Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election

Split
It's come time to split. Also, calling any polls "hypothetical" is a misnomer, they're all hypothetical. Instead we should only say they are polls with candidates who are not running. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetical polling

 * That's inherently the implication "hypothetical polling" is used on these articles – for candidates who decline to run, drop out, or are eliminated in the primary. (Nevertheless, I've added a textual note to this end.) Mélencron (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The polls with Howard Schultz are what's taking up too much space in the contents. We could either hide those from the contents (for example the Trump-Harris-Schultz polls will just fall under Trump-Harris) or we can make another section for polls featuring Schultz. As for "hypothetical polling", I'm sure we can come up with a description that is actually correct. "Polls with declined candidates"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the usual terminology, since the implication of "hypothetical polling" on these articles has always been this. If you disagree and think it should be changed, then initiate an RfC. Mélencron (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need to start a RfC every time we want to change something. I've seen it around as well, and I've also seen people change and remove "hypothetical" where it otherwise has been. It's not a rule or guideline that these are called hypothetical. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but "I've seen it around" isn't a justification and something I know not to be true and not something you can just claim when I literally have had every single 2018 U.S. election article watchlisted – it's something that I know not to be true, and it's a practice that started before I even started editing which I've continued to follow. I think you're viewing "hypothetical polling" with a different connotation than I am in this case, anyway – in this context, it refers to general election scenarios that are no longer possible (i.e. because candidates have dropped out or ruled out running), not just scenarios that are theoretically possible. I think you're the first editor I've encountered to object to this, which is why I suggest you'd raise an RfC if you want to change it, as it's also not something you'll be able to convince me on and I don't believe it's a productive use of time to thrash over this when neither of us are going to change our mind over this. Mélencron (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. You said that you have seen it elsewhere that "hypothetical" is used in headings like that, and I was agreeing with you. I've just also seen it being replaced and removed elsewhere also. You're the one justifying it by saying it's used elsewhere, not me. I can easily prove to you where this has happened in the last week or two, so I don't see how you can say it's something you know not to be true.
 * All polling is hypothetical, it's really as simple as that, especially at this point in the election. The only possible exception being exit polling. This is simply a fact of polls, they are hypothetical. All I am saying is that we can come up with a better way to label polls that involve candidates or parties that aren't running, not only for this article but for every other article where this is incorrectly used. It's not like I need your permission to edit this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you're seeing it "being replaced and removed elsewhere also" because you're the one doing it on an article for a different country which takes place in a completely different context – you're really just objecting to an entirely semantic difference and alleging that the term has been "incorrectly used", when literally nobody has objected to the use of it on U.S. election articles for at least a decade (or else it would have changed by now) and where the implication is unstated because it's obvious (scenarios which are not under any circumstances going to happen – candidates who have ruled out running are not going to run, candidates who were eliminated in the primary necessarily failed to make it to the general election, "generic Republican" is not a real person, etc.) If you object to this practice, which has been longstanding and is commonly understood and not in any way incorrect, then initiate an RfC, because I'm merely following in the vein of how it's been used in the past. You're the first person I know of to object, and if it isn't already obvious, I quite strongly disagree that this should be changed – and no other editors have ever objected to this usage – which is why I suggest you resolve this by RfC if you want to change it, as I suspect that there are few other editors who would become involved in this talk page discussion as few have this page watchlisted. (I'm not going to change my mind, I doubt there's anything that's going to change your mind, so I don't view it as useful to continue to discuss this as though we'll arrive at a consensus of two – and rather resolve this by RfC in order to get uninvolved editors' opinions, if that's something you'd be inclined to do.) Mélencron (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (I'm also not sure what a good alternative to "hypothetical polling" would be, for the record, as it's an umbrella term – "declined candidates and hypothetical scenarios"? It isn't clear what the best term is to refer to all of these other than that – including candidates who have declined, dropped out, were eliminated in the primaries, and generic head-to-heads, and I think that the connotation is obvious to most readers – which is why it hasn't been changed.) Mélencron (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Serious question, are you making an argument that using "hypothetical" here isn't incorrect or is what we should use, and if so, what is that argument(s)? If you respond to nothing else then please respond to that question. It's irrelevant if nobody else has objected on American elections articles. The section itself is fine, it's just mistitled. This is a complete overreaction to the suggestion that we could simply come up with something better to call it. Something like "alternative polling" would do as well, it would have the same implications as how "hypothetical" is being used. I don't know what you're referring to about how I've changed it on another article (and no, the context is not different), since the example that occurred in the last week was not done by myself. It completely goes against your this is how we've always done it argument, which is clearly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per your supplementary edits, it would be unfortunate that readers conclude this from the connotation, since it propagates false information about opinion polling. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure to what exactly you're objecting to or why you're objecting to it, either. If your objection is just to the use of the word "hypothetical", then I disagree that the implication is somehow incorrect, end of story. I don't agree that it's mistitled or that it has any sort of false connotations under any reasonable reading, and I'm not going to be swayed by any arguments to the otherwise, so I don't see it as useful to continue to engage here since you're clearly not going to change your mind, either – please just initiate an RfC and let it run its course to settle this, as this is not a productive use of my time. Mélencron (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My objection is that all polls are hypothetical, not only those ones, so the title is misleading and we can do better. What is your argument that we should continue to use the word hypothetical to describe those polls in particular? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And I hold that this is clearly not the connotation of the word "hypothetical" in this case, as I've already reiterated. If I've not already made it clear, I'm not interested in continuing this argument, and I believe that you should initiate an RfC if you want to see this changed. Mélencron (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Page size
This page now has 539,054 bytes of markup; that's far too much, and it needs to be split into several sub-pages. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a 4-way chart
Can we add a chart for the 4-way race? Syaz351 (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of how you would like the chart to appear Syaz351? I am not oppose to this proposed edit. It seems like the time to add this is quickly coming to a close given the election is less than four days away. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that this has been done and recently updated as of 10/30/2020. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a table but not a chart? Przemysl15 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Um sadly I don't have it lol Syaz351 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Time series figure?
This article used to contain a time series figure. Who removed it or broke it and how do we bring it back? If it can't be brought back, then I recommend deleting the article, as it's useless without the figure. 82.147.226.185 (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This feature has been disabled since about April 2023. There is a notice in the article where the figure used to be, which says "Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues."  There is a plan to fix this, but it appears to be in its early stages.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We need Joe Biden first
Please 2603:6083:B6F0:81B0:2943:8224:E03B:7491 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)