Jump to content

Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

frontpage WSJ resource

Also on the 27th, Gingrich, Romney Take Off Gloves; Top GOP Contenders Battle Over Housing in Foreclosure-Torn Florida; Romney Slams Gingrich Ad by Patrick O'Connor and Sara Murray 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

=> Consider also contributing insights at Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2012 Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Winner take all states?

IS there some place to find which states are winner-take all states? It would be nice if it were in the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.180.176 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. I believe all the contests before Super Tuesday are proportional and after that, they're mostly winner-takes-all, but it would be good to have a note in the table saying so. Tiller54 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This document from the RNC has all the info on the delegate allocation for each state. Not all contests before Super Tuesday are proportional - Florida is winner-take-all. Basically, the states penalized for going early were not subject to additional penalties for being winner-take-all, so could be winner-take-all in spite of the RNC rules. Simon12 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This information is now in the new schedule table. See discussion about the table (especially under the section: Partial consensus reached) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Winner-take-all versus proportional

Given that the "Guidelines for primary and caucus dates" section discusses the difference in date allocation for proportional versus winner-take-all primaries, I think it would be nice to see that distinction (or more generally the type of allocation) represented in the table in the next section, "Primary and caucus dates". -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to make this info avaible in the new schedule table. See discussion about this table (section: partial consensus reached) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa

Iowa should be striped dark green and orange due to the fact that the Iowa GOP has not declared an official winner and stated that the winner will never be known since the results from 8 precincts have gone missing. As such, Iowa is officially a tie even though Santorum was ahead in the final (incomplete) vote tally. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, it can't say that Santorum "won" Iowa, without a certification. Santorum has currently won the "certified precinct total" (see here), but he's not the "certified winner." But I don't think it's "officially" a tie, either. At this point, it's undecided. --Abidjan227 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is officially a tie.(http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/). So the most correct thing to do would to make the state striped - If that is possible at all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The current statement from the party official is a "split decision." Maybe that can be considered "tie," but it's also suggestive that they will refuse to declare a winner. I agree, however, that a striped state is the best possible solution among bad solutions. --Abidjan227 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and revert The claim is currently alleged and therefore not verified. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa most definitely should be striped. The Iowa GOP hasn't declared Santorum the official winner, and neither should Wikipedia. 161.253.4.236 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

209.59.107.88 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC) I agree, it's odd that Santorum is being declared the winner on Wikipidea.

As I understand it the official line from the party is that they have certified an incomplete count showing Santorum in the lead but are refusing to declare an outright winner. Whether this is indicated on the map by a striped entry for the state or not I cannot say for certain but it should be made obvious in some way that Santorum's 'win' is not unqualified. Shereth 23:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is kind of tricky. Some reports I have read have even suggested that they may end up calling it an tie officially. 70.77.248.99 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing tricky about it. The Iowa GOP Chairman said this afternoon that Santorum won. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120119/NEWS09/120119015/1007/news05. CNN, AP and NBC's election pages all say Santorum won. This page said Romney won with an uncertified 8 vote load, with no footnote. There is now a larger certified lead for Santorum, and all reliable sources are saying Santorum won, so why does this deserve a footnote? While text in the Iowa section is certainly appropriate, the footnote in the table is misleading, and should be removed. Simon12 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The footnote is in no way misleading. Santorum's win is qualified by the fact that the final certified vote count will never be known. It would in fact be misleading to present his win as unqualified in the same context as other wins that do not share this same uncertainty. Shereth 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That's right. I back Shereth here, because it is common sense that a voting record will never be 100% accurate. The idea that some wikipedians can arbitrarily decide to refuse the results of a vigorous and fair recount is ridiculous. Santorum won, and it is only right that a footnote be provided because some readers may look back at the record and find that Romney was declared the winner on election day, and Santorum was declared later. The footnote can provide clarity for readers and is fully warranted.--Screwball23 talk 23:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I put in the footnote, but it looks like it's been removed--and now, rightfully so. The Iowa GOP came out with a statement officially declaring Santorum the winner. No more confusion. --Abidjan227 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Iowa is way too close to call. We are not certain about who won. The news reports said that 8 precincts are missing. With Santorum leading by only 34 votes, I just don't think that's enough to be certain. This wouldn't matter if Santorum had a lead of 10%, or even 1%. Again, this race is razor-thin close. This is even closer than Bush vs. Gore in Florida in 2000. Bush won by 537 votes. Golfcourseairhorn (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Brought up before, but unanswered

This was brought up before but went unanswered. Why is the article in past tense? There are sections in this article that make it sound as if candidates who are still in the race, are no longer in the race., or sentences make it sound as if the race is over. For example, header section second paragraph last sentence, it sounds as if both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are no longer in the race as it says they "also ran in 2012". This should be in present tense as they are currently still running. There's other spots in this article as well.

Also, with the info box at the top of the page showing the candidates, their delegates, what state their from, etc., there's no need to have "Party" on there as they're all Republicans running as Republicans in Republican primaries. JDC808 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good points—tense should be changed as time rolls on. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Feel free to edit.
It can technically go either way. I think I tend towards past unless that sounds weird.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There was a request some time ago to keep the language more encyklopidic and less "news". Maybe the tense problem is a part of it. Then the article can stand the test of time without further work. But of course the best is the right tense and then remember to change it all the time. Jack Bornholm (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource, Jeb Bush

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

See Florida Republican primary, 2012 99.35.12.74 (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What to do about Huntsman? aka How many candidates should the infobox have?

The sources are pretty much unanimous that Huntsman won 2 delegates in New Hampshire before he dropped out. So the question is: should all candidates who won delegates be in the infobox or just those who are actively running for the nomination? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to include all those who won delegates.--JayJasper (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The case with Huntsman is interesting. Because he dropped out before the official result had arrived, and before the delegates was (is?) actually picked. If he had really withdrawn he would not get the delegate, but.... He has actually "only" suspended his campaign. A difference that mostly have to do with campaign contribution rules. So if it stays this way legally he would carry the two delegates to the first ballot at the national convention. Not that it would count for anything, but still interesting Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I think until the Huntsman delegates are identified and confirmed to be supporting another candidate, there's no reason to move them from his count. Simon12 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I think just those in the running until there is a top three like in 2008, and then go with those.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ditto, Metal.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, especially with regards to the total delegate count, I think we should include all candidates who have delegates. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That clarity are found in the result table down in the article. I think the infobox is for people running. Two delegates in New Hampshire dont have much to say nationwide. I say as Metallurgist:"I think just those in the running until there is a top three like in 2008, and then go with those." Jack Bornholm (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, I withdraw my previous comments and now agree w/ Metallurgist & Jack B. - keep only active candidates in infobox until there is a top three.--JayJasper (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have been doing a little research to see how other republican primary articles have done. It seems that at least those candidates that have carried at least one state is put in the infobox. See Republican Party presidential primaries, 1964] as an example. Of course it is not made in the course of the race :). But years from now it might look at bit strange that Santorum will be noted on the map in the infobox and not with a picture. But that is a problem for later, maybe both Santorum and Gingrich stay in the race to the end and Paul drops out. (not likely but time will tell) Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Paul wont drop out. They are setting up campaign operations in June states already.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul / Rick Santorum Photographs

The photographs need to be switched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.1.54 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum's Delegate Count

Hi - are you sure Santorum only has eight delegates from Iowa? The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/jan/03/gop-nomination-2012-primary-results#state=IA) suggests he now has 13 being as he actually won the state, and before then, I believe it still recorded 12 delegates for him. Meanwhile, CNN's Election Calculator (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/calculator/) on which the Wikipedia figure is based completely contradicts this. In fact the more I read into these two sets of figures, the more conflicting the two tables seem to be - they also disagree on the Iowa delegate count - who the hell is right? RomanInDisguise (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutly no one is right. There is no delegates from Iowa period. The first delegates will not be elected before april. And when they are elected they will not be bound to vote for any candidate at the National Convention.
To seriousely predict what will happen in Iowa you will need to start get reports from each precint caucus, guessing on what the delegates elected at this caucus to the CD and State convention will do. What will be most likely happen to the conventions. Will the NC delegates from Iowa most likely declare themselve for one candidate or the other? Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If Iowa is not counted, Santorum actually has ZERO delegates since he only is projected to win delegates from Iowa so far. He placed near last in New Hampshire, while South Carolina and Florida were winner-take-all. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

True, but an RNC delegate have pledge himself to Santorum Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
RNC delegates, also known as superdelegates, are all unpledged, right? FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No, that depend what state they are from. Most of them are unbound, but as an example the 3 RNC delegates (also known as automatic delegates) from Nevada are legally bound to vote for the candidate they get assign to at the caucus on saturday. The ones that are not legally bound by state rules can pledge (commit) themselve to anyone they like and are not legally bound to keep that pledge. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Information needed: open v closed, winner take all vs proportional

It would be very useful if the chart of primaries and caucuses could indicate not only the date and number of delegates but whether the primary is open or closed (ie open to voters of any party or restricted to registered Republicans) and whether they are "winner take all" or if delegates are distributed proportionately. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that it's not as simple as winner-take-all vs proportional. The rules may be different for the statewide and Congressional District (CD) delegates, and there may be thresholds that turn proportional into winner-take-all. This document from the RNC has all the info on the delegate allocation. Simon12 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to make this info avaible in the new schedule table. See discussion about this table (section: partial consensus reached) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[1] does not make it look as though Nevada's award of delegates is "proportional", as the table says; while it's not terribly detailed, it looks like the same scheme Iowa uses. 24.228.112.54 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand how that info could be interpreted that way, but it's misleading. It's referring to the election of the delegates, not the pledging of those delegates. This document from the RNC clearly says Nevada is statewide proportional. Simon12 (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What should happen to the time table in the calendar section?

The discussion about the timetable have been kept in 3 different places on the talkpage. I have pasted those 3 different sections together so we can get a coherent discussion

Table

Can we please remove the pointless table under the calender section? Like I said, everything that is in the table can easily be found more than a few times in this article AND on the "results" article. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'Primary Schedule' under the 'Calendar section' is good and lets reader jump easily to the state races. It provides an overview of the calendar making this Article of high importance, IMO (in my not-so-humble opinion). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, as discussed below, each state can easily be "jumped to" elsewhere (multiple times) in the article. The whole entire article is an overview of the calender. If you want more in depth information, you can easily go to two (and if you count the state pages) or more pages and find detailed information. It is 100% redundant, makes the article messy, unorganized, and will be a major reason why this article will be unable to get to featured status. Honestly, if the table is so important, lets erase everything else but the section before it, and then I will call the table neccessary and not redundant. But then, it will be an article with a table and a paragraph. The table barely contributes to the articles high important status.68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting perspective, but the table is ONLY part of the article that I have read, because it gives me a clear overview of the results. IMO, the rest of the article is noise that does not really interest me. Zzmonty (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the Timetable be removed?

The question has been raised if the time table is redundant.

User: 68.39.100.32 have erased it twice with the following two comments as his contribution remark: " like I said, the table is redundant; there is a timeline already under "early states", there is a complete timeline in another article. its completely redundant to leave the table on this page" "the table is COMPLETELY REDUNDANT; we have a whole article devoted to what the table was there for, we have the winners multiple times, we have dates multiple times, and we have the candidates, and results multiple times, its VERY redundant"

I would say it is not redundant. Since this is United States presidential election, 2012 timeline is very comprehensive and it is not easy to get a quick look at the primiary dates. The timeline under "early states" does not cover other than early states. The information on how the delegates are elected in congressional districts or at-large in the state are only displayed in this table. It is true that the winners of eacj state are displayed multiple times in this article. I like to see how the "game" unfoldeds chronological, but maybe these colums should be removed. What do you think about this?

Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the complete timeline of all the contests, early as well as late?

We have this linked multiple times throughout the article. On this page, as time moves forward, the timeline of events will expand.

Where is the info about delegates elected in Congressional Districts and At-Large?

First, you can find the delegate totals and breakdowns, both future and present at the results page. There is no need to have 5 articles devoted to this breakdown, and/or continuing multiple reference discrepancy. Second, the specifics are completely irrelevant to a page that is supposed to give an 'overview' of the election.

What about the winners, etc.?

Look at the infobox, the candidates section, the early states section.

You can put in these information elsewhere or simplify the table and then erase the table.

This information is elsewhere, see above. No need to keep a completely redundant table.

[2] - here is your timeline and delegate breakdowns

68.39.100.32 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is redundant. Plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or just wants to make this editing more inefficient and has way, way too much time on their hands.--Screwball23 talk 14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not how things work on Wikipedia. You dont forge a 2-1 opinion on a major part of an article in 9 minutes. This action was brash and your reasoning was curt and insultingly dismissive to many other editors here. I am restoring the table and if you have a problem with it, you can bring up an actual discussion here and wait until a consensus forms. As you can see below and here, there are many supporters of the table. Just because you two think it is redundant and want to take a scimitar to this article does not make it correct.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That is absolutely untrue. The states are all listed at the very bottom and all the states that have voted are covered with ongoing information. The idea that this is a major part of the article that is so necessary that it needs to be stated 1- time in the campaign developments, 2- times with the navigation box at the bottom, and 3- times with the table, is a huge exaggeration and is undue weight of trivial information easily accessible on the page already. If you can have a discussion explaining why it it is necessary to have information 3 times on the same page, please do. --Screwball23 talk 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not if the table is redundant, but if the table is needed. I go to this article after every primary to find out the current election results for the Republican party. The table gives me that info. The title of the article makes sense. "2012 Republican Primary". I would never in a million years think "I should type in the word timeline to get the election results." Only people who are anal about writing Wikipedia articles think that way. Normal citizens who just want to know the current election results for the Republican party don't. If an editor is so worried about redundancy, then make the table a template, and include the template wherever one believes the info would be valuable to the reader. That is the purpose of templates. When the elections are over and the article moves from the status of current events to history, then you can worry about redundancy. But when the article is current events, redundancy is good, because it ensures that people get the info they want in a way that they expect to get it.

