. (69.69.183.74 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Do others agree with this point? I can update when I add MS and WY. What is consensus opinion on this? Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope others will chime in here, but my thinking is that this the companion to the popular vote map and aims at showing how the two candidates are doing at winning delegates rather than vote totals. The states with delegate majorities for Obama should go with the purple Obama arrow, and the majority Clinton states should go with the green Clinton arrow. With NV and TX out of place it makes it harder to see where the delegate majorities actually lie. I would think the graph should match up with the light blue boxes indicating delegate winners elsewhere on the page. NH is a tie, so should it go in the middle? Or do ties go to the popular vote and so it stay with Clinton? But NV and TX should clearly be moved I think. Any other views on this? (69.69.183.74 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm certainly open to this. One potential problem is that I originally designed graphic this for the main primary article. On that article, highlighted cells indicate the winner of the popular vote and are indicated as such. There is a consensus opinion on that talk page on this point. So what works for one page might not work for another. I don't really want to maintain two graphics. I'm working on another map that may be a better fit on this page as a companion for the popular vote map. It will show delegate totals by region. When that's ready (after MS), maybe it would be better to delete the graphic on this page and use that instead... In the meantime, I've updated the caption to reflect the delegate/popular vote discrepancy. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Northwesterner for all your work on this. I think the graphic showing the delegate totals grouped by majorities works wonderfully. Thanks again for making all those changes. (69.69.183.74 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
I think having the graph represent popular vote is highly misleading. This graphic seems to indicate that clinton "won" texas. It is mathamatically indisputable that Obama got more delagetes out of texas than she did, that sounds like he "won" texas to me. And at the end of the day its delagetes that really matter, 2025 delagetes is the benchmark, not x percent of the popular vote, so i think this should be changed to represnt delagetes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.121.80 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Clinton did "win" the popular vote in Texas when you combine Texas primary and Texas caucus results. The caption indicates that the pledged delegate winner was different. There are other graphics that focus on the pledged delegate winner. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the graph that represents each state as a rectangle relative to its population should have the states ordered in a rough geographical manner. CA on the left, NY on the right, etc. Also, the popular vote maps we have now should be changed to colour neutral colour (purple and green work fine) regardless of if we want to use shades to indicate percents. And wyoming needs to be updated. I would do it but I have no idea how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.139.223 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of this as a "graph" -- not a "map" -- so they are ordered roughly by size, not geography. It's easier for me to update and get the proper size boxes for the proportional size.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
ok thats fine i suppose. But shouldn't at least all the rectangles all be of the same ratio? And then just size to indicate population? Right now some are very tall and some are very flat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.123.57 (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes it easier to lay out in a "tight" shape. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new graph. Now a true cartogram arranged geographically, no longer arranged by states "won." Northwesterner1 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this project but have been watching the graphs/visuals with great interest. I now find the 'cartogram' arranged geographically to be completely useless. It is very hard to see who has won which states. I found the previous arrangement in two lines of boxes to be a clever and very effective way of displaying the results so as to see who was winning the big states versus the smaller ones. As long as the boxes are kept the same aspect ratio and the area of the box correlates with the total number of delegates, I think the graphic should return to the previous arrangement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.217.108 (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't please everybody, I guess. I changed it to the geographical arrangement after several requests from other editors. Also some folks were concerned about the "states won" on TX, NV, and NH. The whole question of "winning states" was too problematic. There is discussion here and also on the talk page of the graphic. I'm done working on it except to update state results as they come in -- if anybody wants to take it up and modify, you're more than welcome. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I put them both there. Take yr pick. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I like the one on the right; only because (as it was already said) that the term winner is open to interpretation for the primaries. HoosierStateTalk 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Redistributing nomination results among the articles

I'd like to open discussion here on a topic that spans many of the Wikipedia articles that display numerical results of all the 2008 Democratic presidential nominating contests. The affected articles include:

I categorize the contest results these articles contain into four types of "reports":

  1. national-level results summary
  2. state-level results summary
  3. event-level results summary
  4. event-level results detail

Currently, the above types of "reports" are distributed across the main, results, and state articles like this:

I think the current way the reports are distributed among the articles could use some revision. For example, there is some overlap that is unneccessary. Another example, as has been disussed earlier, is that reports 2 and 3 are inconsistently applied to the overview table in the results article.

Some considerations in addressing this issue include:

  • Should we merge or split some articles? For example, perhaps we should merge the results article into the main article.
  • Should we move some reports from one article to another? For example, perhaps we should move the report 2 material out of the main article and into the results article.

