Talk:Super Tuesday, 2012

This redirect 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 Low‑importance

	United States portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Alaska

Alaska, should be, I think in main article - caucuses only start in Super Tuesday. Bielsko (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

Buddy Roemer is listed in some states as having withdrawn and in some not. Anyone have an RS for the correct answer? --CastAStone /^/(talk) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roemer left the race to run as an independent. He's on the ballot in Georgia and Tennessee....I also put stuff back the way it was in order to make it easier for tomorrow. Ericl (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge. Impartial close as requested at WP:AN Happy‑melon 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing rationale from User talk:Happy-melon:

The Super Tuesday debate doesn't seem particularly divided to me; the Oppose group argue almost exclusively on a dubious interpretation of WP:LENGTH, while the Support group are both more numerous and have a wider range of arguments. Ticks for both vote count and !vote count. Happy‑melon 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing on this page provides useful information that is not already on Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries#Super Tuesday. There is no reason whatsoever that we should duplicate these results. This article is redundant and serves no purpose that the main article does not already serve. Textual information about the primaries is at Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Yes there is one meaningless Democratic primary, and its information is at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 and Oklahoma Democratic primary, 2012. The fact that many primaries occured on the same day does not mean we need to repeat everything for them together. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page is redundant and should be merged as proposed. I would also go a step further and say that the articles for the individual primaries/caucuses that are linked from this page are redundant as well, each one consisting of mostly the same info provided at Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries#Super Tuesday plus a brief paragraph which can added to the aforementioned "results" article. They all should be merged and redirected as well.--JayJasper (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the Super Tuesday page, but disagree with removing the articles for the individual primaries/caucuses. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lolthatswonderful. Bielsko (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, is the objection to merging the individual primary articles? The rationale for doing so is the same as it is for merging the Super Tuesday article: redundancy of content. Merging those articles would not substantially lengthen the "results" page as most of the relevant content in the separate articles is already included on that page.--JayJasper (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries is already more than twice the size where WP:LENGTH would recommend forking the article. If we use the 2008 versions of the articles as guides, Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries should be a high-level overview, while pages like Super Tuesday, 2012 should contain the nitty-gritty details. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LENGTH is mainly referring to prose articles where extreme length makes them difficult to read. This page is an easy-to-read collection of tables, and its large size is due to significant table formatting, so a split is not necessary. I'm looking at Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries, and it's the same as Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries, as it should be, while Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008 and Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 contain the textual information. In 2008 24 states had primaries or caucuses on Super Tuesday and it had a great impact for both parties. This year there were ten states that did not prove to have much importance to the one party, so I see no need for a separate article for the details when the main article covers it well. Reywas92^Talk 18:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Reywas92. The proposed merge will not unduly lengthen Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries, but it will eliminate redundant content.--JayJasper (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now Can we let the dust settle first? There are other articles to consider eliminating (later) such as Prelude_to_the_Republican_presidential_primaries,_2012 . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why put if off? In a sense, the dust has "settled". Super Tuesday 2012 has come and gone, and it does not seem likely the content of the article will significantly expand. Since the issue at hand, which is that the content is redundant and the merger will not unduly lengthen the "Results" page, is unlikely to change over time, why not make a decision now? IMHO, that there are other articles to consider merging at later time is all the more reason to get this one settled sooner rather than later.--JayJasper (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you are. Where is the master-plan for the scattered articles? Who will do the work? I like some of the maps (Results article), and they don't fit in to the main article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support We already have far too many pages on the 2012 election as it is, and it makes it hard to navigate, even if you visit them every week like I do. For people who don't already know that 10 or so pages on this election we have already, it is just too much, they might as well go to CNN which defeats the purpose of our coverage. I may be inclusionist, but all the information should be on one page, and in the grand scheme of things, no Super Tuesday warrants its own page. Stidmatt (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Super Tuesday is a pretty large and detailed subject. Involves much more than one page should include, especially when that page is as large as Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries already is. It certainly should be a separate page. Superllama51 (talk) 5:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, the main page is only large due to table formatting; the actual content is not that big and easy navigate. This is not a detailed subject, it's just a bunch of somwhat insignificant primaries that happened to fall on the same day. There is no reason to duplicate the information, nor is there any reason to have simple results tables strewn across articles based on date of occurence. Reywas92^Talk 04:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Supertuesday 2012 article as it is now, and properly will remain, are not much more than a duplicated of the information already in the Result article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.