User talk:Yellowdesk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Yellowdesk — User talk —  Contributions  — Email  


To leave me a message on a new topic, click on this "new message" item.
Please sign your message with four tilde symbols like so: ~~~~
I prefer to reply on my own talk page to discussions started here.
Tell me if that doesn't work for you.


Archive #1 - September 26, 2006 - April 2, 2008
Archive #2 - April 3, 2008 - November 21, 2016

2017 Melbourne car attack[edit]

The current event tag on this article should probably remain because 5 people are in a critical condition and it is not yet clear whether they will survive the following days. Therefore, the "4 people died" in the lede may not turn out to be accurate. I haven't reverted but perhaps you will consider putting it back. Cheers. 122.105.136.111 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The template is not about what happened, it is an advisory that the article is being edited by many people, which is not occurring on the article.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Questions Regarding Early Presidential Primaries (1940 and Back)[edit]

I've been working collecting data on the results for the Democratic Presidential caucuses or state conventions that were held in earlier years, 1940 being the starting point given I was interested at the time in the Anti-Third Term movement that had sprung up then, and while I can't access all the data in question anyway (I'm using the New York Times as a source, but I'm not a subscriber and so can't look at the articles in detail), I've provided them in the talk pages. Having gotten down to 1928 now, however, I'm not certain how best to display the information given, and I'm not sure if there really is a precedent(s) for it given the operational differences between the Modern Primary and the more Archaic Primary of yesteryear. For example;
  1. In 1928 Al Smith clearly won the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary in Ohio over Senator Atlee Pomerene, but the latter was awarded the entirety of the delegation. The situation in question is in an article I provided on the talk page for the '28 Democratic Primaries, but when you have delegates not being bound or awarded based on the results of a Primary, should that be counted as a separate contest? How should we display that on a map? Should one be given preference?
  2. Depending on the year in question you either end up with a handful, none, or a whole slew of favorite-son candidates ready to represent State delegations, and these candidates technically have "won" delegates. However in some cases, like those I identified for the 1968 Republican nomination race, are far more than the infobox could possibly handle when combined with the actual candidates (even if we are just talking about candidates and favorite sons that won delegates, that would make 17). Should we give preference based on delegates won? On actual candidates vs. Favorite Sons? What about if they've withdrawn and endorsed a candidate? Should Favorite Sons be combined somehow (for map and infobox purposes) and explained separately in another section?
  3. In a number of the Presidential Primaries and even Caucuses I have encountered language that the delegates in question are officially unpledged or uninstructed, but have a strong preference or are generally understood for being for a certain candidate. Under those conditions, should those delegations be considered Unpledged, or should they be considered as being for the candidate? Should the votes of those delegations be included in a candidate's vote total?
These are the major questions at the moment. I'll also be asking a few others Presidential Elections Wikiproject as well to chime in, so if you have any ideas on how best I should proceed, I'd ask that the responses be put into Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1932. Thanks ahead of time. --Ariostos (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ariostos for the invitation to help out on primaries research.
    I think a table may be worth trying out, to describe the primaries (and other means of appointing delegates) and the linkage, if any, of a primary to bound delegates. A New York Times subscription is not so expensive, and you could do a short-term subscription, and print out the articles for your own research benefit. I encourage you, if possible, give a full citation to the articles you find (title, date, page number, author, if given), to aid the next person who may desire to help out.
