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.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Tulsi Gabbard, Official portrait, 114th Congress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• John Hickenlooper official photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Marianne Williamson (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Do to inconsistencies" to "Due to inconsistencies" located in the first line under the "Results" sub header. kthxbai 162.119.128.140 ( talk) 11:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Kiwichris ( talk) 11:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Add another projection on the following link :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74sEuNa1Pzg Globepedia ( talk) 06:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Do not use this link. It is a derivative from a blacklisted website that is being spammed all across Wikipedia by a person operating multiple IP accounts (and now their own user account as well). Several of these have been blocked but more are appearing. This account has been reported at WP:AIV for persistent spamming and block evasion. Impru20 ^talk 21:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What should be done about this should it happen? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 19:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources report that it is cancelled, we should add content to that effect and cite the RS's. 47.137.181.252 ( talk) 06:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add presidential candidate Andrew Yang. NinetyTwo222 ( talk) 06:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not doneBased on the votes we have so far, Yang has about 3.4% of the initial voters. However, this is nowhere near enough to reach the 15% viability threshold to get voters on the final alignment. Biden and Klobuchar may yet be removed if their vote totals on the final alignment do not reach the 15% viability required to get delegates in any congressional district or statewide. Gambling8nt ( talk) 06:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on the votes we have so far, only 1.9% of precincts have been accounted for. Nobody has the authority to say the results are final.

I agree with the decision of Gambling8nt. - Centrist1 ( talk) 06:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, but we still have to account for the missing 98.1% of Iowa before we say Andrew Yang will receive 0 delegates. Please add him to the infobox.

Hi,

What should the ordering be for the candidates in the infobox? I think it should be alphabetical, personally. There aren't any verified results, as of yet (apparently): [1]. David O. Johnson ( talk) 06:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually the chart below in the article shows the first vote of each candidate, then the second vote. [2]. - Centrist1 ( talk) 06:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That source has 1.87% of the total vote counted (so far). Things could shift considerably by the time final results are out. David O. Johnson ( talk) 07:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok if, it the result will change then the chart will change. - Centrist1 ( talk) 07:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following after Biden's headshot: 172.116.227.1 ( talk) 06:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Please add what, exactly? Bearcat ( talk) 06:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please Add Andrew Yang to the infobox.

There are 12 candidates, only five of whom have any prospect of actually picking up any non-trivial number of delegates, and Yang is not one of those five. What reason is there to give Andrew Yang special treatment over and above Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick and Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Bennet? Bearcat ( talk) 06:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

He's in 6th place according to what we have of first-alignment votes and there is space for 6 candidates. This page is for the Iowa caucus, so it should reflect the known information so far. At this point in time, nobody knows exactly who is picking up delegates and who is not because of the errors of the DNC's reporting system. One delegate is non-trivial because one delegate qualifies a candidate for the Nevada debates.

There's no evidence that he's getting one delegate. Final alignment zero, because he failed to clear the viability threshhold at all, does not get him delegates. Bearcat ( talk) 06:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no evidence he won't either, with 98.1% of precincts yet to report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinetyTwo222 ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there is a picture of almost everybody now, how about a mug for Bennet and Patrick? 47.137.181.252 ( talk) 06:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't have the ability to accommodate more than nine candidates. That's exactly what the problem has been all along: with 11 candidates but only nine spots available in the infobox, some form of objective, unbiased selection criterion has to be in place to determine who gets into the infobox and who gets left out, because it's impossible for all 11 candidates to be included in it. Bearcat ( talk) 12:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ ElHef ( Meep?) 17:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I've seen at least five IPs add something about rigging the caucuses against Bernie to the intro, in addition to a few IPs adding Yang to the infobox. What do you all think of limiting the editing to only autoconfirmed users on this article? David O. Johnson ( talk) 06:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I see there's already a request pending here: [3]. David O. Johnson ( talk) 06:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protection has been added by Bearcat. Thank you. David O. Johnson ( talk) 06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, semi isn't stopping Yang's constant reinsertion in the infobox, which is coming from users who can edit through autoconfirmed — it's only stopping the POV about rigging, and may need to be escalated further. Bearcat ( talk) 06:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are we excluding Andrew Yang from the infobox?

What reason is there for him to be given special treatment over and above Steyer and Bloomberg and Bennet and all the other candidates who aren't in the infobox? Bearcat ( talk) 06:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

He's in 6th place according to what we have of first-alignment votes and there is space for 6 candidates.

Per Wikipedia's pillar of neutrality, all active candidates should be included until results come in. Lolzini ( talk) 06:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Final alignment votes of 0.0% does not equal a candidate who needs to be in the infobox. He finished below the viability threshhold, and is coming away with zero delegates. Bearcat ( talk) 06:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a better chance of winning the Iowa caucuses than Yang. 47.137.181.252 ( talk) 06:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the spirit! InedibleHulk ( talk) 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The results that is shown right now can be fake. Or at least not accurate. Delete them until there is official numbers. Is what I strongly suggest. Mats33 ( talk) 22:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

See #Results above   Nixinova    T    C   22:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the table. Let's get consensus on which source we are using for the table. We can't cite three sources reporting different results and only include results from a marginal source in the table. - Mr X 🖋 00:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we stick with the gray lady [4] which happens to be reporting the same figures as several other mainstream media sources. - Mr X 🖋 00:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer non-NYT sources, if possible. I tried to look up the delegate count at the NYT link for live caucus results here: [5] and I was blocked from viewing most of it unless I paid for a subscription or registered. I'm probably not the only person that's happened to. David O. Johnson ( talk) 01:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, how about Politico? [6] - Mr X 🖋 01:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