Take into account, what people "want" in this article right now (details about the election results as they happen), is going to be different than why will want / expect in 2014 when this article is truly history (an overview of the Republican primary), and if somebody wants to see the details, to go to a timeline page.

One cannot write an encyclopedia quality article about current events, because it is not possible. Current events are in constant motion where history is a snapshot of a particular period of time. The writing styles are different, because the needs of a audience are different. Zzmonty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC).

Who removed the calendar

Im all cool with cutting down redundancy and article size, but now theres no page where you can easily find all the primaries. I came here today hoping to be able to easily click the Virginia primary. That old table is needed somewhere. Maybe put it on the timeline or make a new page "primary calendar". and sublink it here Thanks :)--Metallurgist (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Look above this section, there is discussion if the time table should be cut or not. The ones that wanted it cut didnt give much time for debate before it was cut Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Please bring calendar back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.110 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I made a new schedule, but maybe a table is better or maybe it will all be gone tomorrow. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks thats good and its still there, but Im going to restore the table. If they want to try to delete it again, they can put it up for discussion instead of acting like rogues.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is a page where you can easily find all of the primaries- Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. Which is linked as a see also page for the section. I reverted to the 'less' redundant calender section, though I do wish to remove it altogether. This page is an 'overview' not an all-in-depth-reundancy-extra-detail-tell-all-and-repeat page. If we have another page with the SAME EXACT thing, I find it pointless to have it listed multiple times, AND then have a completely useless table telling us this information... again. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I find that the original table (as in have been reinstated) is a very good part of this article. It means I can easy get a view over all the contests and even go in fast way to the different articles on the individual contests. It makes it possible to fast find a state or a date, depending on what you prefer. I dont think it is redudant at all. It is an essentiel part of this general article about the 2012 race. This is the main article from where you go to all the other articles. That is my opinon. I respect that others have another opinion, but I dont respect that some have no respect for the way a consencus are formed and no respect for the other people that have stated their oppionion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack B, Thanks for your work. I think the calendar is great, needed, and more important than reducing the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain why its great and why its needed? And why it should take priority over a poorly presented and messy article?68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for asking. The Article looks great with a lot of good content. The Article says it is under revision. It is not necessary to make it look concise until after Super Tuesday, at the earliest. People have put a lot of work in and it should not be tossed out at this point. Major changes here should come with consensus. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. We are editing the article now. This isn't a major change - we are removing a table which is completely redundant. We can get to everything and get the information there throughout the article.Walepher (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we create a box at the bottom of the screen? Nav box I think. That way, all you need to do is scroll down to the "2012 Republican Race - States" box, click on "Alabama" and see the info about Alabama? Or just go to the claender section and click on Results and then click on the states? Both options have the dates... The nav box can be made in chronological order. It's fast too. You have to wait for the page to load to go to either section, your way or my way. We have the states listed at the bottom of the article, we have the winners and delegates in about 2 or 3 maybe more sections, and we have the dates and links to the states in different sections. The whole idea that all of this needs to be in a table is completely undermining the whole idea of separating this information into each state's separate results and information, plus all of the other articles devoted to this ONE election.68.39.100.32 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

{{2012 Republican primaries}} -- look at that. its already made :D68.39.100.32 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why dont we stop being a rogue anonymous editor? Its currently 4-2 against you. Cease and desist removing it unless a consensus is achieved that supports your view. --Metallurgist (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. Please keep the calendar on this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The rationale is clearly for its removal. Not only are there links to the results of the state by state primaries, there is a navigation box with all of the states listed. I have not seen a SINGLE reason for its inclusion, and I advise you to stop your editwarring. It is not right to ignore the fact that it is redundant and continue to scream foul while editwarring it back on again and again. Period.--Screwball23 talk 06:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Now we are up to 5-2 and you continue to ignore how Wikipedia works and carry out your own desires. Once again, please STOP reverting or editing until a consensus is formed. You dont delete content and then wait for people to give justification against that. You provide your case, then others, and we talk about it. After a few days, we see what the consensus is and sometimes take a vote. If the dispute continues, a 3rd opinion is brought in. For others, Screwball has been reported. Apparently he is a repeat offender and ignoring consensus, editwarring, and rogue editing are trademarks of his.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks like we are at a 5-4 concensus so far. Like Screwball previously said, usually when something is so obviously redundant, it is removed without a consensus. There is not many reasons to keep the calender. Like the previous 4 editors suggested, it 'is' completely redundant.Walepher (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is probable cause and proof that this table should be kept, I agree that it should be removed. The evidence that it should be removed is pretty strong, actually. The fact that you insist on denying that, and additionally want a consensus, just proves that you are only interested in preserving something that you want. At the same time, your selfish desires are preventing a page from becoming good and thorough. You haven't presented one shred of evidence that compares to the strong argument the anonymous user has put forward. It doesn't matter if the table is good or looks pretty to your eyes. It looks like these editors have strong feelings to improve this article, whereas you just want to keep it the same. In regards to the editor above who suggested keeping it until Super Tuesday- I am focused on improving this article now. That excuse it similar to the argument of a lazy person who does not wish to get waste his time on a silly argument about a redundant table. I suggest editors on this page remove it promptly.LookinPace (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You say its 5-4 before you two even posted? Sounds like more sockpuppetry or voterigging. It isnt obviously redundant. More people want it than Screwball and his suspected sockpuppet, so it stays until it can be argued out. We cant have discussion and arrive at consensus if a continuously rogue editor keeps reverting the page.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Acually, it isn't automatically not redundant because a consensus is formed. And the point that a few of the editors have pointed out is that you CAN'T argue it. We have had these three sections for about a week and you still haven presented a ligitamate arguement. Saying "Oh, it's not redundant" doesn't hide or rebute the fact that it IS redundant with a fairly solid argument. And I am sorry, but thinking I am a sockpuppet of a user you havent even presented the ip address for is pretty low. If there was a way to report you for jumping to illegitimate conclusions, I would. All that these five editors have brought up is the lack of substance and logic for keeping a table. Without saying "It looks nice", there may be two editors that truly support you. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless you, since you are the primary person on here unsuccessfully making a case, don't provide suggestions, rebute my suggestion and the other four users, I will be removing the table in 24 hours. You seem to be counting everyone that says it should stay but fail to count the ones that have presented clear rebutted to the facts I have presented. It's pretty evident to me at least that there is a strong opinion against the table while you and 4 other people go around saying that it is very good.68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep the table. I am using it and readers will find it the best source and resource. This is the best article on the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. I tried the suggestion to go to other pages for information, and as noted below, the information is often not correct. The reader finds here in one place all of the state primaries and can sort by date, state, or delegation size, and then click to go to the respective states. What reader will know to go below more than 300 listed references to link to find the calendar? I did and found only seven states listed. Of those, two links did not work and Florida was listed for January 29th not Tuesday January 31st. (I fixed the entry). Lets work on filling out the other state contest pages (they are very slim, especially after Super Tuesday) before tossing the best source. At some time, consolidation and improvements can be made. It is not good to expect Wikipedia readers (and editors) to click through several pages only to find the data is incomplete and wrong. Keep up the good work! . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is also the results page, listing the same exact information. To keep this information simply because a reader can list it differently is not the sole purpose of Wikipedia. In fact, of all of the things on Wikipedia, making a nice, neat, flowing page with bountiful information takes priority over this. I agree, we can add information to the states pages, but having the states pages multiple times is not going to help the situation of trying to get rid of or condense the table.68.39.100.32 (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

68 you still dont seem to understand how things work here. You dont decide whose opinions "count". And we havent had the opportunity to discuss because you and your cohort keep deleting the table. We have all given some reasoning for why it should be there. Infoboxes are redundant. Lets delete all of them. You cant just invalidate the views of five people because you dont like the view. Thats not how consensus works. Consensus works where theres a concluding opinion, with opponents yielding to the others and accepting their opinions. The fact that we are still firm in our thoughts shows that consensus has not formed. This discussion is to continue until it does, or at some point we bring in a third party. And the reason I provided no IP for Screwball is because I cant trace his IP at my user level.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the table, as per this discussion, it is pretty evident that (now with me) SIX, 6, people would like this table removed. I can serve as the third party. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia at all. Please, Metallurgist, before I -- and possibly others-- report you for insisting on an edit war after denying a consensus, do not just wisk away five other people's strong arguments. I see no reason how this table improves this page at all.46.165.193.133 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been no discussion because certain users keep unilaterally editing major parts of the article. I dont know where you get six from. You are just plain lying. Where did you come from? No one went anywhere to solicit a third party yet. I said above that if no consensus can be reached, THEN a third party is solicited on a project page or admin page. You havent been very active on Wikipedia, so you dont know how things work, or what articles should look like, that doesnt make you a good third opinion. Ill give you credit for trying Screwball, but its getting pretty obvious with your continual disregard for Wikipedia policy now and in the past and your record.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I do think the editor miscounted... It's 5 to 4, not 6 to 5. But there has been discussion for a week. Unfortunately, all you have done is said that the sky is black when I give pretty solid evidence that the sky is blue. And actually, how is that user's opinion bad? It looks like he has been editing for the past month. It doesn't look like he has done anything bad.68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There has not been discussion for a week. There was 9 minutes between suspected sockpuppets and a unilateral edit. Then complaints, then an edit war, then a report. There has never been a chance to discuss it. If you and your cohorts had just let it be and allow us all to discuss it, maybe it would have reached some consensus by now. But ye chose to repeatedly disregard Wikipedia policies. And now Im just waiting for administrative action. I left the page unreverted as it was getting frustrating to deal with ye and I want to conserve Wikipedia resources. So dont take it as a surrender. It isnt.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
But the thing is, you have had plenty of time to explain why it should be left in the article. You just choose not to. Every time.68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE WP:LISTN WP:NOT WP:WHENTABLE: There some articles to take a look at while you wait for administrative action.68.39.100.32 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually both sides have explained themselve. But it looks to me like not all want to hear what is said. Just because one part finds it redudant doesnt mean it is. Others, including me, have mention how they find it usefull. So dont belittle the other editors. Jack Bornholm (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
People have mentioned how they have find it useful. I responded. They did not. I mean, I understand if you don't post because you cant respond to what I said, but with this constant arguement that Metal is persisting on, I would expect to have a very clear and precise arguement similar to what I have laid out with strong facts to back it.68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you reading all the parts of the discussion, not just fighting wiht Metalurgist? I think mr. Charles Edwin Shipp have a really good point just above. As a responds to something you said actually. I understand that you think it will be more easy to find the informations if they are spread out in the different state race articles. But some of us find it nice to have a central table where it is possible to see the big picture. Jack Bornholm (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise: Lets remove the colums Winner, second and third since these informations are elsewhere in the article. In that way there will still be a easy to handle table where one can get a view of the whole primary scedule in a fast way in this article. (I think we should keep the information about the different kinds of delegates in the states. No where else is a composite of how all the states have chosen to distribute their delegates. A colum about winner take all contra proportionel could be added. These information are very important to the race, especially if it will be a long one. And they should be in some form in this articel so everyone can see the connections for themselve. Not simply spread out in the different state contests sections.) Jack Bornholm (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be an easy to read table of primary dates. The winner information can easily be found in multiple areas in the article, but locating primary date information for all the states is very inconvenient without the table. Rxguy (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not a calendar. The state by state coverage is already there, as well as the navigation box, and a link to the Results of all the state by state contests in order. The table is way too redundant considering how well-covered the information is on linked pages. I'm also insulted by the immaturity of Metallurgist here, who has completely beat around the bush when asked to give a logical rationale. Instead he has resorted to some accusations of sockpuppetry to try to spin around his dismal case; the facts are, consensus is not on his side and he knows it.--Screwball23 talk 05:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Redundant or not is a matter of opinion, but it is actually a calendar of the contests no matter what stand you take. And the argument of RXguy is that the all the good information you mentioned is not gathered in a few lines as this calendar. Instead of personal fights, what would you say to the compromise? Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
By your logic, we shouldnt have the infobox at top either. The info is there after all. But in actuality, its not there. Thats why we want the table, so we can find this info quickly and easily. I have not been immature at all. I have not resorted to insults or anything. You have dismissed our opinions, been very rude, disregarded the standards Wikipedia uses, etc. You were clearly editwarring, so thats that. Then you appear to have engaged in sockpuppetry as well, so I reported that. Was it with prejudice? Yes, because you were viciously disrupting this article and talkpage with your actions and have a long history of similar actions. There has been no consensus, once again, because you and Screwball never allowed one to take place. I took action before there even was much discussion because of the rogue editing. So you cant say I lost when the discussion barely even took place. I clearly dont know I lost if 5 people back me up and have the same opinion.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Metallurgist, I left a note on your TALK page; then I went to the talk page of Anonymous-68 and left this message for him or her:
SUBJECT: Words between Alice (in Wonderland) and the Cheshire Cat: "Who . . . are . . . you ? "
Sign in as a real person to be respected as an editor. .!. . . . Respectfully, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

