File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png

Making this map colorblind friendly

Since it is supertuesday and the maps will change a lot this will be a good time to make some good changes to the county map. So to all the mapguys out there:

• Could we make this map colorblind friendly? (it would be good to use the same colors already used in File:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012.svg)
• Could we included the Northern Marianna Islands in the territories?
• Wouldnt it be a good time to loose the Missouri nonbinding primary? No one is really going to care about it after the Missouri cacuses anyway.
• And if anyone has time: Could we update and make the schedule map in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Primary schedule colorblind friendly?

Here is some tips from a colorblind person, posted earlier about the schedule map: "Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind." Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop screwing with the colors! I don't see any consensus that these should be the colors for the map.TL565 (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is you who should stop reverting the changes. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility all pages should be accessible as much as possible. As has already clearly been documented above and in other places the old map was not colourblind friendly, while the new one is. This trumps any objections you may have based on aesthetics. Ravendrop 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are guidelines not policy. The color scheme here currently is hard on the eyes and clashes more in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just change the color scheme do we really need the colors we have still I see abobe NO GREEN and NO PURPLE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it needs to be the colours it is now. I'm simply pointing out that as this is colourblind friendly it is preferable to the previous version. I tend to agree that it is somewhat aesthetically deficient, but it should be kept until a better version can be created. (These particular colours come from the fact that the colours used one the map just showing states were said to have been colourblind friendly) Ravendrop 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, I already got blocked in commons, but I just don't agree in just changing the colors that people have been used to so suddenly without a real discussion. The state map is already friendly. More people will complain about these colors than the original ones.TL565 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

When you make a huge change like that though you might as well discuss it first as TL565 pointed out it has been like this for months, a few days of discussion will work to giving both sides what they want. I think you are doing a good thing though, are there other colors we could go with that are colorblind friendly but are easy on the eyes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about colorfriendly colormaps have been going on for some time in the Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 in concern to the statemap. Some of the colours in the first attempts was quit bad on the eyes. (the was a very flouricent green at some point) But personally I think the colours that are used now are not more or less easy on the eyes than the old noncolorfriendly colors was. They are simply different and after a few weeks you have gotten use to these colors as you are use to the old once now. Just the force of habit. As not all of you have been following the discussion on the primary articles talkpage I would like to qoute a comment made there about the statemap:

"Thanks for changing the colors! It's amazing to be able to catch all the information so quickly. I am really not qualified to change the colors myself because I can't use the color-coding programs. I'm sure I'd miscode all the data since I can't see it in the first place. So I have to rely on charity.

What people need to understand about the colorblind is that they have very good color vision. The colorblind are capable of reading highly color-coded maps. However, the colorblind are at a major disadvantage in almost every scientific field because no effort is made to code diagrams in a way that they can access the information. There are no colorblind friendly text books. There are no colorblind friendly electoral maps in the world. Software for the colorblind is inadequate. The only way that the colorblind can access this information is to ask for detailed descriptions of the patterns from normals.

It would be great to be able to see this information and be able to comment on it and have an opinion. If the colors of the maps are not changed,I cannot access the information. If the maps are changed then 99.99% of the general population can access all the information. If the maps are not changed, 92% of men can access the information and 96% of the general population can access the information. If you think the 8% of men who are colorblind might have something to say about the data, then you will agree that changing the colors is acceptable even if they don't suit your aesthetic principles. I think it's morally wrong to oppose accessible maps for the sake of some aesthetic norms. What is your argument that the colorblind don't have a right to this information?" (comment by 66.27.97.200)

I am sure we all have the hope that one or more of the primary article one day will reach excellent article status, this is done by going that extra mile and the colorblindfriendly maps can be a part of it. It have been mentioned that since the statemap already are colorfriendly there is no reason to make the countymap the same. But as you proberly already know: It is not as important who wins the states as it use to be! Who wins the congressional districts are just as important. A colormap with the new congressional districts would be even better than the countymap, but since those borders are so very new the countymap are the bedst there is to have a quick look on the state of the race. Informations it otherwise would take hours to find. So the countymap matters to us all, also the colorblind minority. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility should be our priority instead of aesthetics. The purpose of the map is to convey information to all those who wish to access it. It is not there for decoration. It's not like the colorblind are demanding that we screw with the Mona Lisa. EEL123 (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Im for changing it for the colorblind but there must be a way for the colors to also go easy on the average person's eye, have any suggestions? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am red-green colorblind and I have no problem at all with the current map. Just checking in. Wrad (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

ND and AK

Why were North Dakota's results removed? They were shown a couple of days ago. Also, why aren't Alaska's results shown? If there is no source for Alaska's borough results, just color the entire state with the winning color, as in this map. --62.78.234.31 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota's results were removed because it appears it was inaccurate, as for Alaska my guess is that the people who know how to update the map are waiting for more states to fill in before updating. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota and Alaska did not tally their votes by county, but by House District. Google Elections has the results of North Dakota by House District, and I personally have a copy of the Alaska results by House District. They can be seen on a national county map here: [1]. - Rarohla (talk) 11 March 2012

Would it be possible to put the house districts on this countymap instead of the statewide result? Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't completely true. If you check the Google Elections page, they show North Dakota's county results. I can't make the fix myself (no active account), so someone else please should. --71.32.123.239 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Where? What's the URL for this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Islands

According to the breakdown on the VI GOP website, Uncommitted (followed by Romney) won the island of St. Croix while Paul won the island of St. Thomas. This should be reflected in the map. - Rarohla (talk) 11 March 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