... but they don't show delegate counts. - Mr X 🖋 01:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the NYT the only one source that we were using that shows delegate counts? If it is, I would not object to it. I ended up registering for the NYT, anyways. David O. Johnson ( talk) 01:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No source at all is given for the current figures (13/13/10/4/1). Both NYT and AP are currently giving 10/10/4 with 17 unallocated. The estimates for the remaining delegates are plausible but completely unsourced. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 01:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In the "Delay in Final Results section", it was mentioned that Pete Buttigieg's and Joe Biden's campaigns contributed money to Shadow Inc. This may give off the impression that these were the only two campaigns involved, while Kirsten Gillibrand's (now defunct) campaign as well as the Texas, Wisconsin, and Nevada state democratic parties also contributed. ^[1] This may or may not be necessary, but with the many conspiracy theories floating around, I think it may be important to limit any misrepresentation that may occur. 152.228.60.59 ( talk) 18:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If anyone knows the number of Shadow backers (I'm afraid to visit your link), framing B&B as x% of it might paint the bigger picture better than namedropping specific former candidates or future states. That's their individual problems, not Iowa's, belong in the respective articles only. But yeah, The B Team aren't the top players here, and that should be obvious in some form or fashion. InedibleHulk ( talk) 19:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that several precinct officials (80%) had trouble logging into the app, we should certainly include the app's developer and their affiliations. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 20:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's original research to conclude that those purchases indicate anything about the company's "affiliations". Perathian ( talk) 20:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a conflict of interest. These candidates gave money to a company whose election reporting services were used in the election they ran in. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 04:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Aye, just clients/customers/patrons or whatever. They probably spend a pretty penny on all sorts of shady streaming services, doesn't mean they're "in bed with" Netflix or Amazon. But when your provider is called Shadow and it decides which of your opponents can celebrate your defeat in a timely manner, even $9.95 a month should draw some reasonable concern toward the pertinent public figures (theoretically even potential presidents) who "use" Shadow products (up to and including the latest stable version of the Chaos App). InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no indication there was malicious intent. David O. Johnson ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is not relevant. No one has reported an actual link between the issue at hand and the campaigns. -- WMSR ( talk) 21:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris O'Brien of VentureBeat told me about it. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue of the campaigns paying money to the company has clearly been covered in reliable secondary sources, whether this caused any form of bias is not relevant. Since it has been covered by reliable sources, it should stay in the article. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The campaigns paid, it has been covered by secondary sources and is backed by the FEC. It should stay and it is relevant. Keeping it out would further raise conspiracy theories that the Buttigieg campaign is trying fix the results as Buttigieg has been accused (unproven) of editing his own Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.106.121 ( talk) 23:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment I have no strong opinions here, my only take is that it should only be included if there's at least a few reliable secondary sources pointing it out, as that would improve the notability of this statement. Otherwise, if notability is not established through reliable sources, then it can be removed. If the only source is a direct citation of the FEC, then that would be a primary source, and that's problematic. However, if there are secondary sources as well, then we can keep the statement as well as the primary source.  Vanilla   Wizard  💙 22:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't paste, but the prices are widely circulating. $60,000, $42,500 and $1,225, all for different things. Should note them, rather than pretend The Killer Bs pooled $43,725 for some vague common reason. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Yang back in Marielv06 ( talk) 03:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Not done. He doesn't meet the viability threshold. David O. Johnson ( talk) 03:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

What reason would there be to add just Yang to the infobox at this point, and not also Steyer and Gabbard and Bloomberg? Other than maybe the fact that you're a Yang supporter who wants to use Wikipedia to publicize his candidacy, I mean? Bearcat ( talk) 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I had assumed that Biden's picture was the one that appeared in previews, at the top of the mobile version, etc. because it was the first picture in the article, which it was because he had the highest polling average, or he was the alphabetically-first 'major major' candidate, or something reasonable; however, now the pictures are ordered by delegates and ones with the same numbers of delegates are ordered by popular vote (which is definitely how they should be), which puts Buttigieg first, but Biden's face is still the one I'm seeing in big at the top on mobile. Why is that then, and how do we fix it? Adam Dent ( talk) 06:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's probably just the image that Google has cached from when they indexed the page. It will update eventually. Kheto ( talk) 08:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is the preview image (the image you see when you mouse over the article name on another article) the picture of Biden??? I mean, he certainly did not win... 123popos123 ( talk) 11:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the better question is: why are you seeing an image when you hover over a wikilink? As far as I know, that's not default behavior. - Mr X 🖋 12:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

How are the percentages of delegates different if they have the same number? Anguswalker ( talk) 13:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Those are the state delegates, not national delegates. I've fixed it now. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Will be content, when the DNC is releases the entire numbers, so we can stop with the switching back & forth of the top two candidates. GoodDay ( talk) 16:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You must be new here. Welcome to Wikipedia. - Mr X 🖋 13:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

When you hover on "SDE" in the two places it appears in the infobox, it incorrectly displays "District and State Delegates". That is not what it stands for. It stands for "State Delegate Equivalents". This error is also made in the body of the article, in the "Procedure" section; it says, "...they will go to their local county convention on March 21, 2020, to choose 2,107 District and State Delegates (SDE) for the district conventions on April 25..." All other mentions of SDE in the article correctly state that it stands for "State Delegate Equivalents". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 ( talk) 14:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s fixed now. Was that the only instance of it? Thank you. David O. Johnson ( talk) 14:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. You fixed both of the infobox errors, but it still incorrectly says "District and State Delegates (SDE)" in the "Procedure" section. Also, while we're discussing this, I think the infobox and the body of the article should be consistent with this abbreviation; the infobox says "SDEs" (with the plural "s"), while the "Procedure" section says "SDE" (without the plural "s"). It should be the same in every instance it's used in the article, right? Most of the sources I've looked at use the abbeviation "SDEs" as it appears in the infobox. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 ( talk) 14:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, Pete Buttigieg is listed before Bernie Sanders in the election infobox despite getting less votes. Is there another order in use here or should they be swapped? Or are the numbers still being disputed?-- Furbybrain ( talk) 11:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be ranked by delegates, which is the number that matters. - Mr X 🖋 12:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually the number that matter is national delegates, which they are tied. At this point, listing by surname would probably be fairer. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 13:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the earlier discussion. Thanks. Smith0124 ( talk) 13:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I ask for sources to back the popular vote % - Centrist1 ( talk) 14:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's math done in the results table. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be more clear that we don't know how many delegates they'll have until they are fully counted and we don't know who is in the lead. Listing Pete as the apparent winner when there are 9 unpledged delegates could unethically affect the election.

