To flush wiki cache:file?action=purge tells the servers to purge their cached PNGs and forces the wiki servers to recreate PNGs. From Glrx (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2024
I've uploaded spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for charts in SVG format.
Summary: You simply paste or enter your data into the spreadsheet, and specify image dimensions, number of grid lines, data ranges, font sizes, etc. The spreadsheetsinstantly and automatically generate a column of XML code. You simply copy and paste that code into a text editor and save as an ".svg" file. The spreadsheets produce lean SVG code, and should save you time in creating SVG charts. Though my original spreadsheets are written in Microsoft Excel, I've received reports that they also work if read into other spreadsheet programs.
Warming stripes — Accepts a single dataset and converts to SVG code portrayingEd Hawkins'warming stripes graphics. User chooses vertical or horizontal stripes; normal or reverse data ordering; or from a variety of geometric shapes (updated 17 May 2023). . . . .Click here to see examples of warming stripes embedded in different shapes.
Warming stripes bar chart — Accepts a single dataset and creates a conventional bar chart whose individual bars/columns are coloured according to Dr. Hawkins' warming stripes colour scheme. Alternate option: choose one colour for ascending bars and another colour for descending bars. (updated 28 August 2023)
Line charts — Accepts up to six datasets. (updated 30 August 2023)
Vertical bar charts (column charts) — Accepts up to six datasets. Toggle between clustered and stacked charts; user can adjust "Yfloor"—the Y level (usually=0) from which columns rise or fall; user chooses to keep or ignore negative input values. (updated 27 August 2023)
Horizontal bar charts — Accepts up to six datasets. Toggle between clustered and stacked charts; user can adjust "Yfloor"—the value (usually=0) from which bars extend; user chooses to keep or ignore negative input values. (updated 27 August 2023)
Scatter plots — Accepts up to five datasets. (updated 28 August 2023)
Pie charts — Accepts a single dataset of up to 36 items. (updated 28 December 2025)
Variable-width bar charts — Accepts up to six datasets; is like "Vertical bar charts", above, but user can choose different widths for different bars. (updated 27 August 2023)
Radar charts — Accepts up to six datasets. (updated 6 May 2025)
An Excel .xlsx spreadsheet automatically+ generated the XML code for the following SVG images:
20210502 Warming stripes comparison of Global Mean Surface Temperature datasets.svg +I manually combined five automatically generated images into this one
20210507 Warming stripes - ellipses - global warming.svg
20210522 Warming stripes - longitudes - meridians on a globe - global warming.svg
20210526 Warming stripes - hearts - global warming.svg
20210507 Warming stripes - triangles - global warming.svg
20210530 Warming stripes - diamonds - global warming.svg
20210604 Warming stripes - XLSX to SVG - various Diamond etc configurations - GIF.gif
20210507 Warming stripes - rectangles - global warming.svg
20210517 Warming stripes - pentagrams - stars - global warming.svg
20210508 Warming stripes - hexagons - global warming.svg
20210507 Warming stripes - octagons - global warming.svg
The spreadsheet user can toggle a switch to reverse the order of data, so red is in the center (or left side of first graphic) and blue is at the outside (or right side of first graphic).
The spreadsheet user can choose height and width (in pixels), to compress or expand shape vertically and horizontally, for example, to change an ellipse to a circle or a rectangle to a square.
Latest comment:1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
WITHDRAWN:
Closing this discussion, without deleting it. The discussion has not been productive. — JohnAdams1800 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have a theory that the crux of the realignment in 2024 was thataffluent women voted for Kamala Harris, and lower-income men voted for Donald Trump. The shift among White women with college degrees (8% swing) and Harris winning voters making over $200,000 a year are probably the same shift--affluent women voted for Kamala Harris. I made graphs provided here.
The highest-income I can get from exit polls is voters making over $200,000 a year, which is roughly the richest 10-15% of voters. Kamala Harris won women making over $200,000 a year (presumably household income), and to make that much money one needs to have a college degree. There are almost no voters without college degrees once one crosses above $200,000 a year.
Per the NY Times source and my own analysis of exit poll data, my theory seems to be right. People often overlook affluent women, who are a significant voting bloc. Nearly all affluent women have college degrees. Affluent men obviously supported Trump (i.e. White men with college degrees didn't shift), but affluent women as a voting bloc seemed to support Harris.
I'm looking at the exit poll data for the 2025 Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections. It seems the shift among affluent women has stuck. Both Spanberger and Sherrill had excellent performances among White women with college degrees, who are mostly the same as affluent women.
@JohnAdams1800: I'm not sure what you're asking for, exactly. It's interesting, but: The first issue that comes to mind is that everything added to Wikipedia must be clearly supported by a reliable source. On first read-through, I don't see all the information in your charts in the NY Times source (hard to tell). Such sourcing should be explicitly included in your file description pages (File:2024IncomeGender.png andFile:2024EducationGender.png) here on Commons, and preferably also in captions of the charts in Wikipedia. Second, these charts are a bit complicated, requiring the reader to do a lot of studying to even come to a conclusion; maybe reducing each chart to three line charts would be easier for readers to understand. Third, and related to the second point, you have to be very careful not to enter your own conclusions or projections into Wikipedia content (seeNo original research); reliable sources should do that. Fourth, text inside graphics should be about as large as the narrative text in which the chart is inserted. Separaately, I notice that the JohnAdams1800 account is blocked on English Wikipedia. I hope these ideas are helpful.RCraig09 (talk)06:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The data comes directly from the CNN 2024 exit poll (just filter by men and women for income), and the NY Times article. I made the graphs using RStudio. Because higher educational attainment leads to higher income, the higher-income voted to the left of the lower-income. Specifically, higher-income/higher-education women overwhelmingly voted for Harris, and lower-income/lower-education men overwhelmingly voted for Trump.