They changed their results page after people started noticing Paul won but only got 1 delegate. 142.161.88.169 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have always had 'yellow for Ron Paul' for U.S. Virgin Islands. From the authoritative Green Papers (linked from our Table, "10 March 2012: Virgin Islands Republican Party Chairman Herb Schoenbaum stated the that Romney won 6 delegates, Paul 1, uncommitted 2 in today's voting. After the vote tally, 1 uncommitted delegate switched to Romney. All 3 RNC delegates support Romney. The final count is Romney 7, Paul 1, Uncommitted 1." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Solid Colors

Are the solid colors for ND and AK only temporary? This is supposed to be a county map. It will defeat the purpose of the map if ND and AK are not going to show who won each county. TL565 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, can't we fill Missouri in?Ordinary Person (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

AK and ND count by house borders, not counties (see above) so that discussion needs to be resolved first. Missouri is in there (to the right, on the top) for their non-binding primary. The caucuses, which award the delegates have yet to happen (conclude on the 24th I think), so that's why the main main Missouri is blank. Ravendrop 10:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way we can get the house districts put on the map? I'd do it but I can't edit images with this account. 142.161.88.169 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Upload it to a file hosting service like photobucket, give me the URL, explicitly release it under cc-by-sa-3.0 (the license on this page), explicitly state you are the author, and I will upload it on your behalf. If you want something other than just your IP listed in the attribution, please state what that is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Missouri

The Missouri caucuses are not having any sort of presidential straw poll, so there will be no results to report from that contest. The primary results should be put back in. Rarohla

If there will be no numbers at all. (there was no strawpoll in Virgin Islands either) maybe it could be put back after the caucuses. I found this reference on the resultpage: [http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/dates-for-some-mo-presidential-caucuses-changed/article_8e60de1e-f0b4-5d00-ab79-9e1ca9839511.html) For those that want to read more.

If the Missouri nonbinding primary are removed from it current position and moved back into the map. Would it be possible to moved the territories so the appear in the same way as the Statemap? (File:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012.svg). It would look more neat. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"“Unlike many other caucus states, there will not be a straw poll attached to the caucus,” the memo said. “Caucus-goers will be voting for delegates, and with few exceptions, these delegates will not be bound to a particular candidate. Because there is no vote on candidate preference, neither the Missouri GOP nor any election authority will have or release any data regarding the ‘winner’ of the caucuses.”"[2] The current version of the map, showing results from the caucuses can not be accurate, since the state GOP (the most reliable source) has stated that there is no data on caucus preferential votes. The Missouri county map should be based on the primary map, as those results are the official ones: the primary is the preferential vote acknowledged by the state party itself. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The current map displays highly unofficial and I would argue highly incorrect results. Paul did not win St. Louis County, for example. This must be corrected. Rarohla (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The only consistent thing to do is to use the strawpoll like it was done in Iowa. Even though the Missouri nonbinding straw poll was taken weeks ago. None of the state and CD delegates elected at the caucuses are bound to a candidate or are expected to declare themselve for anyone. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Rarohla, the consensus here is to add the Missouri primary to the map. I've created a new map and uploaded it which you seemed to have reverted. For everyone else, this is the file : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county,_2012_(corrected)-2.png

I can't seem to replace the file here directly, perhaps someone could do it for me? I believe my account is too new. --RoteDelano (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I apologize for blaming you for reverting it, turns out it was a different user that goes by Bielsko. Sorry about that. I still need help figuring out how to change the file. --RoteDelano (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii, Alaska and the Territories

3 things:

• Is everybody sure that Hawaii has the correct colours? According to fox countyresults ([[3]]) did Maui county go to Romney not Paul.
• Is there any informations on Alaska so it would be possible to do to Alaska what have already been done to North Dakota?
• Would it be an idea to move the territories into the map in the same fashion as they are in the state map in the infobox template?
  It would give them the right size and importance in relations to the rest of US. Soon it would be possible either to get caucus info from Missouri or move the straw poll into the map. If so, the whole white section could be removed. That would cut the wide of the map, meaning it could become larger in the main article.

Thank you for the great job you are all doing on this map. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Maui County - wrong colors

Color of Maui County (Hawaii) should be corrected. Romney not Paul wins it. Paul maybe won with provisional ballots, but they aren't officially certified, so we mustn't count it. http://www.gophawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Hawaii-Caucus-Results-Calculator-FINAL-031612-10pm.pdf

Bielsko (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico results by divisions

What do you think about showing Puerto Rico results by representative districts? In North Dakota we shows results by congressional district... Results by repr. districts: http://64.185.222.182/cee_events/PRIMARIAS_PARTIDO_REPUBLICANO_2012_36/NOCHE_DEL_EVENTO_55/default.html

Bielsko (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It would work for me, but I'll need to actually see the breakdown by district. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Here you are :)
https://www.redistribucionelectoral2010.pr/images/mapas-dist/Distritos-Representativos-2011-FINAL.jpg
https://www.redistribucionelectoral2010.pr/mapas-dist2011.html

Bielsko (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No I meant the breakdown of the results. That page doesn't show any of the results, at least not in my browser. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK it's showing in Firefox, not Chrome. The page is just poorly designed FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to make Puerto Rico division? Greetings Bielsko (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think that Puerto Rico should be divided by representative districts? They are the closest administrative units to counties (regarding to data which we have). http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/cs_metadata.html#bar Bielsko (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very good at creating ad-hoc maps like that; I could try but it might take me a really long time. Could you instead try asking User:GageSkidmore? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)