Okay... So, going along with Jack's idea, can we please compromise? This is honestly getting annoying. I have a suggestion that should satisfy everyone. This version is good. It isn't messy and it gets rid of the whole table aspect. It is also pretty less redundant. And I know Jack, that you mention that we should have the delegates there, but I say, maybe someone could put them next to the states? Have a note at the top of the sections explaining what they are. I don;t think we should go into detail about the super delegates, the projected, and pledged, ext. If we want to do detail of that sort, we should leave it to the results page and/or the individual states page. Here is an example of what I am talking about: Alabama (20) Can we have opinions on this please? :)68.39.100.32 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly dont see any reason to compromise or negotiate with someone who editwars, is rude, ignores Wikipedia policy, and almost certainly is a sockpuppet. Why dont you stop obsessing over something that many people like being there and doesnt in anyway detract from the article and go on to more productive editing? Youre not going to lose any face or respect by this since you already lost our respect with your shenanigans. That compromise isnt a compromise. Its pointless. I really suggest you go talk to the infobox people and tell them that their templates are redundant because people can just scroll down and click around.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I made the section that is suggested as a compromise. Please dont bring that back. The Table is much better because it is possible to sort it the way you need. If you want to find a state you sort it this way, if you want to find a date your sort it that way.
I made the suggested section after the table had been removed several times and, at least I felt so, there had been very unkind and harsh language and arbitary removal of my (among others) work. I felt like leaving this page for good, but then others ask for the information back and I felt I should use my new knowledge to give them at least something.
I dont have a problem, I can find my information in other websites. As an european I got intrigued by your (americans) democratic system during this election cycle. Quit frankly for an ignorant european it seems very strange, very old and do I dare to say almost undemocratic. But as I learn more about the whole system works and how diverse american must be I got another wiev on the matter. I have visited New York several times (passing by on bussiness in Caribia or South America), but now I really hope to take a roadtrip through US sometime.
Sorry I got away from the point. Please dont replace the table with my half done work. Keep the table. It can be shorten down to 2 colums (dates and states) or 3 colums (delegates) or 4 (a new colum on the sort of contest, winner take all versus others). I vote for 4 colums, but I will go anyway the consensus goes. Just dont replace the table with my sorry work. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That puts a whole new spin on uncooperative.... I'm actually obsessing over the fact that we can IMPROVE something. With your response, it is painfully obvious you don't want to improve anything. Arrogance.... Although you are unwilling to compromise and find common ground, I am sure many editors on here are. But Jack, the whole point I, and many others, are trying to make, is that a table on this page is messy. The format you suggested before is good- its neat, it has the information there. Why just focus on arranging the information by pressing a few buttons?68.39.100.32 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but before I started to know many or the state contest better this fact, that I could get information by pressing a few buttoms was very important to me. And I think it still is to my fellow europeans. If we make the table slimmer i cant split it in two next to each other (two big colums with the whole table in so to speak). Then it will look less messy. I think my arrangement makes the article look messy. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Adding to that- why do people need to sort it at the state or date level? Alphabetical, date. All of the states are there. The Navbox has the states in Alphabetical order. The schedule doesn't need to appease those people. The date should be in order - reverse or not it is there that way. If they want it in a random order, the Navbox has it Alphabetically. The delegates should be next to the states. I don't see why we have to sacrifice neatness for sorting 'delegates'. That's just silly IMO. 68.39.100.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

Jack, the way you did it made it look 90% neater than it currently is. It got rid of 80% of the redundancy this table currently has, too.68.39.100.32 (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well personally I like all the redundant stuff :) :). But lets hear what other editors mean about this, and the we can get a compromise before we know it. So please give your voice to this Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. What do you think of the first few states I have played around with here?68.39.100.32 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I personally think that it needs the first 4 columns at least: Date, State, Type, and Delegates. Having the winner column is also nice but for the sake of making a neater table removing the second and third place columns would be alright. For those interested, we will not have to put up with Screwball23, aka 68.39.100.32's other account as he was just blocked for 1 month for repeatedly edit warring. Rxguy (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hay I like the table as it is, I would even consider adding a colum with the kind of delegate "distribution" (winner takes all/proportional/state convention/ect) if the work isent going to be thrown out. But if someone wants an neater table I can understand that. (But I have been looking at the article, and the so much discussed table is followed by another table in the next section just as wide. Maybe it look more messy on other computers than this one) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing against having wide tables. I edit this page mostly, United States Senate elections, 2012, and there are 2 very large tables there, one multiple times larger than this one, and editors don't seem to have any problem with it so it't not like this is a unique situation. These tables provide a concise source of information that is convenient for viewers. I like the idea of adding a column showing how delegates are allotted, but I just don't know how messy that could get since some states have winner take all "pledged" delegates and "unpledged" delegates at the same time. Rxguy (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But a table is not necessary in this article. There are always other ways to approach it. Even a Wikipedia article says to limit the use of tables. The delegates are not needed (in this calender section), nor are the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place finishers. I would also try to get around from listing the type. Thus I don't see a need for a formal table. Maybe someone can fool around with this on a sandbox? I wouldn't even mind putting the table on another page, such as the already made caldener page as suggested here User talk:Metallurgist.68.39.100.32 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this is all we need:

This lists the: Date, State, Type, Delegate count (things you all want) It gets rid of: 1st, 2nd, 3rd place finishers and the detailed delegate breakdowns; it makes it neater and simpler and is not too big; it gets rid of the table (things I, and other users, do not want)

First, let's wait for the result of the sock-puppet investigation before you say there are "others" as it appears that those "others" don't really count. Right now you are the only one arguing for this with three editors opposed to it. And how is that any better? That takes up just as much space and is not clean and neat like a table. Rxguy (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I dont know where you get this idea that the table looks messy. It looks very neat, organized, and concise—exactly what a table is supposed to look like. Instead you want to replace it with a hideous, jumbled mess that Jack designed desperately to get the info back. You keep bringing up this nonsense claim of redundancy. I dont see whats redundant about it because we cant get that information anywhere else in an organized fashion. And again, why dont you complain about infoboxes. Those are definitely redundant. The table is fine, looks nice with the article, and you and a deluge of accounts suddenly appear to coincidentally agree at the same time. I honestly am beginning to think you are just here to stir up trouble (vandalism) because your argument makes absolutely no sense, especially claiming the columns above are neater and less messy.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I put in a new TABLE. Made it simpler. And I am 'compromising'.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, how about you wait until we agree to it. If you are not going to follow the principles of consensus, go make your own encyclopedia.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Honestly, this is all we need" work listed just now looks great, neat, concise, and since there are only 50 states, you can see any state readily. FYI, the current replacement (like the excellent table before, but wrapping in two, does not sort properly at all: not by delegation size and not by state. It cannot remain. . . . Keep up the good work! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The sole function of a table is to make things neat, organized, and easy to read. The work posted here is an utter mess compared to the table and does not look professional. Keep the original table, tweak it if needed, but don't use the one split in two as it has the problems mentioned. Rxguy (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The table is redundant, it looks ugly, the list is better. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And still I question why we even have anything there at all....68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, that doesnt seem to be the point, as I have made the case for a Compromise. Now that it seems we are getting somewhere with the list, I say: The list it must be! :D In all honesty, besides keeping the table to use to sort, why should we keep it over the list? The list is way nearer than the table (I really wouldn't be suggesting it otherwise)..68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Great, now we have sockpuppets and meatpuppets giving opinions. This is becoming very productive. Rxguy (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
How is he/she a meat puppet and a sockpuppet? The excuses you guys come up with....68.39.100.32 (talk) 04
30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Screwball23, possibly you pending the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation, and his other accounts were commenting earlier in this section, those are sockpuppets. A meatpuppet is someone who is recruited to the conversation to support your position. Did you not post to Lolthatswonderful's talk page specifically for him to join you? Rxguy (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I, not Screwball, posted on his talk page to join the conversation. I did that because according to WP:CAN, it is acceptable to have someone join when they have been editing the page. It's acceptable to do that as long as I don't pursuade or try to pursuafe the user. The invite i posted looks pretty genetic to me. He could have said I suck and shouldnt be on this earth for all I knew.68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to you as the recruiter of the meatpuppet. Out of all the frequent editors to this article you singled out one person to invite to this discussion. That would lead me to believe that you knew this user or his viewpoint beforehand, otherwise you would extend the invitation to many editors. This is considered vote-stacking and is an inappropriate form of canvassing. Rxguy (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This guy has to be a troll. "The table is redundant, it looks ugly, the list is better." How does that make sense to any reasonable, sane human? A jumbled mess is orderly, but a nice neat table is redundant and ugly. Weve all been had guys. This guy is having the laughter of his life at our expense. He just has to be a troll. And how is it redundant anyway? You havent really explained that, especially since the infobox is also redundant. Actually Wikipedia is redundant. All the sources are out there.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't just that guy who has said that. And you are really taking this out of proportion. I have explained how it is redundant. Many times actually. The list is 'less' redundant. I have just tried to argue to remove it. But since you are incapable of seeing reason, I decided to try and compromise. But since you are incapable of that, I have reached out to a few editors in the most generic way possible in order for them to give their opinion without you sugar-coating everything.68.39.100.32 (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Metallurgist -- LOL. I am a troll? Just because my username is Lolthatswonderful?
Redundant
  • Column of dates -- already summarized in the calendar image and also listed here.
  • Column of states -- already summarized in the calendar image and also listed here.
  • Column of types -- already listed here.
  • Column of delegates -- no one wants to add up the "RNC" "CD" "AL" delegate totals to find out the total delegates from each state, plus, the totals are already listed here.
  • Column of winner/2nd/3rd -- already listed under "Candidates->Primary contenders", also listed in the box at the top of the page with in the map, overview, also listed here.
  • Column of source -- this is unnecessary because you can find all the information from one source.
If the sources were removed, the types were changed to just "primary" and "caucus", the delegates were combined to show the total, and the dates were shortened to "Feb 1", "Jan 31", "May 5", etc, then the table would not look bad.
--Lolthatswonderful (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did this comment get erased? (as far as I can see by anonumyse user: 68.39.100.32) Some technical reason, a mistake or have I simply overlooked something?

"Hello, sorry I don't know the format for commenting. I am a political consultant and campaign operative, and I depend on this Wikipedia page to have that table. It is the most convenient source of information as to the sequence, concurrency, delegate value, prop/takeall, etc. The list looks like a mess. The table is easier to read. I can't believe the conversation I have just read above. None of you know me, I seldom comment or edit. Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.246.194 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think this man have as much right to speak as anyone else Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You think he isn't, say, Metal? Lol. Look at his contributions. I say we should have a sockpuppet investigation of Metal. A political consultant? At least that other IP had signifigant contributions other than editing this talk page. If you guys get to dismiss 5 of us, I think it's fair I dismiss 1 of you.68.39.100.32 (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wouldnt that not be a case of the pot calling the kedle black? One anonymuse user dismissing another? You can dismiss whatever you want, but dont start to remove parts of the discussion or censor it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And why did this comment get erased? Is someone censoring this talkpage?

Who's stupid idea was it to remove the results table?
Horrible editing decision to remove that table. That's the only reason I kept coming back to the page. Please bring it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.215.50 (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain this to me. How many more delects will I find going through the editing history? Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To 68, I am not taking this out of proportion. You and Screw are the ones going ballistic over a table. You have some sick obsession with removing it. Its one thing to oppose it, another thing to strongly oppose it for an extended period of time when many people have expressed support for it. We didnt have much of a debate until the past few days, so anything before that doesnt really count. And is there really a need to compromise when youre now the only person against it and your argument is feeble? Yes you reached out to other editors, also known as your friends or proxies.

To Lol, you assume that I referred to you as the troll? Is that an admission of guilt that Lol, 68, and Screw are the same? You claim all of that is redundant because its all on the results page. If youre going to argue that, you can argue that any number of things on Wikipedia are redundant. All kinds of things are repeated on pages. I thought you guys meant it was redundant on the page, which would be a reason to remove it if there was no other organized listing like that (there isnt and the navbox doesnt count). Infoboxes might fit as redundant under my previous sentence, but people rarely argue against them. Its all meant for a quick glance at the table, or to get to things easily. The sources are something I would be ok with removing, however they are there to prove the delegate counts and dates. If these sources are moved to the individual pages of the primaries, then I think that would probably make it ok to remove it here.

To 68, that guy isnt me. The tone and structure are quite distinct from my tone and structure. Not to mention my IP is different and he locates to another state than I.

