Talk:2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California

General election endorsements?
How should we handle the endorsements section for the general should I just put it in the same box as the primary ones with post primary or should the general have its own endorsement section? Free city of stratford ok (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The general should definitely NOT have its own endorsements section. The individual district sections are so small that this would cause them to become completely overwhelmed by endorsements. not to mention that the vast majority of districts won't have any new endorsements after the primary. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What do I do when there's no endorsement page, but one of the candidates recently got a major endorsement? DivaaNut (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Substantially unreferenced
The quantitative results throughout this article are unreferenced, even though they've been updated a couple of times. How can they be verified? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC) are you able to provide references for the results you've been adding to the article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Add the link to each results box if you feel so inclined. Here, I provided sample reference: . Format as you wish. Scribetastic (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've placed your reference for you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Title was empty
Hello, @Mikeblas -- the title was empty, I reviewed the file https://web.archive.org/web/20240223175148/https://www.ibewvotes.com/Admin/CampaignFile/local/21/1708 and the title that I put and you reverted match tat in the file, why did you think that I introduced a referencing error? Can you please fill the correct title? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there! removed the title "Wayback machine" from an existing reference. "Wayback machine" isn't a good title, but a value for the title parameter is necessary so your edit left the article with a referencing error. In my edit, I fixed that issue . -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mikeblas ok, thank you for the explanation! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Referencing election results
I've again restored the unsatisfied unreferenced section tag on the table in the "statewide" section. This tag was removed with no effort of remedy twice over the last couple of days.

WP:BURDEN says that the person adding "material whose verifiability has been challenged" is responsible for demonstrating verifiability. The verifiability of this material has been challenged, and that burden "is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". My presumption is that the total quantitative results of a statewide primary election should be trivially sourced from the secretary of state or election board of that state. Is that not the case?

In this context, WP:CALC doesn't appear to apply. All policies have some room for interpretation, but the examples given in that section make it pretty clear that the calculations involved are simple conversions or aggregations. In this article, an arduous collection process is necessary because the "Statewide" totals involve more than fifty districts, both counting candidates and totaling votes for each. It further requires evaluating advancements and counting contested seats. Here, nobody is questioning that 15 kilometers is about 9 miles -- the question is if a couple hundred data points aggregate down to the presented summaries and counts.

Requiring that readers build a spreadsheet or script in order to grind through this large amount of data and summarize it themselves to verify it is unacceptable.

If other articles have this same information without direct references to support it, I think they should also have references added. The argument that this shouldn't be fixed because other things should also be fixed is flawed.

Verifiability is a core content policy, and this material needs to be made readily verifiable if it is to remain in the corpus. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Efforts by Mikeblas appear near bad faith.
 * The format of this page follows suit with every prior election year for this page. One can literally scroll through past pages to see past precedent.
 * Most egregiously, Mikeblas claims that WP:CALC does not apply because it requires interpretation. The page explicitly lists "adding numbers" among common routine calculations. Express words, like "adding numbers," is "pretty clear" in the words of Mikeblas. I understand adding numbers on a calculator might be arduous to user Mikeblas, but most capable editors can perform addition on a calculator. The numbers are verifiable with the SoS of California, who certifies the election results, as cited to on each individual results table. Furthermore, the SoS lists the candidates on the ballot and each candidate's respective party. If one needs a spreadsheet or script, or much less struggles to produce one capable of adding numbers together, that likely speaks to the merits of the individual's approach, not necessarily the difficulty of the task at hand. Again, these calculations have been performed for these pages for years, without what ever struggle Mikeblas is alleging.
 * With the above-described, directly verifiable data points from the singular source of the SoS cited to, the content falls within the contours of Verifiability. Verifiability is a core content policy, but it is not the hardline on-off switch that user is suggesting; even verifiable information can be justifiably excluded.
 * The mountain that Mikeblas is attempting to make out of this mole hill is unusual. Scribetastic (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" -- WP:CALC. That's pretty cut-and-dry, Mikeblas. Unless you can prove that the results of the calculations are incorrect, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Drawing data from the source (thus "meaningfully reflecting" said source) and performing a simple operation on that data (in this case, addition) falls under routine calculation. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When/where was consensus about the correctness of the calculations reached? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When did you get consensus to add the "unsourced" tag in the first place? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)