    I'm sorry, I'm not in a position to provide much aid on the project.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Believe me when I saw while I wish I could afford a New York Times subscription, I simply don't have the disposable income to justify one. Once I'm out of College and working a steady job I'll think about it though. That said, I am terrible at citations on Wikipedia, having never really been able to memorize the code involved for them beyond the standard reference tag. Given another five years though maybe it will eventually stick. Thanks for getting back to me all the same though. --Ariostos (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Ariostos, since you are in college, you may have pretty good access to the archive of the New York Times. Your college library may be able to provide online archival access of some variety, if you ask. In all probability, the library also has the NYTimes on microfilm, and it is possible to read the articles that way, since you know the dates of all of the articles you were able to find. Ask a librarian what the possibilities may be. I'll see if I can write up a brief guide to simple references. After you do about fifty, you'll won't have any problem remembering the formats.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well Yellowdesk, that's what I thought; unfortunately it seems that North Shore Community's access to the New York Times only goes back as far as 1980 (though they admitted they once had total access), and the Public Library here in Wakefield is in a similar situation. I don't know, I'll think of something in the short-term, though long-term I may well just end up subscribing to the Times. Also Wasted Time R has brought up some good points regarding the current presentation of the data, so I'm going to be creating a new table format that doesn't concentrate as heavily on the vote aspect. --Ariostos (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright, so this is what the new results box I made is going to look like, with examples of what the various types of contests are going to look like.
Democratic Presidential Nominating State Conventions and Primaries
Date State Contest
Type
Candidate Votes
Won (#)
Votes
Won (%)
Delegates
Won
Reference(s)
March 12 New
Hampshire
Primary Uninstructed
(Support Franklin D. Roosevelt)
10,501
100 / 100 (100%)
8 / 8 (100%)
-
April 2 Wisconsin Primary Franklin D. Roosevelt 322,991
75.35 / 100 (75%)
21 / 24 (88%)
-
John Nance Garner 105,662
24.65 / 100 (25%)
3 / 24 (13%)
May 7 California Primary Franklin D. Roosevelt 723,782
74.05 / 100 (74%)
44 / 44 (100%)
-
John Nance Garner 114,594
11.72 / 100 (12%)
-
Willis Allen 90,718
9.28 / 100 (9%)
-
Ellis E. Patterson 48,337
4.95 / 100 (5%)
-
May 13 North
Dakota
State
Convention
Franklin D. Roosevelt - -
16 / 16 (100%)
-
  • Do you think there is anything I should change, or is it fine as is? --Ariostos (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's beautiful, Ariostos.
    In a copy-edit manner, I tried making the table narrower, so it does not go beyond any particular page, by specifying 100% instead of pixels, at 1100 px. I haven't done mobile-aware tables...wondering how mobile handles tables. I made columns narrower, by using the html "break", ⟨br⟩, on long lines. You could check the changes in edit mode.
    •It would be useful to get a critique on how to indicate that primaries, and all of the delegate-appointment process actually worked differently then. Beauty contests that did not cause delegates to be appointed, and instances where the delegates did not have to be loyal to their candidate.
    Wasted Time R may have useful critique on the generality and value of tables for this purpose, and have suggestions, and how to show how crazily non-uniform delegate selection was then, and how to show whether delegates were actually required to vote for the candidate that nominally were elected a delegate for. This is real political science / history research. Perhaps talk to an American History professor about your research archive problem.
    • You may want to check around for being able to research at bigger libraries near you, for cities like Peabody and Salem, Lynn, and wealthy suburbs like Burlington. And other nearby colleges, and whether they would allow visitors to use their library. Almost definite;y, Salem State Univ., or perhaps, or UMass Lowell would allow it, I speculate. Maybe local private colleges.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.
I can't remember if I knew about allowing it to adjust for page length or not, but it makes sense. The only problem for me is cosmetic in that those composition and percentage bars aren't centered like the rest of the text, and I haven't found any manner in which to do so; that may be why I opted for manually setting the table size.
Something which I have done before, and which I forgot to do here, was to specify how many delegates were in contention for a particular contest against how many were provided to the State or Territory. So if say California had 44 delegates assigned to it, and it were to hold a primary but no delegates were in contention, under the type column it would read Primary⟨br⟩(0 of 44 delegates). Also it is thankfully rather clear, so far, when you have specification of instructed and uninstructed; for now I have instructed delegates being considered straight wins by the candidate, whereas uninstructed delegates are "technically" won by uncommitted as they aren't pledged, but the delegation is considered won by the candidate which it favors. It's not perfect by any means, but I think it is an effective compromise for the time being.
