Talk:2013 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts

United States: Massachusetts / Government 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.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Elections and Referendums

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

Patrick is Potential

I surveyed the article. It only ruled out Ortiz from a Senate or gubernatorial candidacy, NOT Patrick

GameGuy95 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Bennett

Bennett is listed in multiple reliable sources as a candidate [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and is now supporting Winslow [7]. He should be listed as a withdrawn candidate. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious error

Currently the last record of the democratic polling table shows Lynch wins 58 to 42; but the results table shows Markey wins 58 to 43. The Dorchester Reporter says it's Markey. User:Sbauman 06:07, 1 May 2013

Fixed —GoldRingChip 15:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gomez image

Is there a picture of Mr. Gabriel Gomez on Wikipedia that could be posted on this article, along with his personal article? - Billybob2002 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Flickr and couldn't find any ones we could use. It's difficult to find pictures on new candidates like Gomez. Perhaps could ask his campaign for permission to use an image here. Hot Stop 03:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yeah 93 just tweaked the pictures nicely to get them to the same size. But now it looks like Gomez is going to eat Markey's head. Can we further tweak them so they are relatively comparable?—GoldRingChip 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, that to cut the part above Markey's head and then make the heads of relative size, I'd have to cut the same amount to Gomez's top, and it would cut part of his head. If I only cut Markey's top, for some reason (Wikipedia's coding, I don't know) it makes Markey's pic a bit bigger. --yeah_93 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's been fixed. Images are now proportioned. --yeah_93 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Good work!—GoldRingChip 02:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After all the work on this photo, and know it's nominated for deletion? - Billybob2002 (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just downloaded it from the CBS website and uploaded it under a fake license. That's a copyright violation. Somebody needs to get in touch with the Gomez campaign and ask for the rights to a photo (or go to a rally and take a photo themselves). —Designate (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

polling table error

Newest general election poll (from Emerson College, 2013-05-20/22 — thank you very much for promptly putting up poll results!) shows Lynch as getting 45%. I'm sure there's a missing cell so that the 45%, D+12%, and 33% just get pushed 1 to the R. But I haven't fixed it, because I don't know where the 22% is supposed to end up. Sbauman (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!—GoldRingChip 12:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

similarity?

How is this race similar to the 2010 election? Gomez hasn't won yet and if he has another week like last week, he probably never will. Markey is running much differently than Coakley did; by all objective measure, she coasted after the primary until the last two weeks; Markey has been running hard. And here's only been one poll that has shown Gomez within striking distance of Markey. Until the election, writing it's similar to 2010 is just malarkey. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will change it to say "potential" similarity. Tiller54 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

There are three issues in recent edits today, that might better be addressed first here on the talk page before implemented through edits to the article: 1) Chronological order of the polls; 2) including hypothetical match-ups in the non-hypothetical poll tables; and 3) the "messiness" of the tables. Can we discuss them here?—GoldRingChip 02:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes but kept the reversed chronological order, as you requested. So, 1) Why reverse the chronological order? 2) Yes, that's what the "hypothetical polling" section is for. Previously, any polling that wasn't between the two nominated candidates was just deleted, despite protests from me and many others. Moving it to a separate hidden section is much better. It doesn't delete it entirely but it also keeps the focus on the general election. 3) Yeah, they looked pretty awful. Tiller54 (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't want the order in reverse chron, it should be in regular chronological order.—GoldRingChip 11:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't want"? You don't own this election page, and it has nothing to do with what you "want". I only reversed the chronological order so I could bring it to the talk page without you undoing all the other improvements I had made to the page, as you had done previously without saying so in your edit summaries. So, why should the polling on this page be backwards? It is listed with the most recent poll on the top on every single other election page, and I could provide dozens of examples of it being that way if you liked. So, other than what you "want", what reason is there for this page alone to list the polling in reverse, and for every other page to do it the normal way? Tiller54 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. You're right that this is not about me. I think polling, like all other historical events, should be listed from earliest at the top to latest at the bottom. —GoldRingChip 16:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough that you think it should be done that way but the consensus on every other election page (and like I said, I could post dozens of examples) is that the most recent poll is listed at the top. Sorry if my last post came across as snippy, by the way. Tiller54 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it's done the other way elsewhere, but I think that those pages (yes, all 1 bajillion of them) are wrong. News sites employ backwards chronology, and I think that's why editors have done the same with Wikipedia. Then a precedent was set, and "everybody" did it. Now, whenever I argue against it, I'm told "It's a consensus." It's not a consensus, because it hasn't been debated in the typical WP fashion. Rather: it's a habit. And a bad one at that.—GoldRingChip 17:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing like a "bad habit". It's done this way for several reasons. For one, it's much easier to follow. Take the nationwide 2012 polling page for example. Instead of having to scroll all the way down to the bottom, the most recent polls (and therefore, the most relevant ones) are at the top for ease of access. Furthermore, it's much easier to edit when the most recent polls are listed at the top. Like I said, you don't like it being done that way, but it's done so for good reasons and simply saying "I don't want it done this way" isn't a valid reason for changing it. Tiller54 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased polls