To Jack, 68 might be blanking other comments.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The delete occurred here by 68. It appears accidental. This fellow put it back. Look at that 68, I can take your side when youre actually innocent.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal Discussion

A number of editors have expressed concern with the table that is currently in the article. At the same time, just as many editors feel the table is good. We are unable to come up with a compromise. Should the table stay or be removed or replaced?11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

It seems that this anonymous user and an editor invited for vote-stacking are the only ones proposing this change with at least 5 editors deeply opposed to it. The proposed change is messy and does not look professional. It is also just as "redundant" as the table that is currently there while at the same time being far less easy to use. Since there is overwhelming support for the original table and this anonymous user appears to want to have everything his own way rather than abide by the consensus, I say we consider this issue over. Rxguy (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'Primary Schedule' under the 'Calendar section' is good and lets reader jump easily to the state races. It provides an overview of the calendar making this Article of high importance. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think the table should stay. Let us get on with improving and making this article more correct and perfect (including the table in discussion). We have used much time on this Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As of right now the list looks better than the table. If the table were cleaned up and simplified then the table would be OK. But right now I am in favor of the list. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears that the consensus is for keeping the table and making improvements to it. I am counting Metallurgist as part of this consensus as he has voiced his view previously. One thing that I do agree needs to be fixed on the table is the removal of the Source column. There must be a single source from which this info can be gathered rather than citing a news source for each one. This is one possible step towards improvement, but the consensus is that the table is more beneficial and professional than the list so it will remain. Rxguy (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • On my talkpage I have put an new version with some "better" informations. It is proberly not very neat, but it is mean :) At the time of posting this I havent finished it, but you will se example on how to solve the problems with local rules (example minnesota) and how the different categories of allocation will be.
This version leaves the whole district contra state to the articles about the individual contests. Instead it process the information a bit, making it clear how many delegates that actually can be won in the contest, and how many that are still up in the air. That seems to be a source of continued misunderstanding. Forget about RNC delegates, some states make the bound most make them unbound. There is just the delegates the candidates can win on the day (bound) of the contest and the delegate they have to persuade and the ones they have to make their supporters fight about on different conventions (unbound).
Go have a look! Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I am okay with your improved table, Jack. If we do end up using that, however, I would suggest removing the winner, second palce and third place finishers. I would not be opposed to that. I also think the source column should be removed. And there are plenty of editors opposed to the table. I don't see the big problem with removing it. Like 4 editors have suggested, it is completely redundant. I came here due to the tag up there, by the way.SirKingMan (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It could be a possibility to remove the winner, second and third place. Worth talking about.
And welcome to the wikipedia by the way. I see that you made your first contribution this saturday. Hope you will like your new editor account Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that you are new to this so I will inform you and all newcomers that Screwball23, LookinPace, Walepher, and 46.165.193.133 who supported removing the table were recently found to be the same person, ie the latter three are sockpuppets of Screwball23. He is already banned for a month for edit warring and after administrative action for this offense it will be safe to say Screwball23 will not be editing for a very long time. That means the overwhelming majority is for keeping the table.
That being said, I like that version of the table Jack. I think showing bound and unbound like that is more meaningful than the way it is currently shown. Rxguy (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the source colum as suggested. Many of the links was anachronistic in nature anyway. Leftovers from the articles early days when the GOP had its schedule war. All the information or 98% of it can be found in the "playbook" I have put a reference to on my talkpage. That is really gold. A few changes have been made in the penalized states but that is all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I TOLD everyone I wasn't a sockpuppet. Anyway, I do like your table Jack. I also support removing the winners and stuff. I would be fine with that. Just curious, is there anyway to make it smaller or two columns and be able to sort it properly? Just would like to discuss it ;) 68.39.100.32 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The opinions against this were Screw, 68, and Lol. The others were found to be socks. I still think Screw and 68 are the same, but that hasnt been proven yet. Interestingly, Screw disappeared a bit before he was blocked. Lol then appeared. Now, with this we see the opposition to the table is irrational and weak. The claim of redundancy makes no sense. Almost everything on Wikipedia is redundant to one thing or another. Infoboxes are "redundant", but we still keep them. Several editors and non-editing users have expressed a strong desire to keep the table. It clearly is very useful. Lol continues to insist in the same exact manner as 68 that the list looks better, which any reasonable person except maybe Jackson Pollack would disagree with. How that jumbled mess looks better than a nice neat table is beyond me and is why I think this character is trolling/vandalizing.

The other IP, Walepher and Lookin Pace were found to be a proxy and socks respectively, and all banned. Screw was blocked for a month for edit warring and if an admin connects him to 68, he might be banned forever. 68, as I said on my page, you havent been cleared yet. He just said he didnt have any comment on you. That could mean anything. Screw wasnt even connected to them yet, and may eventually be connected to them by an admin reviewer. You may end up connected as well.

Back to the discussion, as I said above: The sources are something I would be ok with removing, however they are there to verify the delegate counts and dates. If these sources are moved to the individual pages of the primaries, then I think that would probably make it ok to remove it here. The winners columns I think should remain there until it becomes more conclusive, altho there is still a case to keep them. Do we really need to compromise with two very vocal and vicious editors when there is broad support for the table as is? I just dont see what the compromise is. Its "RARARARA I WANT IT GONE NOW" vs. "We find it useful and like it there" I have absolutely no problem with removing those columns when the race becomes clear. The article that is needed now is different from the article that will be needed after the election. We will be able to remove a lot of things that people wont need to get to in one click that they need now. The rest of the table seems fine. I dont really like Jacks split of the delegates, which takes up more space and doesnt really add info. I would like to see a column about WTA vs proportional, or add that to the delegates. I dont think the supers should really be included here since those havent anything to do with the election. Perhaps put a star at which states have supers and a note at the bottom.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The star concerning the superdelegates are already on my talkpage, just reverce. Because All states and territories have 3 RNC delegates, except the ones that have been penalized, as the # indicated. And they have something to do with the election because a few states bind them. So the whole bound versus unbound are really not like the superdelegates of the 2008 democratic primary. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


This would be nice:

Date Location Type Delegates
Jan. 3 Iowa Caucus 27
Jan. 10 New Hampshire Primary 12

--Lolthatswonderful (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Youre still assuming that there is a need to change the table. We all agreed that the table is fine, but were trying to compromise with you (and your cohort). So now its 6-2 at most, or 6-1 since 68 is gone. Those of us in favor:
  1. Charles Edwin Shipp
  2. Jack Bornholm
  3. Myself
  4. William S. Saturn
  5. Rxguy
  6. 50.47.246.194 (who is a reader that finds the table useful, and there are probably many others)
You (and Screw) seem to be the only ones opposed to it and your reasoning is absurd. Ive already explained how your argument of redundancy could be applied to anything. At this point, seeing how the initiator of this spectacle has been blocked for abusive practices, this entire thing was likely meant to stir up trouble (ie trolling/vandalism). Therefore, I move that the discussion be closed and we work on actually improving the article and not conjuring up baseless views that no one shares.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Dont inlist Lolthatswonderful in any cohort (I dont even know if he is a military person) he has been with this page for a long time and have earned the right to be repected. The anonymuse user that writes from the IP address 68.39.100.32 have also been editing this page for some time and I dought very much he would be a part of the socketpuppet scheem of Screwball. But since he refuse to make an account and be recognised for his work he doesnt really gets any credits. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the date format, but else not. Such a table would not give any insight into the nature of the race, and looking through this whole talkpage it is clear that it would be needed. (No candidates have delegates from Iowas :) :)) --Jack Bornholm 07:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 07:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
oh, now there is something we can change. Make it all the date and the month only. Im totally down for that. Something like "Jan 3" or "January 3" is perfect. Metallurgist (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have made the changes in the date colum in the table on my talkpage. I have not abrivated the month names. As an person with english as my second language I would like to keep them like it is now. The change actually make the table look much leaner - Have a look Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Either or. If there are no objections, one of us can remove the days and years tomorrow. Normally, we could do it now based on WP:BOLD, but in light of recent occurrences,,,just to make sure.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The table above is fine - that Lol suggested. If we allow the table to be arranged, I don't see anything wrong with that. Metallurgist, the tally is not 6-2 or 6-1. And don't count the anaon out. Lol, me, anon, and screwball. That is four legitimate people that want a change to this table. And if you count Jack, who is I guess in between, that becomes 5-1-4. Please consider the table above - there is no reason to keep the columns with the winners or loosers.SirKingMan (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I am for the for the colums with winners, second and third place. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Dude are you serious? Anon and Screw were ruled the same person. Its 6-3 at most and I have a feeling its really 6 against 1 troll. Hold firm, gents.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering I didn't want to get in the thrust of this conversation but I am, Anon was not ruled the same person. I just finished checking this through thoroughly. Apparently, there was enough circumstantial evidence, but no IP evidence against him so he was blocked for one week. Which, thus, means that anon was not the same person as Screwball. Screwball, however, was the same person as the other three.SirKingmanChat 23:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to 'proportion' my vote as follows: 75% for the full existing table (possibly combining Delegate size into one column) and 25% for the List that drills down to the states. "Honestly, this is all we need". I may give a more complete paragraph in the morning. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Partial consensus reached

This is Florida election night, so we really should enjoy ourself, and get on with improving this article. Therefor I would like to sum up what we have reached so far. As i see it we have concensus on most parts. Concensus meaning no one goes from the table happy, but nobody goes from the table with empty hands. I have been bold and put in a new table, where I have incorporated much of what have been said in this discussion and other dicussions on the talkpage. Please read through this before undoing it.

Main Consencus: The table gets to stay, but it have to be changed


Column by column discussion

Date column
The date should be shortened from "January 1" to "Jan. 1" and text should be centered. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I support this as above, altho I dont think we need the periods.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
State column
Type column
  • No argument. Action: I have removed the nonbinding/binding in caucus. It really couldnt explain the complex ways of the caucus. And it is redundant if the delegate count will be unbound/bound. Then everyone can see what kind of caucus it is anyway. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Should just display "Caucus" and "Primary" -or- "Primary (open)", "Primary (closed)", etc. for easy readability. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"Primary (open)", "Primary (closed)" ia a good idea. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Delegates column(s)
  • It have to change to something neater and easyer. Action: I have made two colums, unbound and bound. It is neater :) But more important. Personally I think it is the most important and educationel part of the table. So many comments on this talkpage shows that many have no idea what races actually gives delegates to the candidates and how many. Just read the discussions on the delegate count in the infobox. And the main tv channels dont help either. This will show how the delegates really are going. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Should only be 1 column with the *total* number of delegates because thats what a majority of the users will be looking for. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
How do you know that? I think majority will be looking for how much the candidate can win. Putting the two colums together will just mislead them. Like the whole dicussion on Iowas delegates in other dicussions on the page show Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Just having a total number of delegates doesn't tell the whole story. For example, Ron Paul barely campaigned in Florida because there was no chance of a win and no unbound delegates to sway. If you look down the list some states split their bound and unbound more evenly such as Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana which affects the nature of the race. Also denoting bound or unbound shows that some states could have more impact for Mr. Santorum and Mr. Paul since they can potentially sway the unbound delegates. Rxguy (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And that is Pauls gameplan excactly. Just rememember these unbound delegates can be swayed before they are elected. Through the complex electionproces in the caucuses getting supporter to the local conventions where they can do the swaying. But sway is the right word, because no one is legally bound. That will not be enought to get a majority of the delegates, but with a close race it maybe, just maybe, be enough to keep Gingrich or Romney from getting a majority. Meaning it all comes down to the National Convention. Thank you for that comment Rxguy, then the collums really does work towards showing the whole story Jack Bornholm (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I actually agree with my enemy on this one. I liked the old method better. WTA vs AL/CD vs. unbound. How about that?--Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, but how would you fit that into a table. Some states have both WTA and proportional at the same time. Right now I cant see how it is possible to make it a neat table that still keeps the big picture. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Take Ohio, its 15 AL and 48 CD. The AL are given out proportionally. The CD are given out by who wins the CD. So, for that we would have column 1: 15 AL and 48 CD and column 2: Proportional (AL)(br)Winner-take-all (CD). It should take up about the same space. There are more convoluted things we could do that would keep it in one column, but this should work. Im actually in a debate now with someone and need to flip back and forth between the current edit and the old table to get all the info I need. With my proposal, I wouldnt need to. Whether delegates are bound or not can be like it used to be (nonbinding caucus).--Metallurgist (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It could be solve by adding yet a new colum (if I dare to suggest it). A colum called "Delegate type (RNC/AL/CD) and then Ohio would look like this: "3/15/48". This way no information will be lost. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yea lets do that and the Proportional (AL)(br)Winner-take-all (CD).--Metallurgist (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Have a look in my sandbox: User:Jack Bornholm/sandbox. I have made the first states with a new delegate type colum. How will that be? Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
^Too confusing and cluttered. I think if the winners are removed, then it would be fine to have 3-6 columns of delegate info - but right now the table is too confusing and too cluttered. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Allocation column
  • No one in this dicussion, but on 3 other sections on this talkpage have been requesting it. Action: I have tried not to make it a tell-everything-in-depht colum as the old table have been accused to be. I have keept a very complex election cycle as simple as I could, without actually stating false fact. I feel this colum is important because in many ways this is new from the 2008 race. The complexity and the fact that many races are proportional means that a long race have a bigger chance of ending in a brokered convention. An fact that is important to educated about. And this can be seen out of this colum. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Should be removed --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Why? Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge with above per what I said.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
1st/2nd/3rd columns
Not necessary because the 1st/2nd/3rd info is already listed under the "Candidates" section. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I support the removal of the Winner, second and third colum. I don't see a reason to list X person as the winner in the infobox, then in this table, then in the subsequent table (immediately after), and then in each of the states own little blurbs on this page. That's similar to me copying this sentence and pasting it four different times in this talk page. Anyway guys, good luck. I am out. If need be, you know where to find me ----> SirKingmanChat 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The winner, 2nd, 3rd is crucial context to this vital table. I don't want to be required to scroll up and down to other tables. I want this all on my screen at the same time. An article about a central topic (like who wins the primary states) should be able to have various tables that group various other information around that central theme. A page about a country might have a population chart that lists the major cities, and some other chart lower in the article that charts out the major cities and some other statistic to compare them by. I want to know at a glance, how in a primary state with proportional bound delegates, how Santorum stacked up against Gingrich etc. with all the variables directly comparable for multiple candidates. This table is highly valuable to me. I work in politics, and this is a go-to article for me. Richard, 50.47.246.194 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep them for now at least. I am open to removing them at the end of the primaries, altho we may not need to because that might be important. Well split up the table into the various sections on this page once the primaries are over.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this should stay. It's messy and 'very' redundant.68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont think it look messy at all. But with the nice result table, where it is very easy to see how many 1st, 2nd and 3rd placings the different candidates have, these 3 colums have been somewhat unnecessary and obsolete. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Source column
  • Get rid of it. Action: I have removed it. The references was mostly from the time of the "schedule war" and 95% of those have been replaced with the reference at the end of the remarks in the top of the section (just above the table) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Should be removed --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh now that you clarify that, I support removing it.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion

I might be wrong, but onless there is a strong consensus against the Bound and Unbound delegate colums, the only consensus left is about the Winner/second/third colum. No one gets everything (including me) but no one got nothing with this new table. Now I have been bold, what do you say? Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Mostly good, see my comments above. Metallurgist (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about messing up the notes section. Ill fix that in a jiffy. I always forget the code you need, but its <ref group="lower-alpha">note</ref> and then {{Reflist|group=lower-alpha}}. See here and here.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking that there had to be a better code for the notes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yea I always forget it and I just found out about the special coded types like lower-alpha a few weeks ago.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC
Your corrections didnt work. Something with the code. I undid it. I am sure you will get the right code in next try. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh sorry about disturbing your work process Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sidenotes

By the way. If anyone think why our anon friend 68.39.100.32 havent weight in. The IP address have been blocked for one week on the count of abuse of multiple accounts. So I guess that there will be no more socketpuppeting for some time. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of 'the anonymous one', is it possible to create an ID such as '12.34.567.89' ? Just asking. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you can technically create them or not, but usernames which "resemble IP addresses" are disallowed by the Wikipedia:Username policy. I think I've seen a few usernames in the User:xxx.xxx format, though, for users who edited regularly via a static IP before registering an account. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delegates listed do NOT match the source that is cited

This needs to be fixed. If you want to use a different source, PLEASE change the source that is cited. The source that is currently cited in the infobox shows Romney 14 Paul 10 Gingrich 25 Santorum 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.226.177 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for an discussion about the delegate count. How do we want it to be? Do we want it to show how it most properable are going to be (projected) and if so how do we find reliable sources that agrees? Or do we want to only list the delegates that have been bound or/and delclared themselve for a candidate?
This will be a bigger and bigger problem as the election develop, especially if it is not going to be decided early. Let me explain why. There is 132 RNC delegates that are free to vote for anyone they like (some have already declared themselve) and there is delegates that are unbound, they may endorse if they like - in theory. In many "nonbinding" races the candidates try to get there supporter elected to the state and district convention where the National Delegates are eleceted.
Iowa is a fine example of the problem, reliable newsmedia project the delegate count very different. Why? Because it might not be as straight forward as the result of the caucus says. If one candidates supporters are able to corner a district in Iowa they may get more votes at the state convention meaning more AL delegates, and they may take all the CD delegates in that district too. So the truth is that no one knows where Iowa will go. If the contest is over early it doesnt really matter, but if it will be a race run to the end all these nonbinding caucuses and their following conventions may be important. And they all have local rules and in some of the the state convention even makes up the rules as they go along.
So what do you think? Would it be a good idea to take the discussion now and make a policy about the delegate count?
Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The delegates listed should be those that are actually pledged to the candidate, with a note stating that certain delegates (all from Iowa, some from other states) are not pledged to any candidate. To the extent that actual unpledged delegates (actual individuals, that is, not "projected delegates") commit to voting for a candidate, they can be included in the numbers as well. If there is no objection, I will go ahead and make these changes later today; if there is an objection, I will still at least remove the current numbers, as they are clearly incorrect and misleading.
On another note, this seems to be a systemic problem in our articles - the Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries tries to fix this by distinguishing between "projected" and "pledged" delegates in its table, but inaccurately includes unpledged delegates in its "pledged" totals. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't do this after all. I obviously didn't want to rely on CNN/MSNBC/Fox's delegate totals for results for other states, since they are clearly wrong about Iowa. But finding reliable sources for other state results is turning out to be just a bit difficult - I found sources for how the delegates are awarded - proportional for NH and eleven winner-take-all + 2/congressional district for SC. But finding sources applying those rules (or straight out numbers so we can apply them) is going to take some time. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This link might help: http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/4726/republican-superdelegate-endorsement-list It is a blog though, and a democratic party blog (even worse I guess :). But maybe it will lead to something. I find it very sober and right on the money Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
"DemocraticConventionWatch.com" is not a reliable source. It cannot be used to back up a fact. This website violates several premises of Wikipedia. It is biased. It is clearly biased to the Democrats, that's one. Also, it is a blog, which can be ok if it is made by a famous person or is part of a reliable source such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. It is blog put together by someone that no one has ever hear of. I also wonder if blog is created by a Wikipedia editor, does any one know if this true? I attempted to use reliable source, the Wall Street Journal, and it was reverted and the reasoning was based upon the decision to use an unreliable source.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you have a good source that dont show projected delegates. Since a source projecting nonbound delegates only can be guessing at this point it will too be unreliable. I look forward to see a some suggestions on good sources. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please review the Real Clear Politics delegate count. It is a reliable source and it is does not wear its bias on its sleeve. Also, the argument that we used DemoConvention four years ago is not a valid rationale. It is basically the argument that "we did it wrong four years ago so it is ok to do it wrong now." That dog, as Clinton says, doesn't hunt. Please see: 2012 Republican Delegates.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Real Clear Politics isn't a good source, either - even though it notes that Iowa is a non-binding caucus, it still tries to allocate delegates from Iowa. Frankly, the fact that "Democrat" is in the name of the source doesn't disqualify it - in fact, it's the only well-sourced delegate count I've seen anywhere on the internet this election cycle. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Even though it is a blog, the names link to sources for the superdelegates. Most seem to be Romney's site claiming their endorsement, but some link to local news articles. Rxguy (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
DemConWatch is not a Democratic Party blog, but yes, it is run by Democrats. However, this blog was considered Wikipedia's "reliable source" for all superdelegate information in 2008, and I think is worthy of that again. See here. Their superdelegate policy is very simple but strict - a reliable published source of the endorsement must be available. When it comes to a list like this, they are totally transparent in their work, and I think should be again trusted and used as Wikipedia's source for this information.Simon12 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, not all sources run by partisan groups are inherently partisan and after looking at the site again it does seem to have a strict set of criteria to ensure reliability. I vote for using it for the superdelegate counts. Rxguy (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The number of delegates is the only metric which matters. The number of votes does not matter. The number of states "carried" does not matter. The delegate count is the only determinant of who wins the Republican Party's nomination. Unhide the delegate counts. If the sources conflict, then show a range of delegate counts for each candidate. Mcarling (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • After the Florida primary many will proberly come looking for delegate count on this page. So for now I will unhide the count and use "Democratic Convention Watch as a source. It would good to reach a consensus if we should be using this all way through the election. I am sure the problem will come up many times otherwise. Jack Bornholm (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like we've got ourselves a source! I'd support using the Democratic Convention Watch the whole way through, at least so long as it is updated regularly. Of course, if it falls behind, we can always augment the numbers with additional sources. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the delegate count got whacked. What the heck. Delegates have been awarded in the 4 contests to date. Yes, some are unbound, but they have been reasonably estimated. Its generally not Wikipedias role to get technical--we are mostly a slave to our sources. Also, its very misleading to just show the superdelegates. It should be 85 27 10 8, per [3].

As for the source DCW, I would prefer to use underlying sources as a matter of course. First, its more accurate and second, its more academic. In scholarly writing, you have to go back to the original source, which may have been requoted a few times. For us, its not that hard to find the link. We dont have to dig thru the libraries of the world to find anything. I am strong on precedent (mostly regarding content/layout), but it should not have been used in 2008 and we can correct it now.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There, I switched it. Feel free to add back in the supers once we figure out how to source them. Altho in all honesty, superdelegates arent important. The main focus of this article and the infobox is on the elected delegates. And actually, you might say the supers dont belong in there because they arent elected.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the superdelegate information is important, and the Results page is using DCW. Unless there's a better source that gives not just superdelegate counts, but the actual names, I would agree with RxGuy, Jack Bornholm and Philosopher that this page should continue to use DCW as the source for superdelegate information. Simon12 (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Metallurgist, you need to do some reading on Iowa - you seem to be making the same fundamental mistake that others are making, which is that delegates have been awarded in Iowa at all. They are unselected (and will be so until the district nominating convention the night before the state convention in June) and unbound - further, it's not possible to "reasonably estimate" what they will do, even if that weren't itself a WP:CRYSTAL violation, as http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/iowa%E2%80%99s-28-national-delegates-still-up-for-grabs/ notes. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I am really amazed that with all this interest for the election, no one seems to see to realise that the election in Iowa is not over. Right now it can go 3 ways (very nicely presented in the article: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries) but if two of the political organisations join forces (if Gingrich or Santorum drops out and join the other) before the election it will be a whole other ballgame. That is not being technical. That is party democraty, Iowa style. Not a bad system for Iowa at all, now they have their precint caucus so early in the cycle. Right now 3 different TV networks (reliable sources???) take 3 different views on the contest in Iowa. And if nothing changes before the convention one of the 3 will be true. But what if something changed. This can be compared by predicting who will be president at the general election and then present it as fact. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Further, superdelegates matter just as much as any other delegate matters, for the simple reason that they will also be casting votes for the nomination. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we put the number of pledged delegates under in the box and then '+?' after it to indicate that it is possible that contests that have passed could still result in more delegates to the candidate (namely Iowa's). The tally would then read like this: Romney, 59+?; Gingrich, 23+?; Paul, 3+?; Santorum, ?. -Leo Chapin III

Interesting idea. What about an asterisk? We could then make a note in the infobox under the map caption explaining that some delegates are unpledged or uncommitted and therefore can't be counted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think an asterisk would look better than a questionmark Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro-Romney Bias

Before Romney won Florida and Gingis was in the lead delegatewise, the delegates were taken down thus kicking Gingis to #2, because then the ranks were decided on popular vote. Now that Romney is #1 on the delegates they are put back up...? Sounds fishy to me. --78 Personal Appeals/Sarbanes-Oxley (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The delegatecount was taken down because of sourceproblems, as you can read in the discussions on this page. They are put back because a source that doesnt count delegates from nonbinding races have been found. It is still possible to contest this source in the right dicussion section. But there is no bias toward anyone in this. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

Please could we have "republicans 2012" redirect here? I won't do any harm, and I doubt there are many who bother to type in the entire article title length while looking for it. Crazy Eddy (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is Gingrich the first candidate shown?

For some reason Gingrich is the first candidate featured in the infobox at the beginning of the article, despite him being behind in delegates and votes to Romney. I know as a fact this isn't supposed to be in alphabetical order, rather by the leading contender, so could someone please change this? - Colonel Broddafi (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the citation, Gingrich has won more delegates than Romney. I made the correction per the source.--JayJasper (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I see, thank you very much for correcting this, I didn't think there were so many delegates yet. - Colonel Broddafi (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone screwed with the order again, putting Santorum ahead of Paul, even though Paul has more delegates. I'm going to fix it now. I hope I'm not jumping into an edit war. Mcarling (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is Santorum the second shown? Both Paul and Gingrich have more delegates than him, Missouri has not awarded any yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it down the page to the section Order of the candidates. You have a point and the discusion have move to that section Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks like currently running candidates is based on last name, alphabetical order. I would support a reorder for number of projected delegates, if someone wants to fix it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

threats and frauds

there is only fraudlent but quite marginal mention. New section is needed lets work it contest here. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you were referring to the edit by User:PresidentHamlin, it was reverted by Cluebot. Or was there something else? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps distraction but the answer is: the link is just to point to state of article. (not refering to any specific user) . Please add preliminary election fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Your posts would be more useful, if you would explain what should be changed, where. As it is, I still can't tell what you want changed. As an aside, you should please sign your posts with a ~~~~ (the ~~~~ will turn into a dated signature). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It is obvius: election threats, frauds & voters suppression . Jewish press considering to kill to fix election to support war for Israel. Vote denied for those who belive "You shall not steal" and had worked (andelson specials). 0.3% population turnout, MR plused on counting 27% balots of this 0.3% pool (no numerical results and SQC). Vote on passed word : "We did our" "where people didn't get the word" "weren't able to participate "<say Gibs. (if you have nothing to add just search for news) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Form the Electoral fraud we can picks out the characteristic ot the fraud: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If and when some kind of faul play is called out it can be incorperated in the different states section, as it might happen in Nevada if there is some mistakes made in that state. In any case that would simply be small local cases. If you are talking about general problems with the primary system or the american democratic system, then it would fit better in the general article about primaries or maybe in the article on elections in US.
By the way, read this article: Wikipedia:Why create an account? and join the wikipedia community by making an account and reap all the benefits from it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If I read the anon's comments correctly, he's comitting libel, by accusing specific people of fraud with no evidence whatsoever. I could be wrong, as he apparently doesn't speak English, and maybe it means something else in his language. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

Since the sources on delegate counts conflict, should we put a notice in the infobox saying so? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't that sources conflict, it's that news sources are free to violate WP:CRYSTAL where we aren't. We discussed in #Delegates listed do NOT match the source that is cited that a note clarifying that we are using actual delegates, not projected delegates, should be added. Since I see no objections, I'll go ahead and add one now. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

closed vs open primaries.

Maybe explain the difference bertween closed and open primaries or point the reader in the direction of this. Lizzie Harrison 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is already there, linking the schedule to the article on primaries. It is in first line of the schedule section, in the type of caucuses there is a link to the article explaining the difference.. But maybe some lines on the subject would be a good idea.
In the 2008 article there is a nice table in the calendar section. Maybe we recycle it with small modefications? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've closed this for clarity to avoid splitting the discussion further - see #Delegates listed do NOT match the source that is cited and #Why are UNPLEDGED superdelegates being counted when the editor warning says only to count PLEDGED delegates?, above. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:36, 8 February 2012 (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.

Delegate count is wrong

The referenced source does not show the proper count, where are these numbers coming from? How did Senator Santorum GAIN delegates from Missouri, where they didn't have any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffy21 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

there is a big discussion about that just above this. The problem is not the source, it have a hardcoount of the delegates. The problem is that many dont understand what you just said and are switching the numbers to different projected numbers where the contests in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Missouri and soon Main are guessed. Guessed how they will be elected at the conventions and how they will be pledged themselve (if they as expected do so). Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
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.

Delegate count

The source for the delegate count seems to favour Mitt Romney. I know that this count is not a definite number, but still. 131.251.133.28 (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a box at the top to explain why the count is as it is. Anyone is welcome to simplify the message or make it more clear, but that was the best I could think of at 6am.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I like it, clear and concise. --Philosopher Let us reason together. via alternate account 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Results Table

A consensus has been reached!
Question to all editors: Which table do you want to be displayed in the results section?

Original table
  1. Original was better. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. I like the fullest-detail version. Condensing is not necessary at this time. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Original is better Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Oh god hes back again. There is no redundancy that needs to be removed. If you care about redundancy, just work to shut down Wikipedia because its all redundant.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia is not all redundant. We should all be trying to remove the redundancy on this page; improve the article. The fact that you have the individual states listed like it only makes the table above irrelevant. There is no reason to list individual states under each candidate AFTER you list who wins first second and third in each state. And since the discussion above concluded that we should leave the list, we can leave it. The results table is becoming far too unappealing to leave on the page unedited. And yes, I am back again ;) 68.39.100.32 (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the old result table is very appealing, also with the extreme example you show. I like it and find it very useful as it is now. What would be interesting is to replace the 3 colums (1st,2nd,3rd) in the primary schedule with 3 colums with info about the delegate type (RNC/AL/CD). I think it is important that the result section is not merged into the calendar section. That is much more confusing than the old way. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the merge of the sections. I think your idea, Jack for the delegates to replace the winners in the results table is good too. Ugh, the IP again. And the extreme example as show below is disgusting.SirKingmanChat 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Heres an idea: Merge the primaries that have occurred already into their sections later in the article. Basically, you just need to add how many delegates and how they are awarded to the latter sections. This enables us to remove the "top 3" columns and replace it with the method of apportionment.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

New table by 68.39.100.32
  1. The new table has all that's needed: the results. If people want to know each state won by each candidate, it is in the schedule table. The more states, the larger the original will become. Trying to eliminate 'some' redundancy. The addition of the other 3 candidates eliminates the double table. Honestly, whichever table you choose, can you please leave the subheadings and small text in the whole calendar section?68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


I have restored the original table and the links to the two main pages. I dont think the results should be put together with the calendar section. If the consencus should swing it can be put back.
By the way, it might have been better to put the two examples in your sandbox and referer to them at the page. Uses less space on this talkpage. Just a suggestion I got from a more experienced editor after doing the same.
See Wikipedia:Sandbox and Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Missouri

I know Santorum won the Missouri primary, but it has no delegates. The caucus will have them all. What will be done if Paul or Romney wins the caucus in March? I think something should be done to make it clear that Santorum only won half of Missouri in effect. Perhaps striping it gray with a note at the bottom? This is important as it can influence thinking and perception.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I presume this section should be titled "Missouri" but I agree with the substance; there needs to be some way of distinguishing the fact that Santorum has only half-won Missouri since it amounts to a two-part contest. Shereth 05:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Youre absolutely right. Fixed! I wish I know how they edited maps...--Metallurgist (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
My guess (I haven't talked to the map's author) is that the map is showing who won the state to date. For example, Iowa was a non-binding straw poll completely disconnected from the delegates, but it has a color. Presumably if a different candidate were to win its delegates, its color would be changed and/or striped. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
On a separate note, I think I agree. I've asked the map's author, commons:User:Gage to give us his thoughts. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh regarding that I think we should use popular vote totals. Delegate totals would be too complicated and may never get reported. The question is over Missouri, which is holding two elections.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delegate totals may never be recorded? Really? Doesn't the RNC hold the election even if the nominee is all but guaranteed? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Will Missouri be counted twice in the popular vote? First the votes from this non-binding primary and then the votes from the caucuses. --89.27.8.236 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Right now the votes from Missouri is not counted at all. That is in accordance with the source used in the infobox and the result section. Se: [4] Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Update the delegates

Santorum won four states. He has more delegates than four. J390 (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think he does. All non-binding primaries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
They arent counting caucus delegates because "they havent been assigned yet".--Metallurgist (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Missouri was a non-binding primary, nothing more than a highprofil strawpoll. Iowas, Minnesota and Colerado all sends unbound delegates to the National Convention. They are of course free to announce who they are going to vote for. But non of them have been elected yet since they are elected later at CD and State Conventions. And it is not crystal-clear how many supporters of the different candidates that will be elected from the different CD´s and States. There are more than one scenario. So for now, no he dont have more delegates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Colorado delegates are bound, not unbound. (they could send uncommitted, but not likely). But, as you said, none have been elected yet. Simon12 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
At the top where the candidate intro info boxes are, it would be very helpful to have delegate counts expressed in two ways : the formalized count that only includes bound finalized delegates (which on Feb.8 would only be 4 for Santorum), but also an estimate based on how many a candidate would have if their unbound wins were converted to real delegates at the current standings (which for Santorum would clearly be nearly as many delegates as Romney now with the higher number of states won). It is currently misleading for a less informed reader to glance at the top of this article and see Romney 90, Santorum 4. That is absolutely not the whole story. Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
that is why there is a link to the rest of the story in the note at the bottom of the infobox Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
That's also why popular vote and states won are included in the infobox. There are several ways to count who's winning - without guessing about the future - so we provide information on all of them. Thanks, btw, to whoever improved my infobox notice. --Philosopher Let us reason together. via alternate account 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The infobox has major problems. The note says "Delegate counts are pledged delegates or those who have committed to support a candidate only.", but currently the count is from the NY Times, which is using the AP count, which is including caucus projections. And therefore, the infobox count doesn't match the pledged count further down the article. (Not to mention the AP count is all messed up right now, since it projected all of MN's delegates for Santorum, instead of a more reasonable proportional projection).Simon12 (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with the infobox is that different users keep ignoring editor note, notice in the box and the consencus about the source made days ago on this page. They dont even care to challenge the consencus but does simply change the count and the source at random. My guess is that most of them havent read the whole article and dont really know how delegates are allocated. To use projected delegates are in violation of Wikipedias Crystalball Policy. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to show how the projected counts are not reliable, even though they are from normally reliable sources. This is the the projected count retrived right now. All is without Superdelegates.
CNN: Romney 95; Gringrich 34; Santorum 33; Paul 20
MSNBC: Romney 84; Gingrich 29; Santorum 14; Paul 11
AP: Romney 94; Santorum 71; Gingrich 29; Paul 8; Huntsman 2
All good projection, valid of qualifed guesses but not facts. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Templated semiprotection?

At this stage, I'm tempted to just throw the infobox into a template so it can be independently semiprotected. We wouldn't have a problem if the editors would simply follow the editnotice's instructions and discuss/propose changes to it instead of unilaterally doing so. On the other hand, it seems to me that there are still too many constructive IP/new account edits to justify semiprotecting the whole article. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree. This article really gets new people engaged in editing. A gateway drug to Wikipedia But it would be nice if the infobox wouldnt change randomly (and some times even silly) every minute. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree as well. The infobox seems to draw more unconstructive edits than the article in general. We do need to be ever watchful of vandalism given the increased participation level the page has drawn recently, but thus far it does not seem to have reached a level - infobox notwithstanding - where semiprotection of the entire article is necessary.--JayJasper (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. I think all the tables should be infoboxes honestly. Makes this page easier to edit.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Total Votes

The numbers given for total votes in the results table seem to be jumbled up either on here or on Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. The table on that page lists the candidates alphabetically, here they're listed by delegates, but the Total Votes row just seems to have been copied from one table to the other without the correct ordering.--86.176.38.137 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

On the Results page, its in alphabetical order for convenience, so we dont have to recode after every primary. Here its in delegate order because that is the only sensible way to determine who is in what place.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream lie

It was on CNN at 8:23PM (c202DishN) . Reporter from Minesota sale to camera: 'in ths rom majority voted for' (X) , then camera scan room full of people, when the reportr ask, who voted for X. Then only one person wave hand. (then of course cut to studio and this unfortunate AA reporter was no more seen by US that night.) How to reference TV sources in article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, what if the people just wanted to keep it a secret, whom they voted for, instead of admitting it on national TV? --89.27.8.236 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Or they wanted to vote for other candidate but since caucus is not secret voted othervise.
Almost all caucuses have secret votes. Some of the count the ballots in public to ensure no frauds. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Caucuses refers to the type of the meeting, not the secrecy of the ballot; no idea what other states do, but in Iowa caucuses are secret ballots for Republicans, but they are not secret for Democrats. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did wikipedia give Ron Paul 0 delegates in Iowa while Mitt Romney was given 12???

If the wikipedia note is accurate, and unpledged delegates are not counted, then NEITHER of these men should receive delegates from Iowa??? Romney's count should be much smaller. Here's my tally for Romney (using NY Times for reference):

Iowa 0, NH 7, SC 2, Florida 50, Nevada 14, Colorado 0, Minnesota 0
TOTAL: 73 (not 91)
Theaveng (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
No delegates is given to any candidate yet from Iowa. Look at the source for the delegatecount. It is not Iowa, Nevada ir Colorado it is unpledged RNC (party) delegates that pledge themselve to Romney. Your count is correct, but you forget two delegates from the congressional district in South Carolina that Romney won Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake. NEVADA was a proposional binding contest. So everyone got some delegates with them from the silver state. It is the Minnesota caucus that was nonbinding. See the Primary schedule and the Convention Schedule sections in the article. They explain it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I fixed my count, but your explanation still makes no sense. What you're basically saying is that Romney automatically has ~20 pledged party delegates even if he had lost all the races to date. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Not 20 but 18 as you can see on this website [[5]] where every single delegate are named and you can click on them to find the source of their pledge. Right now Gingrich have 3 and Santorum 1. Paul have none, at least not confirmed. (remember this is RNC establism party delegates). Try to read the article Superdelegate it is a general article about the concept of unpledged superdelegates. Since these persons can vote on anyone they like and announce it anytime they like and change it anytime they like a tally is kept on them on the source page, that only accept comfirmation from two root sources. But yes, the RNC or automatic delegates could vote for anyone if they like, also someone that are not running at alll.
If you still miss 2 delegates in your personal Romney count - Did you remember the two delegates from South Carolina? Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I THINK THIS IS THE MOST ACCURATE delegate tally I've found so far. Note that it only counts PLEDGED delegates, per wikipedia's statement in the top right corner of the main page:

http://www.capitalfreepress.com/republican-primary-delegate-allocation-2012/

----- NAME Gingr. Paul Romney San. Unpledged Unpledged Superdelegates
Jan 3 Iowa 0 0 0 0 25 3
Jan 10 NH 0 3 7 0 0 0
Jan 21 SC 23 0 2 0 0 0
Jan 31 Florida 0 0 50 0 0 0
Feb 4 Nevada 6 5 14 3 0 0
Feb 7 CO 0 0 0 0 33 3
MN 0 0 0 0 37 3
Totals 29 8 73 3 95 9 plus 2 for Huntsman

Theaveng (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This matter is discussed just above in Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Why are UNPLEDGED superdelegates being counted when the editor warning says only to count PLEDGED delegates? Maybe you wish to introduce your source there or/and Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Update the delegates Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
That site may be better, but it doesnt cite any sources to come up with those tallies.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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 propose that Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012 is merged into Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012
The presidential candidate page is somewhat out of date with the prospective candidate section. By now it would be extremely unlikely that any of those candidates are prospective. And how notable is it at all. This might be replaced by a few comments in the 2011 section in the main article, in fact most of souch comments are already included.
I suggested that the result subsection is expanded with all' the candidates that are on the ballot or have recived votes in 3 states or more. The candidates that have only contested in New Hampshire or another state are already covered at the resultpage (Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries) or in the individuel state contests articles.
I suggested that Tim Pawlenty and Thaddeus McCotter are incorperated in the 2011 section with pictures. When it comes to Jonathon Sharkey, I am sure he is a hero in the wrestling community and a very interesting person, but he filed to run in May and "dropped out" in August 2011. Without campaigning and he got almost no attention. He and Jack Fellure is two perennial candidates out of many that have no importance in the GOP race. They might have been interesting to included when the group of candidates were not settled, but now they simply obsolete. A comment about them toghether with other perennial candidates can be put into the 2011 section.
I suggest that we use the layout from the 2008 race for Candidatesection (merge of the result subsection and the candidates from the candidate article), have a look at it: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008#Candidates
Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The Candidates page is for the purpose of identifying notable candidates (that is, notable in their own right, not necessarily in context of the campagn) who entered the race at some point, as well as those who were speculated about by multiple media sources as being potential candidates throughout the campaign. The page is not out of date, as the prospective candidates are clearly identified as "previously" prospective candidates. Speculation, I would argue, is notable, given the enourmous amount of ink and discussion devoted by reliable print & broacasting sources to predictions of who will run in the upcoming race. There is historical value in listing which of the speculative candidates actually ran, and which ones did not. The primaries article, on the other hand, is a different animal. It focuses on the primaries, which candidates factored in them, as well as the campaign race leading up to the elections, the results, delegate counts, etc. They serve two different purposes, and should remain separate.--JayJasper (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Concur with Jay. I was originally going to support this, but after looking at the 2008 articles, its clear that there is separate info. We just need to update the candidates 2012 page with more info and it is definitely worth mentioning the minor candidates.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with Jay 100%.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose This Article is the central article and is large enough. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose they're both too big as it is.Ericl (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Concur with Jay. No problem with having a separate list article for candidates. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose this but I do think the candidates page should be cleaned up --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Article is big enough as it is. What else needs to be said.. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose This is very vital and important article for the 2012 election year, they should not be merged! JayJayTalk to me 23:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I wholly agree with Jayjasper's rationale, as well as Metallurgist and Lolthatwonderful's suggestions that the candidates page be cleaned up, and the observation by several others that this page is large enough already.--NextUSprez (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though it have only been a few days of discussion the consencus have been rather unanimouse. (I only wish we always had so easy at time reaching consencus ) So I am removing the tags on the two articles early. I can also read that there is some agremeent that the candidate page does need some work to be on the same standard as the other primary articles. A bit of updating and so on. So I am being bold and will put a sign on the article with a request to update the article. I hope some of us will have the info, time and energi to do so. Thank you for answering so fast to this proposal. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Gingrich's home state.

Georgia is his home state, not VA. See here

He currently lives in Virginia.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Guam

Guan does not celebrate caucus on 18th february [6] 95.18.189.62 (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a better date? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Guam celebrates its caucus on March 10th 2012. look at this link [7] castingdiego — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.189.62 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had looked at the link and it was hard to spot. The date is correct in the table and I'm updating the List in TALK. BTW, I consider the TALK List to be excellent, but good secondary reading where it is, for the astute and ardent WP reader. —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Would you mind to capitalize Gaum? And, Thanks Again.

This ref. [8] discusses the Guam caucus for their delegates, (Marianas Variety, Guam edition). –– Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This ref. [9] lists the Guam caucus as non-binding, but does not have the date. —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


I just brought back the LIST of primaries (as opposed to the Table in the Article) since I consider it really important. And what about the Northern_Mariana_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 .?. –– Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you arguing to put it in the article? or???? You didnt specify this in the section. This is not a subarticle or the article, but a talkpage, so what change do you propose? "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page" (first line in the article: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines] Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, sooner or later — Maybe in March or when they announce their voting date. Thanks for noting, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In looking at our excellent table, someone added Northern_Mariana_Islands to vote in caucus after Utah, making them the last to vote. They will send nine delegates to convention. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are UNPLEDGED superdelegates being counted when the editor warning says only to count PLEDGED delegates?

I move that we list pledged and projected unpledged delegates separately to clear up any confusion. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a very, very good question! Also, why are we using a little known website called DemocraticConventions.com ("DemoCon") to be the definitive arbiter or how many delegates there are? DemoCon admits they are biased. DemoCon does not meet the terms of a reliable source. It is a blog put together by a bunch of Democrats. Also, at the top of the page the delegate numbers for the candidates are 74, 24, 1, and 3, using DemoCon as the unreliable source. At the bottom of the page the "Bound delegates" are listed as 12, 25, and 50. These two numbers are not consistent. The only argument given so far for using DemoCon is that Wikipedia incorrectly used them four years ago and so we need to incorrectly use them now--which is not a valid argument. Also, there are several reliable sources such as Real Clear Politics, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal that are put together their won delegate totals and these sources are reliable sources. We need to fix this clear problem.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Not all sites run by partisan sources are inherently biased. That would be akin to saying Fox News and MSNBC are no longer reliable sources. They have strict criteria that they use to verify the superdelegate counts. If you bothered to look at the site you would notice that each name links to a reliable source stating that the superdelegate is pledging support for a particular candidate. The other sources that you mentioned do not agree on the number of unpledged delegates and do not provide the sources that they used like DemocraticConventions.com which has been used previously in wikipedia articles for this purpose. Rxguy (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that editor's note. Not including superdelegates is doing the readers of this page a disservice. The note should be removed and superdelegates added back into the page. Simon12 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the editors note gets a little misunderstood. Maybe it should be changed, since there is some problems with the words projected, unbound, bound and pledges.
The word projected means that someone (normally and reliable (?) tv network take their best guess and project the delegate count in states where a complex voting process is not over, but where the press dont want to cover it any more and need news.
Unbound and bound reflect if the delegates are LEGALLY required to vote for a certain candidate
Pledge means that the delegate (RNC or Unbound) have pledge themselve to vote for a certain candidate. They can change their vote freely, lets say if their candidate drops out. But they are still bound by their own concience.
What the editors note (as I read it) say it that we should avoid Projected Delegates. And I thought we had a concensus about that. I might be wrong, but then lets dicuss that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
FreakyDaGeeky14 and Edmonton7838, The editnotice does say that we are counting superdelegates ("delegates who have committed to a candidate" includes superdelegates). The DemocraticConventions site is used because it individually cites all delegates, which is substantially neater than cluttering the template with dozens of footnotes. Sites such as MSNBC, FoxNews, and CNN are not used because, as noted at #Delegates listed do NOT match the source that is cited, they are demonstrably unreliable when it comes to delegate counts. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Philosopher, maybe you should exchange the word pledge with bound (or put in bound) in the editor note. Maybe you can use the word pledge instead of committed. And since no unbound delegates are going to be selected for more than a month, you might as well specify that those committed delegates are RNC (or automatic) delegates. It might help clear up things. Just a suggestion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I would rather not, since most media sources I've seen use "pledged" to refer to delegates who are required to support a candidate, not those who have committed voluntarily to support a candidate. I'll try to clarify the language a bit more in other ways, though. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus for that editor's note. It is merely the opinion a few editors. It represents the opinion of a few editors that the underlying process that DemoCon uses is more accurate than the other reliable sources. For example, look at the inherently non-good faith comment above by Rxguy where he claims, without any evidence, that I did not review the DemoCon's process of calculating delegates. Did Rxguy somehow watch me read DemoCon's website and somehow came the conclusion that I did not read it. Of course, I read it and I reviewed it closely, so Rxguy's comments does not lend support the premise that Wikipedia has to use DemoCon. It is merely a personal attack of another editor. Now, what we need to do is focus on why that admittedly biased unreliable source should be used over more fully vetted sources such as RCP, NYT, WSJ, etc. Also, the Fox News and MSNBC analogy is not on point because those organizations have been vetted by all of the Wikipedia many, many times, not just a couple of editors of this particular page. There is a board outside of this page for more indepth vetting of sources and DemoCon has not been through it. If DemoCon is providing reliable sources then we need to use those reliable sources instead of assuming that DemoCon is a superior source. It is not for merely Wikipedian to decide if DemoCon is fully reviewing all of the Internet and picking and choosing what delegates are legit or not. That is original research by another name.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only been watching CNN's coverage of these races. According to that network, Romney has 84 delegates. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That is because it included Iowas delegates (not elected yet) and the RNC delegates CNN have counted. In Iowa CNN thinks Romney will get 7 delegates, AP thinks he will get 13 delegates and MSNBC thinks he will get 11. This can all be seen on Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. What source is most reliable?
On this article (a general article about the race) only one count is shown, witch one of these guesses should be shown? Jack Bornholm Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point, but you keep missing my point. These are reliable sources that have been vetted by the whole Wikipedia community and DemoCon has not been. Also, DemoCon's numbers are just guesses also because there is NO reassurance that they have checked every single source on the Internet. We do not know if they are adding a delegate legitimately or if they are leaving off a delegate here and there for partisan purposes. They have admitted that they are biased. They have not been vetted and these other sources that you refer to have been vetted. Once again, if they are including a delegate then cite that source, not DemoCon. DemoCon is not a reliable source and no one has provided evidence that there method is superior to any reliable source. The argument so far have been similar to: (1) we did it this way four years ago (not a valid reason), (2) those who disagree did not read DemoCon's website (not a valid reason because valid criticisms of their website have been offered and simply waved off without evidence or support), and (3) Yes, there differences between "bound" and "pledged" but only DemoCon has those differences correct (an unvetted, unreliable source that admits its bias and is not tied to a reliable source in any way whatsoever) and we know they are correct because they offer a cited reliable source for each included delegate but we can't provide the citations ourselves.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hay I have nothing against another source. But beside being reliable it should in an easy way show only the "pledge" delegate. That is: 1. the Legally Bound delegates from the races that binds delegates. 2. The pledge RNC (super)delegates and 3. The unbound delegates that have pledge themselve. (when they get elected in may to july). I will vote for any source that does that. I just havent found any beside that democratic blog. They all project one or another idea of the future. Right now everyone can do the math in their head, since it is only one race that havent been finished (Iowa). But soon it will be Maine and a lot other "Iowas" will follow. And all the tv network will project (qualified guesses) on them too.
What I am saying is. I get your concerns about that blog, so lets find something else that lives up to "our" demands. Not news, not guessing. Just the proven facts.
Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A thought. If we cant agree on an aceptable source, CNN could be used by simply subtracting all the delegates CNN project in races where unbound delegates have not been selected and committed themselve to an candidate. It would be some work to keep up with that. And I dont know: Would that be original research? Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You could probably quibble on whether it was OR, but I think it would be the worst of both worlds, personally. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Not that I wan to swamp the debate with my comments, but I just noticed that the article: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries uses DemoCom as their source for superdelegates. I was the one that first suggested that the editors on this page took a look on the blog to see if it could do any good. And I have not been editing or adding any sources on the result article. Maybe some editors that have used it on the resultpage want to weigh in? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
We have a consensus on using DemoCon. It doesn't have to be "encyclopedia-wide" - it's hardly unusual for a source to be particularly unreliable on a certain topic (as MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews are on this) or for a blog to be used as a RS. At any rate, with regards to DemoCon's reliability, that's only an issue if you are attacking the underlying sources, since every case in it is sourced, which people aren't. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know why most readers (or at least thoughs complaining at comments when they change the article without leaving comments here) like CNN so much. Not one time it have been Fox (or AP as they use) or MSNBC or another of the big news channels that are refered too. Does Wikipedia readers only watch CNN and therefore dont know that the different News organisations, equaliy reliable, have different wievs on what the projected delegate count will be? Because that is the problem here. That is easy to read in article: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. If everyone agreed how the unpledged (unbound) delegates from Iowas (and soon Main, Minnesota and Colerado) will be elected at their convention it would be fine to use those sources. But they dont!! I dont think the delegatecount in this article should only be those that are legally bound to vote for a candidate. If Superdelegates or delegates that are officially unpledged according to state law pledge themselve, that should count to. But right now the Iowa delegation has not been elected, and the election at the state convention in june can end up in a few different scenarios. Depending on what happens at the CD conventions and depending on who is still in the race at june. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC) If we choice CNN as the source we say that Fox, AP and MSNBC is not reliable. Why is CNN better than the rest? Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1/In case of disagreement, CNN is generally superior to Fox News and MSNBC (both are biased, Fox is pro-republican, MSNBC is pro-democrat, CNN is neutral and it is the reference for the United States). We can compare with AP, Reuters, AFP or Al-Jazeera that are serious news organizations (and we can write in the article that there are different estimates). 2/ There is no consensus for the use of the democratic convention watch thing. The fact that three persons agreed on this strange source when thousands of persons look at this article each day doesn't make it a consensus. Conclusion : you have to accept other references. Eleventh1 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Good to hear some oppinions on the talkpage. Just a little note, the source is not strange, it have been used in the last election (2008) and are used in other articles about the primary. But you opinion about it should be used or not is of course valid and should be noted. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to put one thing to rest, the reason not to use Fox News has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with that fact that FOX doesn't keep its own delegate counts. They use AP. Last I checked, so did ABC and CBS News. The only sources doing their own delegate counts, again to my knowledge, are AP, CNN and NBC News. (Note that any vote counts from MSNBC are really from NBC News - where any charges of bias need to be looked at in a different light). Also, since we're talking about a primary, it's not clear how important bias really is. In my mind, when choosing a source, we should be focused on accuracy, reliability (how quickly they update), and transparency. For the pledged delegate counts, I think all the big sources leave a lot to be desired, since they allocate delegates from Iowa, and it will get worse after CO/MN. For the automatic delegates, I like DCW since they update quickly and are transparent with their methodology.Simon12 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


I THINK THIS IS THE MOST ACCURATE delegate tally I've found so far. Note that it only counts PLEDGED delegates, per wikipedia's statement in the top right corner of the main page:

http://www.capitalfreepress.com/republican-primary-delegate-allocation-2012/

----- NAME Gingr. Paul Romney San. Unpledged Unpledged Superdelegates
Jan 3 Iowa 0 0 0 0 25 3
Jan 10 NH 0 3 7 0 0 0
Jan 21 SC 23 0 2 0 0 0
Jan 31 Florida 0 0 50 0 0 0
Feb 4 Nevada 6 5 14 3 0 0
Feb 7 CO 0 0 0 0 33 3
MN 0 0 0 0 37 3
Totals 29 8 73 3 95 9 plus 2 for Huntsman