Ironically I used to attend Salem, so I might try them. More likely though I'll just lean on one of my parents and have them subscribe to the Times, giving me access whilst they have more newspapers to never read; in the long run it would be cheaper then paying for the gas to shuttle myself constantly to places like Salem or Peabody. --Ariostos (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't mean to clutter your talk page, but I just wanted to show you what the table looks like as of right now with some additional changes and with all the primaries and some of the State Conventions added; I do plan to eventually add vote totals to the State Conventions if and when I can view the full articles of the Times to see when they are stated. Some of the primaries are still missing delegate totals because I don't know if they were beauty contests or not. --Ariostos (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm kind of old school and I think the @Ariostos: layout has a bit too much visual orientation, especially the slider graphics which usually are redundant to "100%". Also check the state delegate totals. Per this NYT story from just before the first ballot at the convention, there are a number of discrepancies, with the NYT several times showing 2 delegates more than is here for a given state. Maybe what would be considered superdelegates nowadays? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Democratic Presidential Nominating State Conventions and Primaries
Date State Contest
Type
Candidate Votes
Won (#)
Votes
Won (%)
Delegates
Won
Reference(s)
January 5 Louisiana State
Convention
(20 of 20 delegates)
Uninstructed
(Later Supported O. John Rogge)
-
20 / 20 (100%)
[1]
March 12 New
Hampshire
Primary
(8 of 8 delegates)
Uninstructed
(Support Franklin D. Roosevelt)
10,501
100 / 100 (100%)
8 / 8 (100%)
-
March 27 Maine State
Convention
(10 of 10 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt -
10 / 10 (100%)
[2]
April 2 Wisconsin Primary
(24 of 24 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt 322,991
75.35 / 100 (75%)
21 / 24 (88%)
-
John Nance Garner 105,662
24.65 / 100 (25%)
3 / 24 (13%)
April 7 Puerto
Rico
State
Convention
(6 of 6 delegates)
James Farley -
6 / 6 (100%)
[3]
April 9 Illinois Primary Franklin D. Roosevelt 1,176,531
86.04 / 100 (86%)
- -
John Nance Garner 190,081
13.95 / 100 (14%)
-
Others 35 (W)
0.00 / 100 (0%)
-
Nebraska Primary Franklin D. Roosevelt 111,902
100 / 100 (100%)
- -
April 23 Pennsylvania Primary Franklin D. Roosevelt 724,657
100 / 100 (100%)
- -
April 26 Hawaii State
Convention
(6 of 6 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt -
6 / 6 (100%)
[4]
April 30 Massachusetts Primary
(36 of 36 delegates)
Uninstructed
(Support James Farley)
76,919
100 / 100 (100%)
36 / 36 (100%)
-
May 5 South
Dakota
Primary Uninstructed 27,636
100 / 100 (100%)
-
May 7 Alabama Primary
(22 of 22 delegates)
Uninstructed
(Support William B. Bankhead)
196,508
100 / 100 (100%)
22 / 22 (100%)
-
California Primary
(44 of 44 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt 723,782
74.05 / 100 (74%)
44 / 44 (100%)
-
John Nance Garner 114,594
11.72 / 100 (12%)
-
Willis Allen 90,718
9.28 / 100 (9%)
-
Ellis E. Patterson 48,337
4.95 / 100 (5%)
-
May 13 North
Dakota
State
Convention
(16 of 16 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt -
16 / 16 (100%)
-
May 14 Ohio Primary
(52 of 52 delegates)
Uninstructed
(Support Charles W. Sawyer)
283,952
100 / 100 (100%)
52 / 52 (100%)
-
West
Virginia
Primary H. C. Allen 102,729
100 / 100 (100%)
- -
May 17 North
Carolina
State
Convention
(26 of 26 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt -
26 / 26 (100%)
[5]
Oregon Primary Franklin D. Roosevelt 109,913
87.17 / 100 (87%)
- -
John Nance Garner 15,584
12.36 / 100 (12%)
-
Others 601
0.48 / 100 (0.5%)
-
May 21 Delaware State
Convention
(6 of 6 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt -
6 / 6 (100%)
[6]
New
Jersey
Primary Franklin D. Roosevelt 34,278 (W)
99.51 / 100 (100%)
- -
John Nance Garner 59
0.17 / 100 (0.2%)
-
Others 111
0.32 / 100 (0.3%)
-
May 22 Maryland State
Convention
(16 of 16 delegates)
Millard Tydings -
16 / 16 (100%)
[7]
May 23 Vermont State
Convention
(6 of 6 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt -
6 / 6 (100%)
[8]
June 4 Connecticut State
Convention
(16 of 16 delegates)
Franklin D. Roosevelt -
16 / 16 (100%)
[9]
  1. ^ "BAR ROOSEVELT SUPPORT; Louisiana Democrats Refuse to Hear Plea for Candidacy". New York Times. January 6, 1940. 
  2. ^ "MAINE DEMOCRATS BACK THIRD TERM; Pledge Ten Convention Votes to Roosevelt, or to Farley If President Retires GARNER FORCES DEFEATED Instructions Given to 20 Delegates--Chairman Urges aUnited Front in Speech". New York Times. March 28, 1940. 
  3. ^ "PUERTO RICO PARTY CHAMPIONS FARLEY; San Juan Convention Elects 6 Delegates, Ordering Them to Vote Under His Orders". New York Times. April 8, 1940. 
  4. ^ "Hawaiians Back Third Term". New York Times. April 27, 1940. 
  5. ^ "NORTH CAROLINA GIVES 26 VOTES TO PRESIDENT; Republicans in Tennessee Unit Back Dewey for Nomination". New York Times. May 18, 1940. 
  6. ^ "SUPPORT THIRD TERM; Delaware Democrats Elect a Pledged Delegation". New York Times. May 22, 1940. 
  7. ^ "16 VOTES FOR TYDINGS; But Maryland Delegates Will Be Freed if Roosevelt Runs". New York Times. May 23, 1940. 
  8. ^ "Majority in Convention Obtained by Roosevelt". New York Times. May 24, 1940. 
  9. ^ "CONNECTICUT'S 16 GO TO ROOSEVELT; State Democratic Convention Pledges Its Votes and Puts Unit Rule on Delegates FORTY-EIGHT ARE CHOSEN Maloney Is Renominated for Senate--Achievements of the New Deal Hailed". New York Times. June 5, 1940.