Paragraph 2 refers to ex-Hilary Clinton. Um, how was that again??? Ptilinopus ( talk) 09:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The "ex" referred to the status of staff members, I think. I edited it to make this clearer. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 15:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bold Pete Buttigieg's SDE count and percentage and then bold Bernie Sanders' popular vote percentage 67.70.35.48 ( talk) 15:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The counting is not yet complete. This will be done when the final results are known. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The delayed announcement of results may have an impact on:

1. momentum into other early primaries, president-making nature of the contest ("three tickets out of Iowa")
   1. dulls winner momentum
   2. obscures poor results of supposed frontrunners
2. app use later (this one won't be used in Nevada)
3. future of Iowa caucus (much noise about demoting it in position and importance)
4. DNC (some talk of having Perez' head)

-- Artaxerxes ( talk) 16:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Also Hillary Clinton as the company that made the app, Shadow, was started by her campaign. Smith0124 ( talk) 17:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not true. It was started by former campaign staffers of hers. Note that the company launched in December of 2016, a month after the election. David O. Johnson ( talk) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Andrew Yang should be included. He got some SDEs and there’s a missing spot on the infobox. Thoughts? Smith0124 ( talk) 15:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

No. The infobox is quickly becoming a mess with this sort of irrelevant clutter. Yang got 0 delegates, and was very far from viability. His inclusion would be absurd. Wikiditm ( talk) 15:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Tom Steyer also has some SDEs, which is only a third of Yang's. Klobuchar, one the other hand, has 10x more than Yang. I'm not sure if it makes sense to include Yang. The missing spot is a good point, though if the idea is indeed to remove popular vote and SDEs from the table, Biden and/or Klobuchar would likely drop out, leaving no missing spots. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 15:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I’m glad we sorted that out. I feel that if we don’t include Yang, we shouldn’t include Klobuchar either for the same reasons. Smith0124 ( talk) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Klobuchar achieved viability in the majority of cases. Yang did not. Wikiditm ( talk) 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Overall she didn’t though. Infobox should be a summary. It’s more important to include the popular vote, so removing Klobuchar reduces clutter. See previous discussion. Smith0124 ( talk) 16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think what you're saying here makes sense. What do you mean by "overall she didn't"? There is no overall viability. Wikiditm ( talk) 16:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Overall she didn’t get 15% of the SDEs, so she doesn’t get any pledged delegates. Smith0124 ( talk) 16:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not how it works. Klobuchar (may have) reached viability in CD4. Yang did not reach viability anywhere. Klobuchar may have delegates from the caucus. Yang will not. Wikiditm ( talk) 16:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Klobuchar didn’t reach 15%. She won’t get any pledged delegates. She got SDEs yes. Smith0124 ( talk) 16:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Pledged delegates are assigned by Congressional District as well as the state level. She may have achieved viability at one of the four CDs, so she may still receive a pledged delegate even though she did not hit the at-large viability threshold. 204.246.8.98 ( talk) 16:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Klobuchar didn't reach 15% across the entire state. She is projected to have reached viability in CD4 and so can receive a delegate from CD4. I don't know how better to explain this. Wikiditm ( talk) 17:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m not really sure what you mean but I’ll trust what you’re saying. However, on the presidential election page candidates who got a small number of delegates (usually faithless electors) weren’t in the infobox, only the map. Smith0124 ( talk) 17:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

True, because they were not running at the time of the election. This is far from a faithless elector situation. -- WMSR ( talk) 18:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Everyone else hates the compromise anyway. Smith0124 ( talk) 18:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The current rule as stands to my knowledge is a 5% vote percentage, which Yang achieved. It's clear that these results are chaotic and that the large volume of candidates running means that the precise representation on these pages is important. Especially considering Perez's recent announcement of a re-canvass, I think it's best to fill all 6 spaces, including the candidate who cleared the agreed-upon metric for popular vote. Results are not finalized so it's best to represent the information we have currently. TheGreatClockwyrm ( talk) 19:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that’s fair. Smith0124 ( talk) 20:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Yang should not be included in the infobox unless he miraculously manages to recieve 5% of SDE's, since that is the metric considered most important by commentators, and is what we already use to determine where a candidate stands in the infobox. As Klobuchar has received 5% of SDE's the arguments for not including her the infobox are petty whataboutism. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I know this hasn't been possible in this past, because the DNC literally did not release these numbers. But now that we have them, I feel like they are relevant, especially considering we may see a razor thin margin between Sanders and Buttigieg based on delegate allocation but a different gap in raw vote totals. Is this something that's possible? It would make it all seem more transparent, in any case, and can only add relevant information.

TheGreatClockwyrm ( talk) 06:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should, not sure how to do it. The template won't show those numbers. Smith0124 ( talk) 06:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

We could just add another br to the infobox and add the popular vote totals between the delegates and the percentages. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The delegates and the % shouldn’t be together, it should be in different parts, they are not the same thing. - Centrist1 ( talk) 07:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Really what we need is a section that shows the SDE's in the infobox Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I support that. - Centrist1 ( talk) 07:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would also support it. Which of the parameters here: [7] would be used? I'm not too familiar with this template. David O. Johnson ( talk) 07:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The infobox was showing the total final alignment votes, along with % SDEs. This is absurd as the percentages didn't match up with any previous stat. I don't think the infobox should show anything other than the delegates, as previous years have done. Things like numbers and percentages for first alignment vote, final alignment vote, SDEs... are aspects of the caucus process which can be found in the article, but the only number which is now relevant as the result of the caucus is the delegates. The infobox should only have delegates and, when all have been allocated, the percentage of those delegates for each candidate. Wikiditm ( talk) 07:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

While the results are somewhat confusing, we should fix the confusing part, not remove it from the infobox since most of the media coverage surrounding the caucus has been around SDE's and the popular vote and not National delegates, and so most of the readers of this article will be most interested in the first two parameters. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 08:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to do this year differently from previously, especially when the resultant infobox is borderline nonsensical. The infobox as it currently stands is a complete mess. It has numbers which appear nowhere else in the article, labels something "popular vote" without clarifying if this is first or final alignment, gives "percentage" without saying what this is a percentage of, or why either of these things are important, which they aren't. The result of the Iowa caucus is the delegates going to each candidate. That is what should be in the infobox. The other statistics are available in results section for the interested reader. Wikiditm ( talk) 08:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

