Talk:2008 Oregon Democratic presidential primary

message: There's been some back and forth on the ordering of "results" and "polling" in the presidential section. I think "results" should come first. From a historical perspective, the results will be of primary importance; polling is just background for the results. Also, the polling is already in reverse chronological order within the table, so putting "results" first will be consistent with that chronology. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Primary" importance? No puns on this serious talk page, please. I also prefer the "results" first, and I made the first change for the reason you cite. However, if every other primary lists it the other way (as is asserted, but I haven't checked) and that's an agreed-upon standard, I'm fine with deferring to precedent. --Esprqii (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Support [putting results before polls]. If we do reach consensus on this we should change the other primary articles as well. Andareed (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I understand that framing this kind of discussion in terms of "support" and "oppose" !votes is becoming commonplace on Wikipedia, it's not how we typically do things in Oregon. Also, we don't usually have much trouble coming to agreement in Oregon. I suspect the two are related, so I'd like to suggest that we simply discuss this, rather than !voting on it. Oh, and sorry for the !pun...honestly (though I don't imagine anyone will believe me) I didn't intend it!! -Pete (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was a bit hasty in my previous comment. I had a look at other primary articles and some 2004 primary articles and all of them list polling before results. A lot of the earlier state articles also have lengthy chronicles, so it does make sense to put them chronologically (i.e. polling before results). In order to remain consistent, it probably would be better to leave polling before results. Andareed (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Andareed. It seem strange to me to show readers data about the anticipated results after the actual results. As far as the order of the polling data itself goes, its table is re-sortable so the reverse chronological order is only a default. That default table order seems somewhat arbitrary (is it?) so if we decide to keep the polling section above the results section, we could simply change the polling section's default table order. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  I appreciate the desire to discuss rather than register support or opposition and it makes sense to discuss this unless we have trouble determining what the prevailing consensus is. However, I don't think "how we typically do things in Oregon" is relevant here. The Wikipedia talk namespace isn't Oregon and editors participating are not necessarily Oregonians, nor should it be a requirement that they are. Regardless of the subject of the article, the way things are done "here" is spelled out in Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. That said, those same policies and guidelines do generally support discussion over talk page polling. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bryan, sorry if my statement came across as asserting ownership...I was just trying to say that's the process I've seen work, and that those of us from Oregon are generally, probably, comfortable with that process. Definitely not trying to shove it down anyone's throat. As to the order, it seems like the prevailing sentiment is to put poll results first...that's fine by me. Since Katydidit hasn't commented here or reverted, I'd guess it's not a big deal to her either, so it looks to me like we have something approaching consensus... -Pete (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries, Pete. The tone of my rebuttal perhaps came across more harshly than I intended. I wasn't upset and I didn't even disagree with your point, only the reasons supporting it. In my response I was merely trying to make sure that we didn't veer off-course from Wikipedia guidelines by establishing special locality-specific discussion guidelines for this article. I think your assessment of the consensus here is probably sound. My experience with Katydidit on other articles is that she doesn't typically participate on discussion pages, so I'm not sure we can assume her assent. However, as you noted, she hasn't reverted either, so the article is probably fine as it is. Thanks, by the way, for raising the issue here in the first place. Perhaps I should have raised it myself after reverting Katydidit's edit, but I hadn't realized there'd been previous edits along these lines and so I thought it could be resolved in edit comments. I think it's better that we discussed it here. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  results and polling order 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oregon Democratic primary elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080521220250/http://www.oregondemocrats.org/sites/default/files/Convention08/Oregon_DSP_Info.pdf to http://www.oregondemocrats.org/sites/default/files/Convention08/Oregon_DSP_Info.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2008 Democrats Abroad primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress