Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

This article was nominated for deletion on July 21 2016. The result of the discussion was delete.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

United States: Presidential elections / Presidents Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries at the Reference desk.

Bill Weld relevancy

Should Bill Weld even be in the main info box? He only got two percent of the popular vote and did not secure a single delegate during the Republican Convention roll call vote. I think it’s misleading to put him up there next to Trump as if he were a real challenger. With Trump securing all 2,550 delegates at convention, getting 94% of the popular vote, and winning all 56 contests without any other candidate being deemed “viable”, this page should be treated more like an uncontested primary. Butterbone (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We include the second place finisher, when only one person would otherwise qualify, to show that the election was contested and the scale of the victory. That said, we should clarify that Weld actually earned a delegate, but that it was "reallocated" to Trump at the convention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De La Fuente suspended campaign?

I see that Rocky de la Fuente is listed among those who suspended their campaigns, which is generally based on the candidate announcing that they are suspending their campaign. I've seen no sign that Rocky ever did this, and his campaign was tweeting out last week coverage of his slot on the primaries as being "about the campaign". While he has definitively lost, I see no reason to include him among those who suspended a campaign. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Weld hadn't received any delegates?

Even though the article reports Bill Weld received one delegate in Iowa, the attached source does not make any mention of this. ([1]https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/R)

Furthermore, at the convention, Trump got 100% of the votes.

Therefore, I propose changing the Infobox to reflect the actual number of delegates Weld received. BrendonJH (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Bill Weld won a pledged delegate, but failed to actually get a vote at the convention, I support your proposal. In that case, Weld would be removed from the infobox altogether. Prcc27 (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we should make the necessary changes as even the wikipedia page for the national convention states he got 100% of the vote https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_Republican_National_Convention

The information on the page should be accurate. BrendonJH (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]