I invite editors to submit proposals below for how to reorganize the results across the articles. Please create a new subsection for each proposal and number them sequentially. I also invite editors to comment or show their support/opposition for each proposal within each proposal's subsection. I have submitted one proposal, though I am not necessarily convinced it is the best option. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 1

I propose we avoid merging or splitting the main, results, or state articles, but we reorganize the report types into the following pattern:

  • main article
    • report 1 national-level results summary
  • results article
    • report 2 state-level results summary
    • report 3 event-level results summary
  • state articles
    • report 4 event-level results detail

To effect this pattern, I propose we:

  1. Move the result tables from the Chronicle section of the main article into the results article.
  2. Convert the relocated Chronicle result tables into a single table organized alphabetically and without dates that simply summarizes each state or territory's results (making it a pure report 2 table).
  3. Alter the current Overview of results table in the results article to consistently display event-level summaries listed in date order (making it a pure report 3 table).

Pro: Creates smooth distribution of results from least detailed in the main article to most detailed in the state articles with no overlap.
Con: Might make results article too long. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the main article is working well, and the state level results summary is useful there. On the main article, I like the tables split into "sections" along a rough timeline in the Chronicle section, with some text in between. This corresponds to the way readers process the race. I think the elimination of minor candidates there is helpful. And I think the very tight layout of the tables (narrow rows) is helpful. I think the elimination of percentages is helpful. In short, I think those tables are easy to read, and I would like to see them remain in that article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason the chronologically arranged text in the Chronicle section couldn't remain so without the tables. I think the Chronicle section could work just as well with links to the results article instead of the results tables themselves. The effect would be to place more emphasis on narrative and let those interested in more detailed numbers than the Candidates and results section displays go look at the results article. I agree that the layout of the Chronicle section's result tables is very readable and I see no reason to alter it when bringing the tables to the results article (other than re-ordering its rows alphabetically). I think the confusion here may be because I neglected to include in this proposal the idea that the state-level results table and the event-level results table would remain as separate tables and would not need to follow the same format. I envision the state-level table at the top of the results article and the event-level table beneath it. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(a) There is no chronologically arranged text in the Chronicle if you remove the tables. (b) I think readers expect to see high level state results there. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. As I suggested in my "Con" comment at the end of this proposal, my concern with this proposal is that it distributes the material too unevenly among the articles, making the results article too long and, as Northwesterner has pointed out, making the main article too short. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Avoid splitting or merging articles.

  • main article
    • national level results summary
    • chronicle summary (compressed tables, pledged delegate counts for current candidates only, organized by states and grouped into units like "Super Tuesday," "February," etc.)
    • a strong "narrative of the race"
  • results article
    • more complete national level results summary (including percentages)
    • state-level results summary (again, more complete including percentages)
    • popular vote section
  • state articles
    • event-level results summary and detail

This keeps the current organization, except moving "events" to the state articles if consensus agrees. In any case I don't think you should propose radical changes to the main article without cross-posting something over there. I think that article is working very well and changes would be opposed by many editors who aren't currently monitoring this article or closely following the other election reporting.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I intended to cross-post something on the main article, I just haven't completed the edit yet. Man, you're just too fast for me. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Bryan! Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I oppose this proposal for a purely technical reason: that it includes material that I feel should be outside the scope of this discussion. My intention when introducing this main section was to address only the placement of the result tables, not whether, for example, the main article should contain a "narrative of the race" (though I personally agree with that idea). My bad for not making this more clear above. I have added an alternate proposal to this one below (proposal 2a) which removes my technical concern with this proposal. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2a

I'm offering this proposal, which is very similar to proposal 2, but focuses more stictly on where we want to place the various result tables. My error, I guess, in not spelling out my intentions for the scope of this section when I introduced it.

Avoid merging or splitting the main, results, or state articles.

  • main article
    • report 1 national-level results summary (less detailed than results article)
    • report 2 state-level results summary (less detailed than results article)
  • results article
    • report 1 national-level results summary (more detailed than main article)
    • report 2 state-level results summary (more detailed than main article)
  • state articles
    • report 3 event-level results summary
    • report 4 event-level results detail

To effect this pattern, propose we:

  1. Alter the current Overview of results table in the results article to consistently display state-level summaries (i.e. remove event-level results summary rows). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I feel that this proposal does not provide for enough distinction between the main and results articles. My opposition to this proposal, however, is not strong. If consensus begins to favor this proposal, I'll get on board with it. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support (1st choice). The reason I added information in Proposal 2 that lays outside the scope of the discussion is to show that there is significant difference between the scope of the two articles that has to do with more than just the results tables presented. Yes, in this outline there doesn't appear to be much difference. But if you look at how the results are presented in the context of the main article, especially with the lack of popular vote information in the national-level results summary and state results summaries, the exclusion of minor candidates in the state results summaries, and the focus on the makeup of the state delegations in the state results summaries, you find significant difference between the two articles. I think they are significantly distinguished, and will become even more so as more narrative is added to the main article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Here's a proposal similar to proposal 1, but less disruptive. Avoid merging or splitting the main, results, or state articles, but we reorganize the report types into the following pattern:

  • main article
    • report 1 national-level results summary
    • report 2 state-level results summary
  • results article
    • report 3 event-level results summary
  • state articles
    • report 4 event-level results detail

To effect this pattern, I propose we:

  1. Alter the current Overview of results table in the results article to consistently display event-level summaries listed in date order (making it a pure report 3 table).
  2. Remove the date column from the main article's Chronicle section tables, but keep them organized in their current chronological subsections (Super Tuesday, March, etc.).

