Talk:2020 United States presidential election in California

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Results table

@Tartan357: Clearly there is a disagreement between us on the preferred format for the result table for the general election. I would very much like to have an open and civil discussion with you to resolve our disagreement. I want to address some of the issues you raised in the edit summaries, which for reference, I will quote:

Reverted changes to results section; we have templates that should be used for this instead of a manually-created table. The format of the table should be kept consistent with that of the results tables for other states. I also removed separate listings for write-in candidates; the Secretary of State will only report write-in votes in one group, and will not examine and report which names were written in unless the write-in vote is on top.
No, we have a very long-standing established format for this, its used on all state pages, and the WP:ONUS is on you to change it. Listing individual write-in candidates is plain wrong; those numbers are not provided in the results. Don't try to edit-war this in in the middle of the election.

You state that it is preferable to use Template:Election box over a custom-made table. I disagree because I believe the template is unsuitable for instances when candidates have running mates. The template's purpose, by design, is to only display one candidate, and stacking them in one cell is confusing and messy. There is also no way to show the electoral college votes that the winner gets, which is the crucial result that should be displayed by the table.

You also claim that this article should be consistent with other state election articles and that it is "a very long-standing established format" that "is used on all state pages." However, the state articles have only included the results table in the template form since September when one editor went ahead and changed them all. See for example this edit to the Oklahoma page. Furthermore, you reference no policy, guideline, or discussion anywhere that dictates how the tables should be formatted. In fact, if you look at articles of previous elections you will find all types of different tables used, which demonstrates there is no actual consensus.

You reference WP:ONUS, which is totally irrelevant because that links to Wikipedia:Verifiability, a topic which is not at issue.

Your final claim is that write-in candidates should not be listed separately because it "is plain wrong," "those numbers are not provided in the results," and "the Secretary of State will only report write-in votes in one group, and will not examine and report which names were written in unless the write-in vote is on top." All of this is not true. While write-in votes are not reported in the unofficial returns, every single write-in vote by candidate will be reported by the California Secretary of State when the final results are certified. See for example the 2016 and 2012 statements of vote.

Lastly, I do want to raise a few points of etiquette. First, edit summaries should not be used to engage in discussion, as we both have done. Both of us had an opportunity to initiate this discussion earlier. Second, I believe it is best practice to not respond to a user's invitation to discuss a dispute by putting a standard edit war warning on that user's talk page. Doing so creates the perception, even if that is not your intent, that you are not interested in engaging in a discussion. – Zntrip 04:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zntrip, trying to challenge the way we display results across the entire presidential election series while those results are coming in is borderline disruptive. You need consensus to change this, and that's all there is to it. I don't want to discuss this right now because there are much more important things to work on. I'm just enforcing the existing consensus. If you had done this before the election, I would've been willing to talk about it, but an unnecessary formatting change is the last thing we need while we're trying to make sure the results are reported correctly. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 04:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tartan357: I strongly disagree with your statement that my edit was "borderline disruptive." I edited one article the day before the election. I have also made a good faith attempt to discuss this disagreement here on the talk page with a thorough response to your edit summaries and an explanation of my point of view. You claim to be enforcing an existing consensus, yet you offer nothing to show that consensus actually exists. You also have no responses to my legitimate issues with the content and style of the result table. My biggest issue really is that you are insisting on displaying less information with your preferred format. The excuse that you are too busy to engage in a discussion right now is rather condescending. If you feel you are overwhelmed at the moment, there's no need to respond immediately, but please respond in good faith. – Zntrip 04:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zntrip, your initial edit was not disruptive, but your revert of my revert was. You made a WP:BOLD change to a long-standing format, were reverted, and decided to edit-war over it in response. I have little patience for that kind of behavior amid all the disruption surrounding this election. I'm just keeping the series consistent. Look at any other state subpage for any presidential election, and you'll see the same format everywhere. It's been in use for a long time. That's at least a strong silent consensus; I don't know if there was a discussion on it. I did not come up with this format. WP:CONSENSUS applies, as well as WP:ONUS, which states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the burden rests on those adding content to justify and get support for its inclusion. Maybe start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 05:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tartan357: Honestly, I think an RfC would be a good idea, but I think we should wait until after the election, and after the results are finalized. I understand that you've taken it upon yourself to ensure that the 2020 state presidential election articles remain consistent, and while I commend you for that, that not mean there is a consensus for how the results are displayed. The format has not been in use for a long time; it's only been there since September and all the tables have been blank and therefore largely irrelevant and ignored. If you look at the 2016, 2012, 2008, etc. pages you'll find a myriad of formats with no uniformity from year to year. This demonstrates that there is no consensus. And again, you are misciting WP:ONUS. The policy simply means verifiability of information does not necessarily mean the information must be included. That policy is simply not relevant to this discussion because I am not adding additional verifiable content that there is consensus against including. An example of ONUS would be adding Joe Biden's favorite color to his biography with a citation to a 2008 article from Teen Vogue; that information is verified, but there would be consensus against including it because it does not improve the article. – Zntrip 05:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zntrip, I'd consider supporting something like what you proposed in such an RfC after the election. I apologize for overreacting. Really my main concern right now is one of consistency, but I could've made that argument more gently. Ping me if you start that RfC after the election and I'll be happy to participate. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 05:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zntrip, I've changed my mind on your table due to the electoral vote issue. As long as write-in candidates aren't listed separately, I'm fine with you restoring the rest of it. If you do so, though, the tables should be changed on all the state subpages. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 09:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, sounds good. I definitely understand where you're coming from, and I can tell you've been busting your chops monitoring all the pages. I don't plan on changing anything for another month or so until the results are certified. At that point I plan on starting an RfC, and your input will be greatly appreciated. – Zntrip 03:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zntrip, thanks. I'll be happy to participate if you ping me. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 03:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Census Block Results

Somebody decided to take down the Census Block Group results from both the 2016 and 2020 Election. I reuploaded both, but don't see a reason in taking them down. The user from North Canton, Ohio, said it was because "we only use county maps", but on many other articles about Presidential Elections, there are maps of precinct results in Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington(state). California has jaggedly shaped SRPRECs and most prefer Census Block Groups which are cleaner. Keeping them up will give viewers a more detailed and thorough understanding of elections in California. 24.147.141.27 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Whoever did it also took down work made for Precinct maps in Texas. Txu139 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California"