Theaveng (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this source, it look very good. I dont know anything about it, if it is an reliable source in general. But it does not count the automatic delegates that have already committed themselve to a candidate and the question here (as far as I can see it) is: Should we count the automatic RNC delegates (superdelegates). Their vote count just as much as the elected delegates. And if it is going to be a tight race even 117 superdelegates can make a difference. I think they should be included, pledged delegates are pledged delegates, it is less important if they are legally bound or they just have committed themselve to an candidate. When the unbound delegates starts to get elected in April and forward I would hope we have a source that counts those of the unbound that commit themselve. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should count the Party Superdelegates, because we have no idea which way they will vote (they are unpledged). Plus even if they did pick an early candidate (say Santorum), they can change their minds at any point right up to the day of the convention. Wikipedia has a policy of not assigning future events that have not occurred yet. The Superdelegates have not voted yet. ---- Theaveng (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
A couple of things. There are a number of sources just counting the pledged delegates - just none of the mainstream ones. As I wrote here or elsewhere, we need a source that is accurate, and updates reliably. I would also note the the source in question has a bias towards Ron Paul. That is not necessarily not a reason to use them - but it is a reason to think carefully about using them. Second, I think not counting the superdelegates does the readers of this page are disservice. History shows that superdelegate changes are very rare- unless a candidate drops out or the other candidate sews up the nomination. In 2008, I think only 2 of ~750 superdelegates changed their endorsement until the day after Obama won the final contests in early June. We are talking about public party officials who have made a public endorsement. In 2008, if you didn't count the superdelegates, readers would wonder why everybody was saying Obama had clinched when Wikipedia showed him 400 delegates short. Simon12 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
That site may be better, but it doesnt cite any sources to come up with those tallies, and is mostly conjecture regarding the caucuses.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
To me it seems like the consensus on using DemConWatch as the source stands - For now! 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That is the consensus when there is a difference in the secured delegates of 137 in article versus reference showing 1+3+18+1=23 ??? Yes, of course, 23 is close enough to 137 to get a consensus ?????? 79.66.93.132 (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I get you right, Have 23 editors written what they think? The consensus I talk about it what there is agreed about (see Wikipedia:Consensus) to uses as a source for the delegatecount on this article, this whole article. What other articles choice to show, projected or not projected, has nothing to do with it. If there is a difference in the agreed source (have in mind that there is two counts in that source, and this article uses only the secured or hardcount) then feel free to update the article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Count is in the left upper side at the sourcepage, I think you maybe are talking about the superdelegates that are mentioned by name and with link to others sources in the middle of the url page? Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Map

Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012, has been changed by request. All credit to this map's creation, altered or otherwise should be directed to the map's original creator Gage. SaveATreeEatAVegan 02:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the colors on the map keep changing, it was better than it was, but I see someone changed it back to a fluorescent lime green for Gingrich which is really hard on the eyes. If it has to be green, it should be a dark green, so that people aren't blinded. I saw it was purple or orange a few days ago, which looked better. Stopde (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
look at the colorblind discussion above Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have put a notice in the infobox explaining that this is a colorblind friendly map. If the colours should be changed to something other than the very dominant green be aware that it should still be colorblind-friendly. Dont simply change it back to the old map. Thank you Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Chart not colorblind friendly. Please change colors.

I am a protanope (type of red-green colorblind). The electoral map is one of the least color-blind friendly maps I've ever seen. I can't tell the difference between the green and orange on the electoral map. Can somebody change the orange to red or darken the orange to brown? About 8% of the male population would really appreciate this consideration. If you change the orange to red, make it a dark red so that it has a different brightness from the green.

Hope somebody changes this. We are talking about 4% of the general population not being able to use this visual aid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We will get it fixed for you. This is a common oversight, but usually maps are eventually made color-blind friendly.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone on this? I havent learned my way around the maps yet, but I hope someone can do it soon. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think its been done. Im only a little color blind, so I cant tell if its good for the anon.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete "The Lie"

Why you delete it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.181.120 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I am the only editor that knows what he or she is talking about; so I created his or her TALK page for him or her to discuss his or her problem. PS: And I do not believe that it is a lie. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I must say I am a bit curiouse what Lie we are talking about at all. Would it be possible to enlighten us? Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure but seems like the fantom anonymous reader (again?) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I was reading another Wikipedia article (and TALK page) and an editor deleted a section, explaining his actions only in the 'brief summary, (Briefly describe the changes you have made)'. I thought this was interesting, yet improper and not polite. I'm tempted to delete this "Delete 'The Lie'" section, but on the other hand, it will just go to archive in a week. In case you are curious if I know something you don't, here it is, or isn't: (1) After I divided the top section into two parts, so that the date would be in the second section (only) I immediately saw this section appear and assumed it was our anonymous friend complaining (or one of his many puppets); on reflection, it was a coincidence but not likely what he or she is complaining about. (2) I saw another instance of the word, 'LIE', being used in a section above, and a change there may be his or her motivation. Did it have to do with calling the Clinton News Network [CNN] a neutral news source? Their delegate count is as good or better than any, but only FoxNews is "fair and balanced". :-) ... :-) ... Right? —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

County Map needs updating.

Washington County, Maine went for Ron Paul. 98.198.157.78 (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Victors' map

Why is Missouri only partially shaded green for Santorum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.129.46 (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The caucus hasn't been held yet.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

New Map Colors

I have adjusted the orange, green, and purple, in the map, in an attempt to make the different values distinguishable for most people with color-deficient-vision (colorblindness). I edited the SVG at the code-level, and I don't know how to do stripes, so if someone wants to change Missouri from a dot to stripes, that would be great.

Please don't revert the changes to the shades of color used, unless the colors you are substituting are equally or more accessible.--Infoporfin (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It'd be great if you could change the colors in the other maps just for consistency. The national and state county maps are still in the old colors.EEL123 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The original colors were much better. S51438 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not for the color-blind.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delegate counts

Per consensus above, I restored the delegate counts to include bound delegates and superdelegates which have endorsed. I updated both the main count (reverting an earlier change) as well as the new, separate, infobox, so the numbers match. If this is not per current consensus, please comment here. Simon12 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Order of the candidates in the infobox

It seems to be a little confusion about the order in witch the candidates appear in the infobox and the resultbox. First of all I think the numbers and the order should be the same in the two places. (There is already a reference to a more indept result at the main resultarticle in the result section) If the delegate count are used to decide order of apperance Santorum, the winner of 3½ state, will be death last. But if he is in the race when the state and CD conventions starts in his winning states he will be in for a big bunch of delegates, legally unbound but still supporters of him, now matter what scenario will be reality. So my suggestion is that we for now make the order depend on the populare vote. This will better show at a glance the standings in the race before super tuesday. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The delegates are the key to this, so I think that is how they should be ordered. Your argument would have the 2000 election with Gore before Bush. The popular vote doesnt at all necessarily represent what the delegate counts at caucuses will be like. Santorums campaign is very weak, so its quite possible he in fact did not win that many delegates, while the more organized campaigns of Paul and Romney did. All of which would be absolutely hilarious.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you call Santorum's campaign weak?--Jason Er.(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.193.30 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)

For signing comments make 4 times ~. That will sign with IP adress, talk page and timestamp. But why not make an account. read Wikipedia:Why create an account?, sign up and enjoy the benefits. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
He has no money or operation. He has supporters, but the campaign itself is weak and almost nonexistent. Theres no organization.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are we even speculating about this? Speculation about the strength of a campaign is rather irrelevant to the article, isn't it? --Philosopher Let us reason together. via alternate account 05:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you all talking about the specific primary articles? Such as Missouri, Minnesota, etc.. And are you all saying that candidates should be listed in order of delegates? I've seen two users going through every single article changing it that the candidates are listed alphabetically so that Gingrich would appear first, and it seems odd.. They claim it's unbiased, but why alphabetically ascending instead of descending? I feel it makes more sense to have the candidates in the boxes listed in order of delegates. I would like that there is an agreed order of these articles. --31.193.132.76 (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We should have had an agreed-upon method of deciding the order, with a notice placed at the top of the talk page, long before the first contest was held. As far as I know, that didn't happen, so no matter what method we choose, unfortunately, it'll look like it's politically motivated. --Philosopher Let us reason together. via alternate account 05:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Theres nothing politically motivated about delegate order. Thats the only sensical order. The nomination is decided by delegate counts, therefore thats the only logical way to do that. And I say this as someone strongly opposed to Romney.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree delegate order is better than alphabetical order (save, for a tie). I would support a reorder for number of projected delegates, if someone wants to fix it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Right now they are in the order of populare vote, that is just by chance, I have added the source (RealClearPolitic) that was already used in the result section. I dont know if that source is deemed acceptable. It doesnt include the Missouri votes, so they are not included in the infobox at this point in time. But the infobox is in a constant state of flux. Jack Bornholm (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
They were not in this order when I wrote my comment yesterday. I like this order. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So what should the agreed-upon method of deciding the order be? Put your vote or short comment under your favorite option. And if you have a fifth option put it at the bottom Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Popular Vote
  • Oppose Completely irrelevant, and only available with any accuracy for primary states, not caucus states. Fat&Happy
  • Support Used in the 2008 election as the way to sort candidates in the info box. Also, eventually popular vote will most likely equate to delegates + states (sans 2008 dem. primary). Bullshark44
  • Oppose This has no bearing on who is ahead and adds undue weight to Florida. States have delegates regardless of turnout, so if turnout is huge in one state, it can greatly put a disproportionate amount of support behind a candidate who could be last in delegates. This sorting method makes no sense.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
States Won
Secured Delegates
  • Support The only relevant figure for current ranking at any given time, but subject to too much dispute and soothsaying. If used, there needs to be consensus to enforce consistent use of one source. Fat&Happy
  • Oppose Bullshark44 (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support This is the only method that makes any sense. The candidate is determined by delegates. The other methods are just attempts to make preferred candidates be listed first. States is Santorum-biased, Alphabetic is Gingrich-biased, Votes is Romney-biased. Delegates are nominee-biased, which is what its supposed to be.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per Fat & Happy, and Metallurgist. As stated, it's the only relevant statistic with regard to choosing the nominee. Just like electoral votes are the only relevant figure in the general election. Agree w/ F&H, we must consistently stick with one reliable source.--JayJasper (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Alphabetic Order

Bottom Line: They are currently in order per the votes; (but it doesn't matter since you can see all four at a glance.) What is most important is that in the table listing RESULTS, they are listed (correctly) by vote results (secured delegates and projected delegates). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk for "overall strategy" of 2012 Republican primaries (WP articles)

Category talk:United States Republican_presidential_primaries, 2012#Would this be a good place to discuss overall strategy of WP Articles on the Republican 2012 Primaries? . . . is where we can discuss all relating articles. —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The WP category-list for Republican primaries 2012 did not list US Republican debates 2012 so I added the category to its WP page FYI;

—> (What other pages are not listed?) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The WP category-list for Republican primaries 2012 did not list Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 so I added the category to its WP page FYI;

—> (What other pages are not listed?) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added United_States_presidential_election,_2012 into our "top level" category.

—> (What other pages are not listed?) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added this article into Category: Campaigns_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012.

—> (What other pages are not listed?) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

County map

Version currently being used
"Corrected" version

There are currently a few county countrywide maps on Commons. Right now, we are using File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012.png, which includes Missouri. I specifically made a second map (because I could not agree with the uploader) which puts Missouri to the side: File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png. I personally think we should use the second one, because Missouri only had a straw poll, and its real results come later.. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the second map. But maybe puerto rico should go with the other territories, and the name should change from other contests to US territories. Now it seems they dont count so much, like the nonbinding primary. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
OK; you can edit the map yourself if you want (I don't have the time at the moment). I used the default font for MSPaint in Windows, IIRC (although it might have been the one for the GIMP in Linux). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I have never learned how to make maps Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done - it's not the prettiest ever but it works. I'm not going to reinstate the map because I've already done it once, and a few times on Commons, but a user keeps revert warring me over it. But if you want to do it, feel free, I think it's better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It is excellent to give visibilities to the territories. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yea I like the 2nd map Metallurgist (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I like the 'corrected' map as well, however the counties in Maine are wrong. Hancock County is shown in orange for Romney, but I think that it was actually won by Paul. Once that's fixed, I think that we should use it, but until then, we'll have to keep the uncorrected map in preference to a factually wrong one.EEL123 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

could you please also use color-blind corrected colors now? thanks -- 134.109.84.112 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

ASAP, we will.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Caucus states

The presidential preference polls in caucus states are nonbinding. It is misleading to say that a candidate has won a caucus state because they won the preference poll. Delegates are elected separate from the preference poll. Caucus states actually hold multiple elimination rounds for delegates. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The map is based on the popular vote.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I have read, some are considered bound and some are not; some now, some later. Hence, all the footnotes to the Table, plus the details in the respective state Wikipedia pages. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the map has been update to say that it displays first-place finishers in a state instead of winners. That is better, because to say that a candidate has won a state that is nonbinding because they came in first in the popular vote is misleading. Also, why is Maine colored in? The results aren't fully reported. I know that Romney was the declared winner in the media, but given what happened in Iowa, I would wait until it is 100% reporting. 132.241.128.64 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this view, but for now he is the declared winner. At the time before Santorum was granted the win, Romney was reported as the win.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm not comfortable enough with editing or revising articles that I'm sure that I'd be able to do this properly, but the page right now is vandalized and I'd appreciate it if someone who knows how to do it would revert the page. Under the delegate vote tracking table Mitt Romney's and Newt Gingrich's pictures are wrong and the vote count is obviously incorrect.

Courteously,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.31.32 (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Did someone fix this? I didn't look. Tom, are the numbers correct now, or would you like to mention the correct numbers? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI . . . (a small improvement is needed)

Interesting that the link to Idaho is working in the List above (in TALK) but it is not working in the Table (in the Article).

Idaho_Republican_caucuses,_2012 —— Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
They caucus on Super Tuesday [10] and have their primary after Oregon. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If it helps, here is the text at the top of the Green Papers: "Idaho Republican Presidential Nominating Process ::: County Caucuses: Tuesday 6 March 2012; Non-binding Primary: Tuesday 15 May 2012; State Convention: Thursday 21 June - Saturday 23 June 2012" —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
√ Done, check it out. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_7&oldid=1092051083"