They started including the popular vote from the first and final alignments for a reason — So people could know. It would be a disservice to readers to exclude the final alignment popular vote from the infobox, as I see it. Master of Time  (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion; I actually started to type up a similar request a bit before you posted this but was distracted for a few hours. Nice to come back and see that someone else posted about it anyway! Master of Time  (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should include vote percentages (and probably not raw vote counts either) in the infobox. It clutters and confuses the summary, and votes are not determinant of who wins the caucuses. 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses is probably a good model to follow. - Mr X 🖋 13:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. National delegates, SDE and total votes should be included in the Infobox. Those are three important measures that people will be looking for. If joined with percentages (maybe inside brackets to avoid extra lines) even better. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 13:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are supposed to summarize the article, not include everything in the article. Why should be deviate from the practice in previous years? - Mr X 🖋 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As said before, there’s a reason they released the popular vote this time. It’s important. Smith0124 ( talk) 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Because the Democratic Party deviated. Smith0124 ( talk) 13:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Have proof of that being the reasoning? David O. Johnson ( talk) 14:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way Smith0124, contrary to your edit summary, there is not consensus to include this at this point. Please don't edit war to get your way. - Mr X 🖋 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

How's the popular vote not important enough to stay on the Infobox? If we are going for a minimalist style, then I presume only the national delegates should be included, as they are the prize, after all. Or maybe not even that, put just the candidates names and their photos. Seems a bit ridiculous, in my opinion. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 13:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I already answered that. Because the popular vote does not determine the outcome. It's secondary information. And yes, when the count is complete, we should only include candidates who won delegates. - Mr X 🖋 14:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The popular vote is part of the official results this time. The Democrats released it, unlike prior years. It’s important even if it’s not the deciding factor like the delegates. To put into perspective, the popular vote is put in the infobox of the presidential elections even though it’s the electoral college that matters. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Smith0124 ( talk) 14:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely. The important thing in this caucus is, as in previous years, the delegates. The vote percentages being included, which do not determine the result of the caucus, are totally irrelevant, and have rendered the infobox a confusing mess. What's more, the final alignment vote is being termed "popular vote" even though it is no such thing. It is a specific vote after the initial viability check. The infobox as it stands is misleading, confusing, and messy. There is no reason why this shouldn't be the same as previous years. The infobox should have the basic details needed to summarise the caucus. Wikiditm ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that the alignment votes and the other votes don't need to be in the infobox. We don't want to make it overly complicated. David O. Johnson ( talk) 15:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it’s actually important enough for the Democrats to change their ways and actually report it this time. Smith0124 ( talk) 13:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a consensus because the consensus was to include the popular vote. That includes the percentages. Smith0124 ( talk) 13:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus can always change, though. There should at least be some notes, I think. If I were a random person looking at the infobox for the first time, I would probably wonder why some candidates listed there didn't receive any delegates. David O. Johnson ( talk) 14:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this. Wikiditm ( talk) 15:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not up to us to argue. This is a wiki, not a political ground. Don't confuse the two. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 14:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarilhol1, is that directed towards me? Smith0124 ( talk) 14:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the RfC below to determine if there is consensus to include this information. [[#RfC: Should the popular vote statistics be included in the infobox?|]] - Mr X 🖋 15:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Why are you calling the final alignment vote the popular vote? Should not that be the vote that reflects the popular will? If the second alignment vote totals where the same there might be some reasoning behind that, but now the second total is lower, so you are essentially hiding the votes of those people that left the caucus by calling the second alignment the popular vote. As a election officer from the Swedish parlamentary elections I find this severely disturbing. /Michel Rowinski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.177.48.22 ( talk) 22:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Should The Green Papers estimates for pledged delegates be used in place of those from major sources like the New York Times?

See [8] [9] [10] for examples. - Mr X 🖋 18:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• No - Wikipedia policy requires that we use sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking, if available. The Green Papers willingly admits that their numbers are not reliable. - Mr X 🖋 18:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• No - They aren’t a reliable source. Use the AP and/or New York Times instead, it’s no extra effort. Smith0124 ( talk) 18:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• No - Absolutely not a reliable source. Completely agree with @ MrX. Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• No They don't have editors or evidence of journalistic integrity. We have plenty of RSes covering this so no need to use some random 1999-looking website.   Nixinova    T    C   18:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. My main arguments about why we need to use the GP source was posted in the above talkpage debate about national pledged delegates. The wikipedia article The Green Papers has evaluated the source to be of a very high quality. Moreover it was also used as a result source in the previous edition of the same article 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses. The GP source has currently after 97% of the results are known, now calculated:

• "Certain win of national pledged delegates" (displayed in the first box): Buttigieg=13, Sanders=11, Warren=7, Biden=5, Still available delegates (not yet won by any candidate)=5. Meaning that we do not report predicted results, but in fact only known won delegates - while the remaining 5 delegates are still up for grap (pending the count of the last 3% of the precincts).
• I could not find any national delegate count posted yet by CNN/NBC/IDP/desmoinesregister/NYT/WP (for the last two I however only checked the already sourced links which are listed in the result table of our wikipedia article).
• Right now we only have 3 options. Either to write TBD throughout the article. Or to report the figures as I just did according to the GP source. Or alternatively you have to come up with a better sourced alternative (which also needs to posted in the wikipedia article - and for a start please post your link to it here). Currently the wikipedia article features NO source for the previously reported and now very outdated 11+11+5 figures. Best regards, Danish Expert ( talk) 18:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't evaluate sources. That's what we're doing now. Here is a reliable source that we can use for pledged delegate counts.

