![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Oppose and revert The claim is currently alleged and therefore not verified. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:18, 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. Sher eth 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)
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)
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)
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 01:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
The photographs need to be switched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.1.54 ( talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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
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 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
{{ 2012 Republican primaries}} -- look at that. its already made :D 68.39.100.32 ( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 table is redundant, it looks ugly, the list is better. -- Lolthatswonderful ( talk) 04:01, 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)
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)
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?
I would think this man have as much right to speak as anyone else Jack Bornholm ( talk) 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
And why did this comment get erased? Is someone censoring this talkpage?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. SirKingman Chat 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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
A consensus has been reached!
Question to all editors: Which table do you want to be displayed in the results section?
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. SirKingman Chat 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)
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)
Santorum won four states. He has more delegates than four. J390 ( talk) 06:45, 8 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 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)
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)
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):
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/
Theaveng ( talk) 13:51, 10 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.
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)
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)
Georgia is his home state, not VA. See here
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.
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)
I move that we list pledged and projected unpledged delegates separately to clear up any confusion. FreakyDaGeeky14 ( talk) 23:26, 1 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 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 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)
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/
Theaveng ( talk) 13:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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. SaveATree EatAVegan 02:19, 13 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)
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)
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 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)
Washington County, Maine went for Ron Paul. 98.198.157.78 ( talk) 01:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The original colors were much better. S51438 ( talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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;
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;
I just added United_States_presidential_election,_2012 into our "top level" category.
I just added this article into Category: Campaigns_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012.
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)
could you please also use color-blind corrected colors now? thanks -- 134.109.84.112 ( talk) 13:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Oppose and revert The claim is currently alleged and therefore not verified. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:18, 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. Sher eth 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)
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)
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)
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 01:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
The photographs need to be switched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.1.54 ( talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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
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 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
{{ 2012 Republican primaries}} -- look at that. its already made :D 68.39.100.32 ( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 table is redundant, it looks ugly, the list is better. -- Lolthatswonderful ( talk) 04:01, 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)
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)
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?
I would think this man have as much right to speak as anyone else Jack Bornholm ( talk) 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
And why did this comment get erased? Is someone censoring this talkpage?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. SirKingman Chat 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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
A consensus has been reached!
Question to all editors: Which table do you want to be displayed in the results section?
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. SirKingman Chat 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)
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)
Santorum won four states. He has more delegates than four. J390 ( talk) 06:45, 8 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 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)
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)
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):
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/
Theaveng ( talk) 13:51, 10 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.
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)
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)
Georgia is his home state, not VA. See here
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.
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)
I move that we list pledged and projected unpledged delegates separately to clear up any confusion. FreakyDaGeeky14 ( talk) 23:26, 1 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 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 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)
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/
Theaveng ( talk) 13:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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. SaveATree EatAVegan 02:19, 13 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)
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)
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 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)
Washington County, Maine went for Ron Paul. 98.198.157.78 ( talk) 01:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The original colors were much better. S51438 ( talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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;
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;
I just added United_States_presidential_election,_2012 into our "top level" category.
I just added this article into Category: Campaigns_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012.
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)
could you please also use color-blind corrected colors now? thanks -- 134.109.84.112 ( talk) 13:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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).