Talk:2010 Philippine presidential election

Merger proposal

This is a proposal to merge this article into Philippine general election, 2010. Both articles refer to the same event, even if the event will have two results of different nature. Moreover, the texts, as they are (April 2009) do not differ significantly. --AVM (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Colors

Can we use subtly different hues of green for BPM and the other one? We can use lime for BPM since their colors are yellow and green. –Howard the Duck 02:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Philippine presidential election, 2010#Colors. Please direct all queries there. Thanks. –Howard the Duck 15:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey

I basically ripped this off from United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010:

• The cell is colored to the person that "won" the survey.
• Only names that are included in at least one survey will be included. Those who aren't will be lumped together with the "others".
• This is important -- in surveys, a number rounded off to the nearest whole number is not equal to the whole number. For example, if it states simply as "25%", it is not automatically equal to "25.0%". We should be wary of this. –Howard the Duck 05:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Take for this as an example: Let's say I have a survey on 9 kids on what they want on birthday parties: 4 chose spaghetti, 3 chose ice cream and 2 chose cake. Now, on my study rounded them off to the nearest whole number, so it'll be 44% for spaghetti, 33% for ice cream and 22% for cake. Now if they'll be added here with a decimal place, and I didn't release their exact numbers, it'll be displayed as 44.0%, 33.0% and 22.0% respectively, making it wrong, since the correct numbers are when rounded to the nearest tenths should've been 44.4%, 33.3% and 22.2% respectively. Those fractions are crucial when you take into account the margin of error. –Howard the Duck 05:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition, in the event Acosta and Perlas are included in future surveys, I'd prefer on using "—" rather than "0.0%" or "0%" in surveys that didn't include them. It means that they were not included, not nobody chose them (which could mean that they were included but no one chose them).
    • Look, until Acosta is included by the surveys, we can't include him here. Just like they didn't include other candidates in other election articles, such as Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. –Howard the Duck 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for making these tables Howard, great job! (And yes, I agree with your stand on the Acosta case.) Mark 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Acosta is now in (I told you guys to be patient), but after inauguration, I'm planning to lump the candidates who failed to break past the margin of error at least once to "Others" so we can focus on the major ones. –Howard the Duck 09:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting NPOV problem with the photos

I think it's interesting that the need to use free images has favoured some candidates while disadvantaging others. Here's how I would vote based purely on the photographic evidence available on Wikipedia:

1. Manny Villa. He's outside--a man of the people! He has a genuine smile on his face.
2. Gilberto Teodoro. Looks a bit nervous, but on the other hand dynamic, energetic and enthusiastic.
3. Richard Gordon. Good posture, clear photo.
4. Noynoy Aquino. Terrible photo, colours clash, looks straight out of the 1970s.
5. Joseph Estrada. Not smiling. Grainy. Looks like the obituary photo of an assassinated dictator.
6. Eddie Villanueva. No photo. Could be an alien or a banana for all I know.

Needless to say this is not how I'd actually vote, but appearances do have a big influence on voting decisions. --Specrat (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We need portrait pics, the ones they use on Senate portraits. But I think those are copyrighted. –Howard the Duck 11:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be nice if we could use their campaign posters. –Howard the Duck 15:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

infobox

The way it's going, it seems that only Erap and Noynoy will be left. Noynoy's margin of victory is ~15% and 3rd place Villar is ~14%. –Howard the Duck 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Scrolling refs

{{Editsemiprotected}}

Per MOS:SCROLL, please remove the scroll box from the References section. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. –Howard the Duck 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Howard. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox after proclamation

If Aquino is proclaimed the winner, the infobox should look like this:

Philippine presidential election, 2010

May 10, 2010

Nominee Noynoy Aquino Joseph Estrada Manny Villar Party Liberal PMP Nacionalista Running mate Mar Roxas Jejomar Binay Loren Legarda Popular vote ~15 million ~9 million ~5 million Percentage ~42% ~26% ~15%

Final provincial canvass -- the results of these will be canvassed by Congress.

President before election Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Lakas–Kampi Elected President Noynoy Aquino Liberal

The basis for Villar being there (and the others not being there) is that his number of votes is near the margin between Aquino and Estrada, and he won two rather big provinces. The boldfaced vice-president will be depend on who wins. –Howard the Duck 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Revising the Background section

Right now, the background of the election is written in the form of a timeline. I suggest that we soon transform this into a more formal background output, similar to the one written for Philippine presidential election, 2004. The Mask (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philippine presidential election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091023070134/http://businessmirror.com.ph:80/home/perspective/14399-a-moment-in-history-understanding-poll-automation-for-the-2010-national-and-local-elections.html to http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/perspective/14399-a-moment-in-history-understanding-poll-automation-for-the-2010-national-and-local-elections.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on election canvass articles

Hello, all. I've started an RfC about Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2016 and Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2010 at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#RfC on election canvass articles on whether these are violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Please feel free to engage in discussion there. Thanks.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Edu Manzano at Rally.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)