...of course, now we have this epic fail. - Mr X 🖋 19:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ MrX: Sorry, but your USA-today source posted above only display your sourced article in USA. For all editors in Europe, it has been geoblocked (most likely due to copyright or GDPR issues) and the link you provided simply just redirects to a display of: https://eu.usatoday.com/, where no "national pledged delegates" are reported. Hence this is why it can not be used as a source. We need a free source which can be viewed by all Wikipedians. I can understand from the reply below by MaxBrowne2, that he found a new NYT source making a 13/13/8/6/1 national pledged delegate prediction (under the assumption the remaining 3% does not change anything compared to the distribution of votes accounted for by the first 97%). This source however is not free to view. The GP Source is free, and also more accurate to use, as it has reported updated certain 36 "national pledged delegate" results (where only the last 5 delegates is pending the outcome of the last 3% of results). Danish Expert ( talk) 20:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear about this - accessibility to a source is irrelevant to wikipedia. Sites requiring registration or subscription like NYT, FT, The Times, USA Today are 100% acceptable. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 20:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ MaxBrowne2: Okay, you are indeed correct that Wikipedia allow for our use of NYT articles requirering payment/subscription. However, we also have existence of a WP policy, that whenever a free or more accesible reliable source can be found (like the GP source), the use of such source should be preferred over the use of either "geoblocked sources" or "payment sources" (like the NYT and USAtoday). Danish Expert ( talk) 20:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSC is the relevant policy. There is nothing in there to indicate that The Green Papers, a respected website but one essentially run by two people without editorial oversight, should be preferred to NYT. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If we have two identical equally reliable sources providing the same info, then Wikipedia recommend the source without geoblock or payment should be used over the use of a geoblocked or payment requirering source. As per this wikipedia article The Green Papers, the source is widely regarded as being more reliable and accurate compared to traditional newspaper sources. Currently, neither of you posted a link to a NYT article that have calculated "national pledged delegates" based upon the first reported 97% of the results. Only the GP source, has so far posted these updated certain won figures. The 13/13/8/6/1 figures you found at NYT are estimated figures (which I by the way still need you to post a link for), were based on the assumption that the remaining 3% of results wont change anything compared to how the SDE shares were calculated after 97% reporting. As I stated above, we should refrain from posting predicitive data (13/13/8/6/1 reported by NYT, or 14/12/8/6/1 posted by GP), and only post calculated certain data (like the GP reported: 13/11/7/5 + 5 delegates still to be decided based on the remaing 3% of the results). At this point of time, I still question that any of you can find an alternative source providing these calculated certainly won national pledged delegates, as a replacement for my proposed GP source. Danish Expert ( talk) 21:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - While I have no opinion on what source to use for the delegates while the count is in progress, I have to point out that The Green Papers is definitely a reliable source, especially for vote totals. When I was tracking data for the 2016 primary season, I found that the final numbers in TGP were always sourced from the states' certified results, while other sources like the New York Times, USA Today, and CNN almost never updated to certified results. As a result, national vote totals in the latter sources were off by over 3%. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 18:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

They may be OK for final numbers, but nobody has yet made the case for using their projections over those from more established sources. - Mr X 🖋 19:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Which question are we supposed to be answering? In reply to "Is the Green Papers a reliable source?", the answer is hell yeah. In reply to should we use their estimates in the infobox in preference to NYT, no. Basically nobody has a clue what's going on in Iowa, least of all the party that's supposed to be running the process, and the final delegate selection doesn't even come out until the state convention in June by which time no doubt some of them will have withdrawn. The NY Times isn't even quoting delegate numbers at the moment although it is giving a forecast of 13/13/8/6/1. Best course might actually be not to quote delegate numbers at all and just quote the SDE's. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ MaxBrowne2: I agree that GP is a highly reliable sorce. IDP has implemented a rule change in 2020, meaning that the final national pledged delegate selection (in opposite to how it worked in 2016, where the delegates could change pending the outcome at the state concention in June), now instead will be awarded and locked to each candidates based upon the precinct caucus result. The GP source has currently after 97% of the results are known, now calculated two set of results for "national pledged delegates" (of which I only support wikipedia to report the certain results reported by the first bulletpoint decided by the first 97% votes - where the incoming last 3% of the results only will decide who win the remaingning last 5 delegates):

• "Certain win of national pledged delegates" (displayed in the first box): Buttigieg=13, Sanders=11, Warren=7, Biden=5, Still available delegates (not yet won by any candidate)=5.
• "Expected number of national pledgede delegates after counting 97% of the results" (based on the assumption that the last 3% of the precinct results wont change anything): Buttigieg=14, Sanders=12, Warren=8, Biden=6, Klobuchar=1.

My proposal was only to use the GP source for the certain figures. Danish Expert ( talk) 19:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The question is Should The Green Papers estimates for pledged delegates be used in place of those from major sources like the New York Times? If we want a general discussion about the reliability of The Green Papers, that can occur at WP:RSN. In fact, I may do that. - Mr X 🖋 20:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ MrX: I start to feel your are overly stubborn.

First of all, you should in your above bolded question change the phrase "estimates for pledged delegates" to "calculation of pledged delegates". As I explained in my reply above, the GP source provide 2 set of "national pledged delegate" results reported by the same link and page. The first column of the first table display the calculated certain to be won "national pledged delegates" for each candidate, with the remaining undecided delegates (pending the outcome of the last 3% of the precinct results) being listed with the title "available".

The estimated national pledged delegates can be viewed further down in the source by the addition of the results listed in the two tables below. But I have never proposed we use this set of data from the source.

The source features a disclaimer at the top with this wording "These pages contain a combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data. The information posted here is subject to change." The disclaimer should not prevent us from using the source.

If you visit the 57 caucus/primary result articles from 2016, the same 57 caucus/primary result articles from 2012, the same 57 caucus/primary result articles from 2008, 57 caucus/primary result articles from 2004, and the same 57 caucus/primary result articles from 2000; you will learn that The Green Papers source has been used as a primary result source by the vast majority (if not all) of those articles. So we have a historic wide prescedent of this source being regarded as a fully reliable source, and actually being prefered to be used over the traditional newspaper sources. Danish Expert ( talk) 20:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What I'm hearing as an argument a lot on why we should use The Green Papers as a reputable source is how it was used in past elections, and although that may be true, please take into consideration that many of those past elections were not this election. This caucus is obviously all over the place, and it is evident that the people running it have no idea what they are doing, let alone the media. Things are very chaotic and in this instance, I believe it is the best to use sources that only report OFFICIAL results -- to spare any additional and unwanted chaos since we are having enough of it already. Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 23:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Central RfC started ➜ WP:RSN#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information? - Mr X 🖋 20:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

comment: I do not see any need for the RfC. FYI, the link for how many times the source was used by wikipedia, return a total of 144 articles. However, in addition to this reported total, the source has also been used in many more articles as an "external source link" directly in the results table. Best example of this appear in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses article, which used the source as an "external source link" in the result table, but did not use it as a referenced source (which is why this article has not been included by the total 144 articles using it as a direct reference). Danish Expert ( talk) 21:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• No - No reason to use less than reliable sources when other sources (AP, for example) exist. David O. Johnson ( talk) 02:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the popular vote in the infobox list the Initial or Final alignments? (It is currently showing final alignment.) I would think initial alignment would be a more accurate "popular vote" as it is what people voted by default.   Nixinova    T    C   02:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to show both. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 02:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is a Democracy. It is really votes that count. Any other system is designed to distort the results. Trackinfo ( talk) 05:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now added the official results as reported with a single precinct missing. Perhaps a note should be added to information about the concerns and irregularities Homo logos ( talk) 05:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