Note: this proposal and proposal 1 address only the pledged delegate result tables, not the other article text, graphics, or sections on these articles. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Question/Qualifier. I like this, but I'm not sure what we gain by eliminating the date column on the main article's Chronicle section. Is it to simplify those tables? Or is it to delete information that might be duplicated here? I think those dates are relatively useful there for past contests. And for future contests they seem pretty essential to me. But with that qualifier, I support the main outline of this proposal. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
From the point of view of my proposal, my intention is to make the Chronicle tables more purely about summarizing state-level results rather than their current hybrid of event-level and state-level results. By extension the idea is to, as you say, remove information that might be duplicated here. I'd also like to see the dates removed from the Chronicle tables because the allocation of delegates to candidates are not, in many states, all decided on a single date. The date column on those tables makes it appear as such. I suppose this touches on my conviction, expressed earlier on this talk page, that other caucus events aside from the first ones are significant. I must admit though that I'm getting a little tired of beating that drum alone and realize that I may be nearing the end of my usefulness to these articles. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I don't see how those tables include event-level results (except the Texas caucus). Everything else seems like state result to me. And I think the duplication of information is not a big problem; the dates are relevant information in both articles. Your third point gets to the heart of a serious problem -- and it will come up soon when editors on that article have to decide what to do about the Iowa convention on March 15, when Edwards's delegates will likely move. Some editors there don't think it will be a problem; just change the result and give a footnote. But if your prediction comes true, and there are large changes in the multiple-event states, you're right, there will be a problem. And we'll need good editors like you around to help fix it. So I would hope that you don't abandon these articles -- you're extremely valuable here. In the end, I'm conflicted myself about the events issue (which is why I didn't vote on the subver proposal above). But I've come to think that having a record of all events in the summary articles overcomplicates them, and that this information fits better in the state articles. However, if things start to get wild and crazy at the multiple events I could change my mind pretty quickly. And I feel more strongly about preserving the state of the main article than I do about changing the state of this article. If this article sticks with an event-level results summary, I'll be fine with that.Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The event-level element I referred to in the Chronicle section tables is merely the inclusion of the dates. When the tables list "January 3" next to "Iowa", that looks more like an event listing for the Iowa caucus than a one-row summary of all Iowa's nomination events. My prediction, by the way, isn't actually that there will be large changes in the multiple-event states, but that any changes (large or small) will be significant because of the closeness of this nomination race. Every delegate may end up mattering and we may soon find ourselves reading news articles detailing delegate count minutia in the same way we ended up reading stories about "hanging chads" during the 2000 presidential election. I sure hope I'm wrong about that, though. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think an event listing for the Iowa caucus is de facto a one-row summary of all Iowa's nomination events, even with the date included. This seems to be a point on which most news sources agree, as well as the candidates websites. If the results change, we change that row and put a footnote. Same as if there were a vote held in a state, and then three weeks later there were a recount of that vote that changed the results. The first event is still the "meaningful" one. (I know we disagree on this point). Every delegate matters, yes, but they only impact the tables if we start to get 10 or 20 of them changing. If we get 5 or so, we can deal with it in footnotes (on the main article). I can see a rationale for dealing with events differently on the results page. Let's hold off on a worst-case ("hanging chads") scenario until it materializes. I really don't think it will. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) You've got a good point about designing our articles around the majority of results instead of around corner cases. My approach so far in considering the design and scope of these primaries articles has been to ensure we cover all possible cases (perhaps a reflection of my software design background). Thus, I favored pushing the event-based summary higher up in the article hierarchy. I can see the sense in first designing these articles around the majority of cases and only attempting to address exceptions after they reach critical mass. Therefore, I'm going to relent a bit in my push for a) event-based summaries in the results article and b) assigning equal weight to all caucus events. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. While I've softened softened somewhat in my conviction that the results article must list event-level summaries instead of state-level summaries, I am nonetheless putting my support behind this proposal. My reason for supporting this proposal now is that I think it provides more distinction between the articles, creating a unique space for each. I can accept Northwesterner's qualification that we skip action #2 of this proposal (removing the dates from the main aricle's result tables). While I do oppose proposal 2a above, my opposition is no longer very strong. If consensus begins to favor that proposal, I'll get on board with it. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
An added benefit of this proposal (albeit a small one) is that it preserves the consensus reached earlier regarding the rows on the results article table representing events, rather than state summaries. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A problem with this proposal to consider: a results article containing a table with event-level result summaries (i.e. a long list of many events) rather than state-by-state results summaries (i.e. a shorter list of states) may make the article appear too complicated to Wikipedia's users. This issue doesn't persuade me to oppose this proposal because I think that with proper formatting and design we can mitigate it, but if we choose this proposal it is an issue we'll need to carefully manage. Also, we can always direct Wikipedia users who find the results article too daunting to visit the main article instead (much as Northwesterner has already done with the notes added to the top of the results article). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support (2nd choice). I think Proposal 2a is preferable above. However, I care much more about the main article than about this results article. I can support this proposal if it does not include changes to the table structure in the main article. As there is previous consensus here about event-level results, I can defer to those editors and back away from editing this page. I do think it might be worth reopening that consensus for consideration, and if you are going to keep event-level results here, you may want to consider other formatting and content tweaks (such as avoiding a "count" of event results, on the grounds that it will artificially the count of multi-tiered states with respect to single-event states). However, I want to step back from that discussion. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not sure which proposal I like yet. At this point, to cleanup the "main article" I would support:

