User talk:Metropolitan90

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

the 'unusual' nature of the NH simulcast[edit]

Hello again, I think the 'unusual' aspect is worth noting. You removed the language here,[1] because (I presume) there was no inline cite at the time. It did exist once, my original mainspace-draft[2] provided a mid-sentence cite to here,[3] which is a semi-about-self-source since they are an event co-sponsor, but the "unusual" nature of the collaboration was backed up by a quotation from some professor. “Cooperation by multiple media partners to host the upcoming Union Leader forum is very significant and unprecedented,” said Wayne Lesperance, professor of political science at New England College in Henniker. “Typically, media competes to host separate events like this forum. In this case, that they are cooperating is something new.” Anyways, if you can see a good way to work that in without calling it "unusual" that is fine by me, or if you think we should just state the facts of the simulcast (which I didn't realize is "a real word" nowadays :-) then I can probably also be convinced of that pathway. Thanks for your work, as always. (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • See WP:EDITORIAL. I don't think that Wikipedia normally wants editors to comment on how "unusual" an event may be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree we should not be using our own commentary. But I'm just condensing the "very significant" and the "unprecedented" and the "something new" quotations from the professor, into a summarized form of 'quite unusually'. We can quote them directly if you would rather, or use some other forumulation besides 'quite unusual' if you have a better phrasing-suggestion, but I do think it's an important part of explaining who&why of the forum, and the Lesperance guy agrees with me. (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I still don't think it's that interesting. It's not like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC (media companies in direct competition with each other) cosponsored the forum; the sponsors were largely from different states and different types of media. Are any of the co-sponsors rivals of each other? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh heh... are you really saying WP:NOTINTERESTING can go up against the professor-quote?  :-)     But yes, I catch your drift, and from what I can tell, there was indeed overlap in terms of the simulcast-partners (which is different from the "official co-sponsor" list I note) being rivals for the same media-markets. The main collaborators were CSPAN, NBC, and ABC, plus a few CBS folks; they formed an alliance (temporarily -- whether it becomes permanent remains to be seen), to keep FOX and CNN from being given the lion's share of presidential-debate-coverage/revenues/marketshare/mindshare/cashflow. It was also a warning-shot to the RNC-party-senate, from the early-state-activists, that they don't want polling-firms and national-teevee-networks to winnow the field of candidates, they want the early states to retain that function (via caucuses and primaries and early-state-media-events).
  • Anyways, I don't care if we call the NH forum simulcast-roster 'quite unusual[ref#55]' as I originally summarized the prof, or if we quote per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that "according to professor Wayne Lesperance the "cooperation by multiple media partners... is very significant and unprecedented"[ref#55] or whatever exact phrasing of the factoid we end up with, but I do think the factoid itself needs mentioning. Besides nominal media-competitors working together (nbc+abc+cbs+cspan&&grassroots banding together in an alliance of convenience versus fox+cnn&&rnc), the media-entities-from-multiple-states collaboration aspect was also 'unusual' to say the least; Iowa local-teevee-stations have never simulcast NH events before, that I am aware. There are deeper undercurrents here, that the reader should be clued in about, if they care to perform some of their own WP:OR about this topic, by reading the sources we link unto, for themselves. I'm pretty indifferent about how exactly we point the readership towards the sources which explain the 'unusual'-ness, but we do need to point it out as WP:NOTEWORTHY, per the prof-quote, or per a pointer to some other source which discusses the media-collab, if you prefer. (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

table logistics[edit]

To slim down the width, you removed the non-primary sponsors from the debate-table.[4] I agree we need to keep the table-width svelte. Potentially, going forward, <humour> we could slim down the table width even further... perhaps we could winnow the candidate-fields by selecting five recent polls of our choice and retaining only the top ten candidates in wikipedia? Alternatively, we could use the averages of all major live-interview polls since July, and pick the top ten (or the top eight in fewer than 15 make our cut), relegating the lesser candidates to a secondary article? Perhaps we should invite all the candidates to the main article, but remove their columns if they decline to be listed on wikipedia? </humour>