I think people are missing what I'm saying... I'm asking whether we should list both the initial and final votes in the infobox along with SDE count. Valid responses are "initial", "final" or "both".   Nixinova    T    C   07:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The initial alignment vote makes a lot more sense than the final alignment vote as it currently shows. There are many people who voted for inviable candidates who are currently being counted towards other candidates in "popular vote." Of course, the caucus system works on delegates so this information shouldn't be in the infobox anyway. Wikiditm ( talk) 08:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ TheNavigatrr: Hi, could you change Buttigieg's color, using "#f2ba42", decided on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article's talk page? Thank you :) -- Nick.mon ( talk) 10:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Tony Patt ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any specific way Wikipedia editors come up with colors for various candidates. In advance, I'd just like to suggest some colors that I think .svg maps of the caucuses should use.

I chose the color purple to represent his connections with the Obama administration (whose 2008 primary run was colored a lighter purple). I also picked it because blue is commonly a color of conservatism, and Biden definitely represents the right-wing of the Democratic Party (in 2020 at least).

Green for Bernie because that was what he used in 2016.

Red for Warren because of her more left-wing, labor stances. Also because it looks good. The rest were less thought out, but I still think they "fit" the candidates pretty well.

... and, just in case,

I've made a few sample maps where the colors are forced to interact with one another ( see this link to a fake 2020 NY Primary), and they look really good in my opinion! Hopefully whoever makes the eventual .svg file will consider using these colors. Thanks! :) Beccabecco –( talk) 03:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

why Yellow for Andrew Yang? looks like racism 92.233.56.7 ( talk) 04:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a blank where the reason goes. I've invited the author to explain her (or his) motivation for this missing piece. InedibleHulk ( talk) 22:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Initially I was gonna choose grey for Andrew because he's all about robots and technology, but I went with cream bc it was the only color I wasn't using for the other candidates. I'm really sorry, I promise it was a total coincidence!!! I feel super bad that there was any confusion. Beccabecco ( talk) 03:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That is Yellow not Cream, certain colors shouldn't be used for certain candidates. For example if you used pink for Buttigieg it would seem wrong considering he is gay and pink is generally associated as an unmasculine color, so it would seem like a subliminal cometary on his sexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.56.7 ( talk) 04:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I get it, and I've already said it was an unfortunate coincidence I made 6 months ago. Beccabecco ( talk) 16:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know Buttigieg was gay when I treated "fudge" as a slur below, for the record. Just innocently appropriated a joke from The Simpsons, because I think those yellow people talk funny. Wasn't suggesting he can't be Mr. Purple for the same reason Buscemi's character in Reservoir Dogs (allegedly) had to be Mr. Pink. Just a different time earlier in the week, some things naturally aren't going to hold up or age well in today's political climate. Like rich, creamy Beto O'Rourke! InedibleHulk ( talk) 19:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually it's a positive that you didn't know he was gay. It shouldn't matter. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The thing that really matters is who wins the national delegates, those are the ones who vote for president. That's the first thing that comes up on a google search when you do Iowa results 2020. So why is this not on the results on the top of this page? AHC300 ( talk) 14:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

↑ scroll up ↑ - Mr X 🖋 14:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Many people come to this article for reputable data related to delegate counts. I don't think that it's appropriate to bold or highlight vote totals that have been publicly debated and critiqued for being fundamentally flawed to to the most basic errors, from coin flips to row switches in Excel. Keeping these edits published here further misleads and confuses the public as to what the true counts are, which not even the Iowa Democratic Party knows.

The solution I propose is removing bolding and highlighting for vote totals and percentages. Buffaboy ^talk 04:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend against this proposition since there's an active RFC on whether or not to include vote totals, and as of right now there's a lot of support for their inclusion.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You say you don't want delegates listed but finish by saying you want vote counts unbolded. What are you actually arguing?   Nixinova   T    C   05:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I never said that I wanted delegate counts removed. I'm suggesting that the bolding of the popular vote/percentage and delegate count in the infobox should be removed, and that the highlighting in the results table be removed too, simply because the integrity of the results are in doubt with all of the errors and botched coin tosses that have been covered extensively in media. Buffaboy ^talk 15:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, we are citing reputable sources and updating the results according to them, so I think they should stay. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Only the chart itself should be transcluded. Half the article is now on the results page. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 15:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, applying the style of the previous caucus. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 15:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I submit that the natural order to present the candidates while there are no official results on delegates is through the popular vote. Homo logos ( talk) 08:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, since the delegate count itself, really won't be known for quite sometime. GoodDay ( talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why the popular vote would be the most natural measure, in particular because SDEs is the number that determines the national delegates, as far as I am aware. However, if we are to change because the results aren't final, I would favour listing the candidates by surname, instead. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 15:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

In U.S., red is usually for more conservative candidates. I find it weird to choose blue for Biden and Red for Warren. That seems backwards. Buttigieg and Sanders have good colors. But what is up with pink for Klobushar? ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest:

  Pete Buttigieg

  Bernie Sanders

  Elizabeth Warren

  Joe Biden

  Amy Klobuchar

  Tie

---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, I'd rather pink for the feminine candidate than that demonic shade of purplish grey. Yellow isn't a good look for any supposed leader, maybe a different green or blue? You nailed Biden's hue perfectly, I find. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Old-fashioned: There is no purple in that grey but it is demonic: #666666. - Mr X 🖋 01:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No pink. Ever. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In my country, pink signifies the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be. But if you think it's about prettiness, I get it. Yellow forever! (And yeah, the purple tinge was just an optical illusion, my bad.) InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that changing the colors on an individual contest is the best idea, this would be best discussed on the main page of the democratic primary, but I prefer the current colors to this suggestion. However, I'm still open to changing some of them. Sanders being green & Biden being blue is something I'd keep, but if I made my own color key I'd have Klobuchar and Gabbard switch colors.  Vanilla   Wizard  💙 01:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