Andareed (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the main article is clean as is, for reasons stated above. If you remove the tables from the Chronicle section, you have nothing left. I think the inactive candidates are an important part of the historical record and belong in the main article on the presidential primary for history's sake. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps tweaking design, we can maintain an accurate record of all candidates and their dates while drawing better attention to the active season, and more proximately locating info that's arguably irrelevant from a purely theoretical level but nonetheless significant in readers, voters minds. So, perhaps narrowing the withdrawn candidates' columns while, pulling up alongside these, a chart of popular votes and events won or tied. I can get the upsetting nature of these theoretically imperfect measures, but they're relevant in our real politic. Last but more important is how the results weigh re electoral college per state. This is complicated by mccains influence, yet the democratic results ultimately--assuming brokered election--will make more sense as they happen and as they are reviewed posthumously if we can note the candidates results re electoral college votes. These are all big factors, clearly results, and could I believe be designed to be seen in a single snapshot. Any suggestions here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.165.173.164 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot to unpack here, and I can't envision all the changes you're talking about. First, are you talking about this results article or the main primary article? Andareed above is talking about the main article, but I assume you're talking about the results article, since you're talking about narrowing withdrawn candidates columns. Taking your points in order: (1) We already have popular vote percentages in this table. I'm not sure we need an additional column for popular vote totals, when this information already exists at the state articles (and a popular vote total exists at the bottom of the results article). (2) I don't oppose a chart of events won or tied. This is indicated right now by highlighted blue cells, and we have a summary above the table of events won or tied. The real question is what constitutes "an event" -- whether we should stick to one event per state (with the exception of the Texas primary/caucus) or whether we should list multiple events for caucus states with multiple levels of conventions (whose outcomes are largely, though perhaps not exclusively, determined by the first precinct-level caucus). If we do include multiple levels of events in some states, it seems a little weird to be counting them multiple times in an "events won" table that many people will confuse for "states won." It will also artificially inflate Obama's total of "events won" if he gets to count, say, four Washington caucus events, while Clinton gets to count one New Hampshire primary. (3) Your last point, how the results line up vis-a-vis the electoral college in the general election seems to me more like analysis of the results, and not really reporting of the results. It may belong in a new section below popular vote, or it may belong in the graphical representations section. I don't think it belongs in the main table.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Andareed's second bullet point above is stepping outside the scope of this main section and would be more properly discussed on Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. The consideration that started this main section is which articles should contain which result tables and is a properly cross-article concern. I'd prefer not to mingle discussion of specifc article improvements with the main consideration under review here. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No slight of Andareed or anyone else intended, by the way. I should have made my intentions for the scope of this discussion more clear when I introduced this main section. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm indeed more concerned with the main article, and simply wanted to voice my thoughts, since you suggested the changes could affect the main page. Andareed (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I do appreciate the input you gave in your first bullet point (which of course does affect the main page and is also relevant to this discussion). Thanks for stopping by to review the proposals and voice your opinion. I invite you to weigh in on the various proposals above as well if you desire, regardless of their effect on the main page. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposing Primaries page changes

I think the Primaries page should be leaved as is. The only thing I would add is a brief description of each range of contests. The section was renamed by me from "Calendar" to "Chronicle", with the aim to inform the readers about the outcomes of the month/period.I would glad to someone who will add a brief description of these partial outcomes. I think is useful as is, with dates, available delegates, and awarned delegates. Also partial sums are useful (to highlight the outcomes).--Subver (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_8&oldid=1050740711"