  More seriously, though, I was planning on adding a footnote-scheme, where for instance with the list of co-sponsors for the C-SPAN event, it would say "C-SPAN, et al[33]" and when the reader mouse-hovered over #33 it would display the full listing of co-sponsors. Does that sound reasonable? In particular, many of the simulcast partners at the C-SPAN thing were not officially co-sponsors, so I think the list of co-sponsors and the list of re-broadcasters is distinct. (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I admit, I don't know exactly who counts as a co-sponsor and who counts as a re-broadcaster, but I do know (a) that non-broadcasters (universities, magazines, foundations, etc.) are not broadcasters, and (b) that there is plenty of room to list any sponsors and all broadcasters in the prose descriptions of the debates, and trying to fit them into the table is very awkward. Even adding footnotes to the table should be avoided because of the space they take up. So, no, I do not think it sounds reasonable to put the sponsors in a footnote in the table. Please put that information in the prose section instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we agree they belong in the prose, not spelled out in the table. That said, I don't think adding a hover-over-me-footnote-superscript to the sponsor-column will severely impact the table-width, though I do agree that space is tight and we need to cut where we can. On a somewhat-related formatting issue, I think that we should not be worried about having one or two immediately-attached footnotes for the absentee-reasons, because those footnote-superscripts do NOT change the table-width... the "Gilmore" in the table-header is the determiner of the column-width, and the "O[29]" in the first row is always going to require fewer pixels, unless we really go overboard and have "O[29][30][31][32][33][34][35]". But the debate-sponsor-footnotes arguably *will* increase the total table-width, if only relatively slightly. We could always have some embedded (br/) tags, to try and keep the sponsor-column-width reasonable. Are you able to test the table-width in some actual small-screen devices, smartphones and tablets and such? Most of the screens I have readily available are, umm, not very small. Is the table as it is now, already scrolling on 7" tablet screens? Or on ~4" smartphone screens? Or are you just being extra-careful because you know -- and I would agree with you -- that we are almost certainly pushing the screen-real-estate-limits of such devices? (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I tried viewing the article on a smartphone, but the results were inconclusive. The table cut off after the Jeb Bush column on the smartphone screen and left the right half of the screen blank. (Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016 worked differently; the table there did scroll on the smartphone.) I don't really know what to say about this, except that we need to conserve as much space as we can. The prose sections are there for a reason; anything that needs citation should have its citations in the prose sections, not the table, because there is no room in the table. We're pushing the screen real estate limits on desktop computers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I later tried it again on a smartphone, and this time the whole table displayed, although it took up about two and a half screen widths; that is, only about 40% of the table could be displayed without scrolling. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I also tried to slim the width down, but was reverted.[5] I will put back in the letter-key-linebreak, and see if that bit is permitted to stand. I also suggest we change from 4em to 3em, since although the columns will be differing widths rather than uniform widths, it will still cut the table-width by ~20% or thereabouts. Here is a direct-link to 4em.[6] Here is a direct-link to 3em with 100%tablesize.[7] Here is overly-wide-explanatory-key-cellspan at 4em.[8] I suggest that we probably want 90%tablesize and 3em col-widths, rather than 90%tablesize with 4em col-widths, since on my desktop-screen that makes the table-width 10.5" instead of 12.0" wide aka 270mm versus 305mm. Huckabee and Santorum have the longest lastnames, so they will have extra-wide columns at 3em, but short of hyphenating their names that cannot be helped.
    More drastically, I would also suggest that we eliminate the "place" and the "host" columns entirely, since they seem to be a constant source of good-faith-corrections, and replace them with a "state" column that merely says NH/OH/CA/CO/WI/NV/etc, and then hyperlinks to the appropriate prose-subsection so that people can read about the "St.Anselm&Goffstown & CSPAN&Hearst&manyMore / QuickenLoans&Cleveland & FOX&Facebook&manymore / etc" type of details. That change would cut the width to 9.0" aka 225mm on my big screen, which is a 15% width-savings versus 10.5" and a 25% width-savings versus 12.0" that we have now. (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
(p.s. I looked at the dem-table, I could see no HTML-related technical-reason it would scroll and the repub table would not. Do you see the same no-scrolling-behavior, with all the permalinked variants above? If so we should call for tech-help, at the village pump or similar. In related matters, I also could see that KCCI and WMUR were listed as dem-debate-co-sponsors... those were two of the repub-forum-simulcasters ... and that FOX was not listed as a dem-debate-sponsor anywheres although CNN was... per our conversation above, there are deeper currents here, not just one prof's take on the media-collaboration-thing.) (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see no problem with the way this is right now. Maybe the boxes could be slimmed slightly for candidates inclusion, but other than that the table is well organized, and I don't have problems on my iPhone 6. If you beging removed entire categories, like host or location, the table loses purpose. Spartan7W § 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing up my stuff, it is much appreciated.[9] However, you can leave out the underscore-fixing-portion of the effort, if you wish to, because there is a bot which does that specific fix, Yobot-via-AWB.[10] If you take requests, can you reword the tortured sentence that starts like this: "Historically, there is a correlation..." I had trouble making it plain, yet properly explaining what it meant. No problem if you don't want to mess with that, o'course. Talk to you later, (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

As a significant contributor to the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)