If we gave Amy Pete's yellow and turned the beastly colour to orange, we'd be in alphabetical and rainbow order. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You're not going to make Mayor Pete Mr Pink are you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0SowB3CGtY&t=94 MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 02:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, he sure as fu*ge ain't Mr. Purple! InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Coincidentally, you said that right as I was in the midst of suggesting purple for him :)  Vanilla   Wizard  💙 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris could've rocked the purple. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

While we're still discussing this here (though I would really recommend moving this to the main page for the election if we want to change anything), here's my own take on the candidate colors:

  Michael Bloomberg

  Tom Steyer

  Elizabeth Warren

  Bernie Sanders

  Amy Klobuchar

  Andrew Yang

  Joe Biden

  Pete Buttigieg

  Tulsi Gabbard

  Tie

My synesthesia tells me that Buttigieg should be a grayish blue, but I recognize how terrible that would look on a map so I went with what I think contrasts better.

I don't expect anyone to be on board with this suggestion (especially since it changes Buttigieg's yellow) but I hope at least some parts of it might be agreeable.  Vanilla   Wizard  💙 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Give the yellow to Steyer, nobody knows who he is. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to me, except the orange and red are very similar, as are the teal and sea foam, which could cause some issues. Let me suggest a slightly different palette:

  Michael Bloomberg

  Elizabeth Warren

  Tom Steyer

  Bernie Sanders

  Amy Klobuchar

  Andrew Yang

  Joe Biden

  Pete Buttigieg

  Tulsi Gabbard

  Tie

- Mr X 🖋 14:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I like that a lot, thank you! I don't have any issues with it  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Klobuchar uses green in much of her campaign imagery, and Pete uses yellow. Fitting to have those colors assigned respectively. Perathian ( talk) 14:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping Pete yellow to match the campaign logo (since Klobuchar's blue and green campaign logo was why I proposed a blue green for her to replace the bright pink), but it looks like we might be able to have a discussion solely about what to do with the yellow :) As long as the colors are all easy on the eyes and contrast well with each other, I'm happy with it  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't realized Buttigieg used yellow offline, on purpose. In that case, there's no point trying to save him from himself. Beats pretending he's Mr. Purple, on the bright side! InedibleHulk ( talk) 18:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I guess Mr. Steyer can be Mr. Purple, unless orange Steyer and purple Warren sounds like a good idea.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That relatively shallow purple is fine for any hopeless candidate, in my books. But if Harris rises from the ashes later, it would warrant going all the way deep for her. And let me tell you something, Wizard, I won't be so easily dissuaded from that trivial preference! InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate colors should be consistent across all Wikipedia articles on this subject. This issue was discussed on the talk page for the main Democratic primary article, most recently at Archive 7. I suggest that any further discussion be moved to Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries before any changes are made here. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 22:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably tuning back out till sweeps week, so I delegate my support in this key battle to MrX and the Vanilla Wizard. Whatever they agree is what's best for the English-speaking viewers of the world. Except I remain firm on deep purple, and would take this opportunity to formally curse any who would waste it on someone who's clearly not ready to dethrone the Donald (nothing major, just shadflies and vertigo forever). InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I strongly am against changing the colors again from the ones agreed on and used presently unless there is something wrong with them; and furthermore it has already been discussed multiple times before that choosing colors for candidates based on how you perceive their policies to be, or how you perceive them personally; ie, red=more conservative=bloomberg, or red=left wing=sanders (see main talk page archive 3) or as someone once suggested on archive 7, purple/pink=gay=buttigieg (!!!), constitutes WP:OR. The colors used presently don't really have any problems other than that some here have had trouble identifying colors with candidates or have a dislike of yellow; compare to Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries map where yellow is used and it looks great. Additionally, the current colors were picked specifically with color-blind accessibility in mind, and undoing that is very unnecessary. Cookieo131 ( talk) 02:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you read way too far into the methodology of my color recommendations. I picked red for Bloomberg because this thread started due to a criticism of red being used for Warren, and Bloomberg's campaign colors are light blue and dark red (we already have enough bluish candidates). I would've done the same with Cory Booker had he been in the race, because those were his campaign colors as well. Since red was no longer being used for Warren, I gave her Pete's yellow because it's a high contrast color that easily stands out, and I then moved Buttigieg to purple because it complements the yellow. This naturally required moving Bloomberg out of purple, hence him being moved to red as I previously mentioned. By no means did I pick purple for Buttigieg because he's LGBT and by no means did I pick red for Bloomberg because of his comparatively conservative politics. These were all somewhat arbitrary decisions based on what I think looks the best, but the one and only color change that I highly recommend is giving Amy Klobuchar a greenish bluish color because multiple people have complained about the bright pink, and green is her main campaign color while blue is her second campaign color. The pink is more fitting for Gabbard anyways, as her campaign imagery uses a sort of sunrise red. I'll have to admit that I'm slightly offended by some of the assumptions you've made (they came off as borderline assuming bad faith), but I hope this explains how I arrived at those suggestions.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

WittyRecluse suggested this shade of green       for Klobuchar in a previous discussion, for reference. — Tony Patt ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if I made myself unclear; it was a different user from a previous time I was referencing who explicitly suggested that Buttigieg should have purple or pink because he is LGBT. Additionally, my comment was not really directed to you, and was really just to the discussion as a whole. This discussion was opened by someone who suggested that Biden should be given red because they perceive him as being more conservative, so my view of the entire discussion was shaped on that. I was mistaken by thinking that Bloomberg was reassigned red because he is viewed as being more conservative. I recognize your criticisms of Klobuchar's color and am open to that change. Cookieo131 ( talk) 17:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I like Pete's new colour, slightly less pukey looking. By the way Amy is man enough to wear pink. (I linked to the reservoir dogs scene to highlight how stupid this whole discussion is). MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Maker of glitchy Iowa caucus app has Democratic Party ties". AP NEWS. 2020-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-07.:

Shadow Inc. was launched by ACRONYM, a nonprofit corporation founded in 2017 by Tara McGowan, a political strategist who runs companies aimed at promoting Democratic candidates and priorities. McGowan, 34, is married to Michael Halle, a senior strategist for Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, which records show has also paid Shadow Inc. $42,500 for software.

