Jump to content

Talk:2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The declared Democratic candidate by far.

[edit]

Should there be an article created about Joseph Avellone? - Billybob2002 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now. He doesn't seem to be that notable... yet. Tiller54 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's a candidate for Governor and has served in local government and as a CEO of Blu Cross, that makes him notable at least in my opinion. I'm sandboxing an article that's not huge but is ready to be published, but Joseph Avellone already redirects here so it's not letting me move it. Anyone help? Pbruce1110 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

[edit]

Moved the polling with declined candidates to hypothetical. Tiller54 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out, keeping the columns at a fixed width stops the tables from becoming cramped and it ensures that they're all the same size, maintaining a clean, uniform look across the polling section. If you disagree, GoldRingChip, please discuss it here rather than undoing the edit with no explanation provided. Thanks. Tiller54 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology has been reversed without discussion or explanation. formatting was also changed and it should be discussed. I'm merely reverting until a consensus is reached.—GoldRingChip 13:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were reverting with no explanation and no effort made to discuss anything. Tiller54 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse chronology

[edit]
  • Makes no sense when the rest of the article is in chronological order.—GoldRingChip 13:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, no it's not. No part of the article is in any kind of chronological order. It's ordered first by incumbency, then in alphabetical order. Insisting on solely Massachusetts election pages having their polls ordered with the oldest at the top is the only thing that "makes no sense", when "the rest" of the elections pages from every other state lists the most recent at the top. Tiller54 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The background comes before the primaries. The primaries come before the general. The polling comes before the results. Those, for example, are all chronological order. In other articles about historical events, most if not all events are in chronological order. Nothing, however, is in reverse order. Having every other state in the reverse order doesn't make it smart, it just makes it consistent. I'd be happy to embrace consistency if there were a good reason to do it. So let's have a discussion and develop a consensus. Merely keeping to a routine is not a consensus, it's just a habit. Wikipeida practice encourages discussion, not routine, to develop consensus.—GoldRingChip 18:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except, there is no background, or general, or results. It's a list of names and a few polls. And it's not "reverse order", it's just whether they're ascending or descending. "I'd be happy to embrace consistency if there were a good reason to do it." Like I've said several times, there are very good reasons for listing the polls with the most recent at the top! I don't know if you're missing them but I've laid them out several times. By contrast, you've never offered a single reason for listing the polls with the most recent at the bottom. So, what reasons are there? Other, of course, than "I don't like it" and "I don't want it done that way". Tiller54 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed width columns

[edit]
  • Arbitrary when there's no value added.—GoldRingChip 13:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is! Quite clearly: the columns for candidates are a fixed width of 90px so that they aren't completely different sizes according to how long the candidate's name is. This also stops the tables from wildly varying in size, keeping it all uniform. The only arbitrary thing would be if they were as wide as the candidate's name was. What's the point of that? Tiller54 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, the value of keeping them uniform is that they are uniform. Although a tautology, it might have some validity. It's nice to have tables look nice. But why did you pick those values for the widths? Sometimes names won't fit and other times they'll be so small so as to appear tiny by comparison. And why put align=center" on every line when a single style="text-align:center" at the top of the table will suffice?—GoldRingChip 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I sense agreement here! Success! There are no "fixed" or "standard" values, it's just common sense. If there are really long names that push the (D) or (R) onto a third line or end up making that column much longer than the others, they all get extended. If on the other hand the names are shorter and they look really silly because the columns are too wide for them, they'll all be made smaller. That same thing is done for the "Date(s) administered" column and the "Poll source" column. With this page, that size column fitted the longest name nicely and there aren't any really short names that look silly by comparison in a column too big for it. If you think a column size of 85px or 95px is better, you're welcome to change it, but they look fine to me. As for "align=center" going on every line, I was under the impression that it was required anyway? Not all the data in the table is aligned to the center anyway because the poll sources are aligned to the left. It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me, anyway. But, it sounds like we agree on this? Tiller54 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate polls against different candidates is biased

[edit]
  • In this case, against Republicans because there is no "with Brown" "with Baker" division.—GoldRingChip 13:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure exactly what you mean here but I presume you're referring to the fact that the hypothetical polling section is listed "With Coakley", "With Murray" etc. Quite simply, because you can't list hypothetical polling by declined candidates when the candidates haven't actually declined. Sorting it "With Brown" implies that Brown has said he isn't going to run. That's not true and he may still do so. I have no idea how this could possibly be "biased" against Republicans because none of them have said they won't run yet... Tiller54 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • When a reader comes to an article, they may want to know how Brown is polling. So they will look for polls with him. Sometimes he's in "real" polls and other times his split up in the hypothetical. Ditto for Baker. After all, it's all hypothetical until there are declared candidates. Why break them all up when you could keep them all together?—GoldRingChip 18:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, how Brown was polling over 18 months ago against someone who has since said they won't run is less meaningful than how he's polling now against someone who might. Again, this is where uniform table sizes come into it, allowing the reader to easily compare one table to the next, some of which are easily accessible by clicking the "show" button. Depending on who runs and who doesn't, the tables could be adjusted in the hypothetical section when the nominees have been picked, so that perhaps instead of being sorted by declined Democrat, they're sorted by declined Republican. It depends how things shake out and what ends up looking better/being easier to navigate. Tiller54 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate polls against different candidates loses historical flow

[edit]
  • It's helpful to see that in the same poll, Candidate 'A' does well against 'B' but poorly against 'C." When editors split them up the reader loses that.—GoldRingChip 13:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's kept... potential Democratic candidate vs 3 potential Republican candidates. The polls have to be split up because some of them feature candidates who have said they won't run and those matchups get moved to the hypothetical polling section. Tiller54 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical polls lose historical flow

[edit]
  • In the end, of course, there is only one winner; but polls look at all candidates as time goes on. The purpose of this article is to show history, not just results.—GoldRingChip 13:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hidden "hypothetical" section is quite useful. Until it was introduced, editors would just delete all the polling that wasn't between the two nominees, saying that it was "irrelevant" etc. I and others protested that the page should be a historical record of the entire election and a compromise was reached to put the hypothetical polling in a hidden section. But even if it wasn't deleted or put into a hidden section, it would still be under a different subheading and thus it would still be separate. Tiller54 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're complete right. It's weird when people remove polling just because a candidate lost a primary or dropped out. For that matter why not delete the whole article once the race is over? These articles are all historical events and it's often hard for readers and editors to remember that it's not a scorecard or a newspaper. I think it's better to retain the polls, but I don't see why we should separate those candidates. It's helpful to see how, for example, Brown was polling against Coakley, Cowan, and Grossman. I think they should all be together — the value of a poll is comparison, both in time and in candidates. —GoldRingChip 18:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree completely with you. By the same token, editors who delete candidates who withdrew from the race or specifically said "I though about running but decided not to" are also removing valid parts of a historical article. I do think however that the hypothetical section is useful. It retains the polls but keeps the focus on the general election. Besides, it's easily accessibly with the click of a button and keeps the "deletionists" happy too. Tiller54 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falchuk?

[edit]
Yes, the article was deleted, so there's nothing to link to any more. Tiller54 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Massachusetts_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1196666457"