Jump to content

Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate count

[edit]

This article says Ted Cruz won the support of 551 delegates. Politico and the Wall Street Journal say he won 559 delegates,[1][2] and the RNC says he won 544[3]. Perplexing. Does anyone have a clue which one is correct? SunCrow (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker/
  2. ^ http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/delegates/
  3. ^ https://www.gop.com/official-2016-gop-delegate-count/

Needs more sources

[edit]

The article includes a good deal of unsourced material and has been tagged accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SunCrow I undid your revert because the citations discussing about the GOP's procedures/processes are there: 15, 195, and possibly some others. I also think that we should not remove a large section of a prominent Wikipedia page that has probably been on there for over 2-3 years without a lot of reason to do so besides "remove unsourced". Surely the hundreds, if not thousands of editors prior to this incident agreed or did not find fault with the Processes section. Aviartm (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aviartm, thank you for letting me know about your edit. I have tagged the "Process" section as needing more sources. Multiple paragraphs are completely unsourced. In your edit summary, you said that the sources for this material were listed in other places in the article. They should be added as inline citations here as well. (With respect, I disagree with you that unsourced material that has been in an article for a long time should not be removed without justification. Per WP:VERIFY, any unsourced material in a Wikipedia article can be challenged or removed. Whether or not other editors find fault with that unsourced material is beside the point.) SunCrow (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SunCrow Great! Thank you for adding the template to the section. I agree that the citations should be located where material is mentioned from it within an article. And I understand what you mean with your last point but something that descriptive, surely it is reputable and verifiable somewhere. And as mentioned, looking at the citations that I mentioned, it appears that some of the Processes are there, if not a majority or all. Aviartm (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carson and Bush recently added to infobox, should be taken down

[edit]

Carson and Bush were added to the infobox here only recently, a few days ago. The only apparent reason for this sudden change relates to the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries talk page, where several people, including @Cookieo131: and @Shhhhwwww!!:, argued from Wiki-precedent that only candidates who won at least one contest or 5% of the popular vote were included in the infobox (here, just Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich). So, apparently to advance their argument than *any* candidate with a few delegates should be in a presidential primary infobox, some folks added two candidates who did not meet the 5%/win contest threshold here. I suggest that these two less-significant candidates be removed from the infobox and precedent restored until some uniform standard can be agreed upon.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be removed. The standard should be 5% popular vote, 5% of delegate, or winning any contest. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, the template for a presidential primary infobox actually uses the old 2016 primary box, the one with just four candidates. Agreed on the removal of Carson and Bush by the way. GrapevinePoly (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closes races section desperately inaccessible

[edit]

The close races section is flagrantly against MOS:COLOR and is inaccessible for colorblind readers, and for other readers as well. There is no need to use color in this way to convey the winners of each race. :3 F4U (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I added the winners. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change Vermont?

[edit]

In the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries map, American Samoa is showed as won by Jason Palmer because he won the popular vote there, despite tying his delegate count with that of Joe Biden. Here, despite Donald Trump getting more votes than John Kasich, it is shown as a tie. Should one of either articles be fixed? IntervoidWiki (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No change is needed. The situations are very similar, as are the maps. Please note that there are two maps that are relevant here: the popular vote map and the delegate map. On the 2016 Republican page, Vermont is shown as a tie for delegates and an outright win based on popular vote. Same for the 2024 Democratic page. American Samoa is shown as a tie for delegates and a win based on popular vote. There are buttons in the infobox that will allow you to change the map which is shown. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nevermind, it just starts off on different voting systems per page. No change needed. IntervoidWiki (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1242955287"