• February 6, Ian Schwartz On Date; 2020. "OAN: Suspicious Democrat Caucus App With Buttigieg Connections Blamed For Iowa Results Delay". www.realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2020-02-07. {{ cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name ( help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)

I believe some mention of Tara McGowan's link to Buttigieg should be made. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the company has ties to the Democratic Party is not in itself scandalous, but the AP source is certainly reliable and can be worked into the article. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 09:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

To make conspiratorial connections is ridiculous. David O. Johnson ( talk) 17:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes to my comment in italics

Hello all,

Just looked at this source:

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8464590602

It disputes that Buttigieg paid for the creation of the app. It does not dispute that he paid the company that made the app. Specifically, it claims he did pay the company that made the app. This wiki claims it has been debunked that Buttigieg paid the app.

In summary, it would appear based on the source the Butigieg did not pay for the app itself, but paid the company that made the app. In my opinion, this needs to be pointed out.

Just a heads up. I have never commented on this site before so let me know if I'm breaking any rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fcc8:ad81:6500:d56:a81c:e1a3:500f ( talk • contribs) 17:50, February 7, 2020 (UTC)

I changed the wording. David O. Johnson ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. We still must assume "social media posts claim Buttigieg paid for the creation of the app", even thought the AP did not point out or screenshot the social media posts in question. I just did a cursory glance at social media posts on the matter, and it seems many are claiming he paid Shadow, the company which made the app. I just wonder if saying the following is accurate:

"Social media posts claimed that the Buttigieg campaign paid for the creation of the results reporting app, ..."

I see many social media posts claiming he paid the company behind the app, a point that the AP does not dispute. Maybe the AP's claim is kind of a straw man?

The next sentence in the wiki addresses the matter in more detail, but it is the third or fourth point in that sentence. For clarity, I wonder if the sentence "Social media posts claimed that the Buttigieg campaign paid for the creation of the results reporting app, a theory which was debunked by the Associated Press.[5]" should be deleted altogether.

Also, while that claim may indeed be "debunked" (the AP cites Buttigieg's campaign spokesperson, not the developers themselves), I think "misleading" or "inaccurate" would be better adjectives describing this alleged claim by social media users.

Thanks again. -- 2607:FCC8:AD81:6500:D56:A81C:E1A3:500F ( talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The results are yet to be known with a thin razor margin separating the two leading candidates, with Sanders in the lead with the popular vote, and Buttigieg in the lead with the SDEs although the New York Times predict a Sanders victory overall with 97% in ^[1]

The Associated Press cannot declare a winner. Please include this.

The results are yet to be known with a thin razor margin separating the two leading candidates, with Sanders in the lead with the popular vote, and Buttigieg in the lead with the SDEs although the New York Times predict a Sanders victory overall with 97% in ^[2] However, the Assoicated Press reported on February 6 that no winner can be declared due to the technical problems. ^[3] 2601:447:4100:C120:9904:D520:EFA1:D5D0 ( talk) 01:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Stale

The request is mooted by the fact that 100% of the results are in, and Buttigieg is still in the lead. - Mr X 🖋 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete results seem to be appearing in various websites for the national delegates. Could we add a reference for these results before adding them in the article? What is the mechanism to announce final national delegate results? I have seen various numbers here, but none add up to 41. Homo logos ( talk) 19:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

There's at least 1 delegate that has yet to be decided. GoodDay ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Pete Buttigieg has NOT explicitly claimed an electoral victory with regards to his internal data.

The internal data released by the Bernie Sanders campaign includes the tally of his own votes and delegate share along with those of the other candidates which shows him winning.

The only data released by the Buttigieg campaign are his own numbers. This absolutely does not “show him winning” as is erroneously claimed in the Results section of the page. (If anything, it raises some suspicions).

I recommend the line

“During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders... ...that Klobuchar either exceeded or equaled the number of votes that Joe Biden received.” 

be replaced by something by the lines of

“During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders both released incomplete results taken by their respective precinct captains, respectively showing a higher-than-projected vote share for Buttigieg and an electoral win for Sanders, leading both to claim victory. Also during the delay, Amy Klobuchar's campaign manager, Justin Buoen, claimed that Klobuchar either exceeded or equaled the number of votes that Joe Biden received.”

GGLLFFP ( talk) 04:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

​ The article is no longer protected so you can now edit the article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

All material has to be verifiable in a reliable source. - Mr X 🖋 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Say what? The current paragraph is not sourced and in fact is evidently misleading. Please return my edit and if it is necessary use these sources: https://news.yahoo.com/campaigns-use-internal-numbers-to-declare-victory-in-iowas-democratic-caucus-072931013.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/buttigieg-claims-victory-in-iowa-though-no-results-have-been-released.html https://www.salon.com/2020/02/04/sanders-campaign-releases-internal-caucus-numbers-signaling-victory-in-iowa/ GGLLFFP ( talk) 15:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You wrote:

"During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders both released incomplete results taken by their respective precinct captains, the former publishing his own numbers and the latter those of the entire field."

"the former publishing his own numbers and the latter those of the entire field" is not supported by any of the four sources. - Mr X 🖋 17:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not bothered to respond but from his actions on this page and that of Pete Buttigieg make it recorded and clear that user user:MrX is either a Buttigieg operative or is very biased. To other users, keep that in mind in your interactions. GGLLFFP ( talk) 03:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

There are clear rules against making comments like this. You have provided no evidence for your claims. Please strike your comment. In my view, you also owe MrX an apology. -- WMSR ( talk) 03:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to update the photo on search results to be the popular vote count winner, Bernie Sanders. Zbassham ( talk) 00:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{( talk • contribs)} 00:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The delegate count determines the winner of the Iowa caucus, not the popular vote. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 ( talk) 10:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the polling section, the Data for Progress poll contains a note that Data for Progress endorsed Elizabeth Warren. This is not accurate, Data for Progress has not and will not endorse in the race. Please remove this reference as it is incorrect. Jasnonaz ( talk) 23:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - Mr X 🖋 15:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)