The NBC News source provides additional evidence for my conclusion based on my analysis of hard data. White men without college degrees (69-29% Trump) and White women with college degrees (58-41% Harris) are on different planets socioeconomically. Compare women with graduate school degrees to men who never attended college.
This explains the bizarre situation where Kamala Harris won voters making over $200,000 a year, and Donald Trump won voters making between $30,000-49,999 a year.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reviving prior discussion; the education gap is a gender gap
Latest comment:29 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Compare women with college degrees to men without college degrees.
I wanted to ask what you think about making graphs and getting data onthe education gap as it relates to gender.
The education gap (college graduates vs. no college degree) is part of the gender gap. Specifically, there are two main groups: women with college degrees ("white-collar women") and men without college degrees ("blue-collar men"), who are socioeconomically on different planets. The other two groups, men with college degrees and women without college degrees, are both fairly evenly split.
It's why White women with college degrees trended towards Kamala Harris in 2024 (a Black woman with a Juris Doctor). It's also why Hispanic men trended towards Trump in 2024. Hispanic men aren't that different, socioeconomically, from White men without college degrees. I had a theory that people vote based ona common sociocultural/educational identity, and my theory was proven correct.
Educational attainment is about more than just getting a degree. It informs how much money people make, who they interact with and their life experiences, what kind of occupations they have, etc. Educational polarization is only weaker than racial polarization in the Southern United States, and more powerful than the gender gap itself. It explains why women with postgraduate degrees voted for Harris 66-32%, and men who never went to college for Trump 68-31%. Obviously the former is much richer than the latter, but they share a common educational identity with Harris (women with postgraduate degrees) or with Trump (blue-collar men like Trump).
@RCraig09 I'm not going to make claims about any specific demographic group and a permanent realignment, even with sources. It could just have been that Hispanics responded particularly badly to the 2021-2023 inflation surge. I need more elections (i.e. 2026 midterms) to back up any claims of a permanent realignment of Hispanics.
But what I do have are concrete data and graphs that educational attainment must be combined with gender, with sources to back it up. There is a powerful divide among women with college degrees vs. men without college degrees.
I'm still watching elections for how Hispanics are voting. A few counties are pretty good proxies: Imperial County, California; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and South Texas in general. I don't want to make predictions of a permanent realignment of specific demographic groups.
@JohnAdams1800: In case it's not apparent from my post of 06:09 8 Jan: we editors should not be making our own "claims" about anything. There are a few charts that could be properly be inserted into election-related Wikipedia articles, but we should narrowly tailor our captions and narrative text to what reliable references state. We must leave our personal interpretations and conclusions out.RCraig09 (talk)21:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 days ago7 comments2 people in discussion
The image isFile:18980826 Mrs. Felton Speaks - lynching - The Wilmington Weekly Star.jpg and is from Newspaperarchive.com. The errant date occurred because the original creator put together an article from 1898 along with a caption that states "Transcript of August 11, 1898 speech of Mrs. W.H. Felton". I have consulted several sources (including August 12, 1897 newspapers) & they all agree that the speech occurred on August 11, 1897.Here are the URLsː
The 1897/1898 issue occurred because Southern newspapers, leading up to the Fall 1898 elections, reprinted Rebecca Felton's speech to drum up opposition to black suffrage and a black newspaper wrote an editorial against it and then theWilmington massacre occurred. I have removed the image from the Rebecca Felton article and the Wilmington massacre article on Wikipedia and wanted you to know why.Shearonink (talk)07:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The issue is that information within the image itself is incorrect. If you created the embedded 1898 date for the Felton speech?...perhaps. Maybe if you cite the various sources I mentioned above as the reason? Honestly, it's late here and I need to take a break. I'll try to take a look tomorrow...actually later today. Thanks.Shearonink (talk)07:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Shearonink: I have changed the legend in the image, and uploaded it as Version 3 (18:50, 7 February 2026). Would you like to return the file to its previous two locations in En.Wikipedia? (I notice you've made other changes there.)RCraig09 (talk)18:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Should work. I might see what size of the image works best slotted-in with the text. Looks like the previous 2 (errant) Versions have been removed? Thanks,Shearonink (talk)01:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Shearonink: Excellent. The previous two versions have been superseded, not really "removed". The old versions won't show up in Wikipedia articles. I assume you'll replace the two instances in en.WP (the new version is the same "shape" as the originals).RCraig09 (talk)05:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I started tinkering around with both articles and your newǃimprovedǃ image, I think I made the size a 250, instead of a 300. Thanks for correcting the year.Shearonink (talk)06:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