Should party-funded (or party-leaning) polls be included? See, for example, http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/6?article=102.—GoldRingChip 22:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't, unless it's literally the only poll available of a race, in which case it's marked as such. But in this case, there's plenty of public polling available, so there's no need. Tiller54 (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

Oh and "Let's discuss changes on talk page". I left the last comment above, perhaps if you replied to me there before changing the polling table again from the one that was mutually agreed upon. Tiller54 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree upon the table, I just agreed that it isn't personal. You and I both agreed about chronology, nothing else.—GoldRingChip 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't agree about the chronology, I just hoped that we might be able to compromise. You said earlier, "Please do not make wholesale changes without a discussion on the Talk page". Now you decide to make wholesale changes to the table without discussing it first. Why? Tiller54 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until you came along, there were no changes to be made. You made changes. I'm sorry if we haven't been clear about that. That's my fault. I try to let people know that Wikipedia is not about their own personal pursuits and that we have rules for developing consensus. Is there some way I can help you here?—GoldRingChip 00:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made changes to the tables that you agreed with. You asked me to make them but keep the reverse chronological order so we could discuss it, which I did. You asked that no wholesale changes be made... and then you go and make wholesale changes.

You said, "I try to let people know that Wikipedia is not about their own personal pursuits." And yet the only reason you provided for opposing the chronological order was "I don't want it done that way". So yes, you could follow your own suggestion and refrain from wholesale changes to the already agreed-upon table. Unless you have a valid reason for changing that table without discussing it first? Tiller54 (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you think this is about "what I want." I shouldn't have said that, and I'll correct it when I find wherever I've said it. By "wholesale" I should have said something clearer such as: "this page has style 'A,' please don't change it to style 'B' without discussing it on the talk page." Having fixed width columns, for example was one change you made without discussions. I appreciate the confusion we're having and let's see if we can settle it here. Thanks.—GoldRingChip 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I think that, it's that your own words and actions on here illustrate this. You object to changes because you "don't want them" and then you request that no changes be made before a discussion... and then go and make changes without a discussion. It's quite simple: I made changes to the tables that you agreed with. Then, you request that no changes be made to the page, wholesale or otherwise. Then, you make wholesale changes to the general election polling table, which was one that you requested be kept! Tiller54 (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can try to find a better way to resolve this?—GoldRingChip 02:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your only problem with the tables is that they have fixed column widths? Why? Look at the hypothetical polling section now. The "With Markey" and "With Weld" tables are tiny and the "With Brown" table forces the (D) and (R) onto a third line. Without fixed widths, the columns become cramped and the tables go from being of a similar size to varying wildly. Not to mention some of the tables are now broken. So yes, there are several very good reasons for using fixed column widths. Tiller54 (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]