Template talk:French presidential election, 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Default sorting order

As per change comment - the user is mostly likely going to expect the table sorted in order of votes - in line with other tables of poll results e.g. see the French page . We should use that ordering as the default - users can still sort, but why choose a default value that many users will not understand? I can understand using a random order prior to the election. However, we now have first round results and the table will be much more useful by altering the order to reflect this. Ronnotel 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

this way to present the things is also used on the french WP. 82.240.207.81 01:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significant figures, decimal places

Med, thanks. I know that's what's on the French Ministry's website but that still doesn't explain why they're doing everything to two decimal places, we don't need it, it just clutters everything-up and makes it harder to read. Just because a government says something doesn't mean it's correct! I can see a lot of people probably aren't going to be able to think progressively on this one, never mind, yours Tom 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should calculate the percentage, the main point I was making was the dogmatic adherence to 2 decimal places simply because that's what the ministry chose to do. Maybe people are used to currency figures which have 2 decimal places for pence or cents.

Sarkozy's exact percentage in second round would be: 53.06478984091%. We don't use this number because it's too much detail. 4 significant figures is 53.06%, 3 significant figures is 53.1%, 2 significant figures is 53% and one significant figure would be 50%. 2 significant figures provides enough detail without too much i.e. a good balance. The point is to provide useful numbers. 53.06478984091% is a more 'precise' number. If someone reads that he got 53% instead of 53.06% will that really change their interpretation of his support amongst the French population? Anyway at the risk of being temporarily defeatist, I don't expect everyone to realise that the 'official' percentages aren't the only way of presenting the results and that it just it makes it more attractive to read without unnecessary significant figures. Tom 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)